Ann: Issue of Performance Rights, page-8

Ah, the twin banter boys at Calima, Freeman & Whiddon have done it once again by never failing to surprise, the Issuance of Performance Rights. Unfortunately, historically its all too infrequently to the upside for all shareholders.

So let's break this down, lets see how & why this is even possible to consider any circumstance under which Performance Rights may be issued less than 3 months after the calamitous Montney decision. Performance Rights....

Performance.
Can be used either as noun, for example, "Financial performance is a subjective measure of how well a firm can use assets from its primary mode of business and generate revenues". Generally a desirable outcome, deserving of reward following a objectively measurable positive performance.

Or, as a adjective "The performance was high, improved, poor, disastrous, academic..." etc. And to date, what a less than optimal performance it's been.

If there was any confusion as to which of the two meanings applied in this instance, a simple google search of the Oxford Dictionary would have provided ample clarification. "Definitions of performance. the act of performing; of doing something successfully; using knowledge as distinguished from merely possessing it."

There you have it Mr's Whiddon & Freeman, " to do something successfully, using knowledge as distinguished from merely possessing it. "

Rights
No confusion here at all, unashamedly treating the potential for access to shareholder capital as a right rather than as a reward for a performance well planned & successfully executed.

Then have the temerity to front up to a conference and present Calima's recent dealings & prospects in a light that fails to distinguish the source of both recent & proposed capital returns. Looking forward, the proposed PR's seem to suggest that an asset sale is a wholly possible scenario. Even then if an asset sale is achieved, based on the Montney events, it's highly possible that all shareholders may not receive their due reward in full.

Performance Rights ...pffft...any well run public company with governance that goes beyond merely paying lip service to its statutory rights, would have shown the door to the current executive for the overwhelming underperformance shown to date by the incumbents. Following the train wreck that was Montney, shareholders now are now under no illusion that will never happen here. The vested interests of board members & the executive alike extend to related party dealings, on top of generous renumeration & rights issued for merely continuing employment highlight the lack of independence of decisions.

Whiddon & Freeman you both should be ashamed of the proposed PR's & once again displays the extent to which you're removed from aligning shareholder outcome with executive renumeration.

The mere possibility of PR's vesting in this manner, shows that the gravy train is primed to deliver to the undeserving yet again.