Ann: Dispatch of Entitlements Issue Prospectus, page-5

SJB,

Couple of issues raised there.

Firstly disclosures in presentations.

I think you'll find it difficult to make a case based on information contained in presentations as they are subject to an assortment of disclaimers.

You really need to look at the company announcements if you think you've been misled as that's where the continuous disclosure obligations come into play.

To be successful with any claim that relies on misleading or deceptive conduct a court needs to be satisfied that an applicant was actually misled.

You have held this stock for longer than I but I can frankly say that on the subject of the mine grade the company did make investors aware of the problematic nature of defining a minable grade (JORC resource) at Cascaval.
I knew from the company's disclosures that I was taking a risk investing in this company based on the mine grade uncertainty issue. I can even point to posts I made on HC that prove I understood the risks in regard to the uncertainty of the mine grade and others also discussed this issue at length and there were substantial doubts amongst investors discussing this issue on HC. This issue was no secret for people reading the company disclosures or social media and it still remains an unresolved risk for this company going forward. I don't believe the company misled investors in this respect and I don't believe you can make a case based on this issue. The main problem in my opinion resulted from initially feeding low grade development ore through the plant and the fact the plant was not properly optimised to start with. I personally can't understand how you could accept the handover of plant from the suppliers until it is at least operating to a minimal predefined recovery level. This to me is just a matter that arose due to a badly written contract around the design, supply and commissioning of the plant. The company has been left to sort out the basic commissioning issues of the plant at its own expense. This I would think should have been made a contractual obligation of the company that designed, supplied and commissioned the plant, but unfortunately for shareholders it wasn't.

As far as the issue of Anglo having access to information on Cascaval that shareholders don't have, the company has given Anglo that right under a contract which is allowing them to do due diligence on the mine. This is one of the conditions of the agreement that OGX signed with Anglo. I don't think shareholders have a leg to stand on in this regard. The company directors are employed to make the decisions and enter into these agreements, shareholders ratify these decisions if required under the law. That's the way it works. So Anglo IMO is acting fully under its rights under the agreement. It would actually be nice to see Anglo take an interest in the mine IMO. I can't remember of the top of my head when the due diligence period expires. Considering the position the company found itself in after the first failed startup I think they did very well to get Anglo on board. Also as per my previous posts if the current raising is fully subscribed Anglo will have paid the equivalent of 7.3c/share for their 18.1% undiluted interest in OXG. This does also included an accelerated interest into the exploration JV which is another price we paid for not having sufficient capital to start with. The problems at Cascaval are partly due to bad planning and capital management, ie trying to start a mining operation with insufficient funding. The uncertain grades are a seperate issue that still need resolving..... there was talk of a JORC being produced shortly but I think that would rely on Anglo coming into the mine which I was hoping they would do. The longer this goes without Anglo coming into the mine, the less chance this mine has of succeeding and going it alone is just a recipe for shareholder wealth destruction IMO. I say this because if Anglo finish their due diligence and decide it's not for them, then I think it will remain a big struggle for OGX.

As for the claim that certain other sets of investors were/are aware of market sensitive information about the mine, at the exclusion of your garden variety investors/shareholders, this might be true but without any evidence you'll be wasting your time.

Eshmun