Ann: Investor Webinar Presentation, page-67

You seem to think you have all the answers for these questions, but you lack perspective. I offer you the following possibilties:

Q1) "this would be considered material and therefore worthy of a note to ASX already?" At the end of 2022, Sherritt was building their wellpad, (as we could see from satellite evidence, therefore they all knew who was taking the rig after maintenance) However, we were told that the rig was ours. Lo' and behold later we found out the rig was used by Sherritt/Cuba for their gas drill(s). Therefore, no, materially it does not need to be mentioned to the ASX immediately, they just drop it on us like they did last time.

Q2) An application to build the well pads (which has occurred) and an application to use the well pads are two different things.

Q3) "horizontally at an approximate angle significantly less than vertical at or around 90/270 degrees" What you just described does not encompass the gamut of engineering required for a well. E.g

• is there steam assisted gravity drainage,
• multilateral design,
• sand management strategy,
• wellbore tubulars and elastomer design,
• decision on inclusion of lifting mechanism,
• defined oil bearing payzone target,
• set or proactive geosteering,
• calculation of heat induced viscocity threshold,
• whether it is vertically stacked laterals or horizontally stacked laterals etc etc

Q4) Your answer to this question fails to understand whether or not a well pad can be saturated. It also fails to understand if the previous exploratory/appraisal wells will interfere with the vertically stacked laterals or horizontally stacked lateral design. Especially if they can only drill along the seismic (for fear of the tertiary shape of the reservoirs).

Q5) None of your information answered my question. They are actually bound by the ASX rules, for example:

source: https://www.asx.com.au/documents/rules/gn32_reporting_on_oil_gas_activities.pdf

So why ask the question? It would be interesting for them to spell out that they believe the outcome will be good and they will get the information to the independent certifier asap.

Q6) Who knows what Sonangol would want to do, they might have an interest in taking a higher stake in their share of the production. Maybe they want to be the operator, who knows.

Q7) "Not once a program of works has started" what you fail to recognise here is that once Alameda-3 finishes, the work program is concluded. If it was anything like Australia, they would then need to re-apply for a new work program, which subsequently gets approved is "x" time.