Ann: Memorandum of Understanding signed with Baker Hughes, page-20

1. Not partnering. They are a supplier who hasn’t spent a cent on Kalina or who has anything to do with them other than sell them products. They are a supplier. A good one, but still a supplier.

2. not a culmination of anything. What they offer either fits the design brief or it doesn’t. They have a product that suits what Kalina needs. I’ll bet there are maybe 2 or three companies in the world that offer this at a decent standard - Kalina had to pick one.

3. wide ranging MOU? For what? They haven’t got a single
operating project. No case studies. It’s simply an option to supply them with a turbine if they ever get to the point where they are actually building a plant. Years away. Klamath is a pipe dream.

4. see 3

5. this is good. But I suspect we will now have another shiny object- hydrogen- that will delay things further

6. there is nothing to support this statement. They have been saying FNTP is on track from march 2021. 15 months on they don’t even have an environmental approval.

wait until the webinar and see what they are doing. I’ll bet top dollar we won’t be pleasantly surprised.

if they don’t have financing as good as sewed up pending environmental approvals they will never get it IMO