Ann: Noteholder Notice of Meeting, page-98

I'm a noteholder and I personally will be voting no.

I have a really hard time understanding some of the defences people mount for management. The directors of this company are paid above what I would consider the normal for a company of this complexity. They are paid by shareholders. I don't feel like they have done their job well.

I don't see how it is unreasonable that shareholders should be entitled to more information than they received during this process.

I think shareholders are entitled to ask why they were not able to maintain liquidity through trading on the ASX. I understand that the ASX actions appear difficult and perhaps even inconsistent with previous actions. However, we as shareholder pay directors to be able to handle regulatory issues. I think we should have had a reasonable expectation that they should have resolved things with the ASX to allow trading to resume.

Directors and particularly the CEO should be industry experts, it is not unreasonable for an investor to be disappointed in a CEO who did not hedge for oil price falls in the middle of reasonably short and agreed sale of major oil assets. Yes, the oil price fell, but not before, according to their own statements they had agreed an unconditional sale. Would a good CEO not protect this sale through some oil price protection? Would a CEO who was doing a good job not know enough about their counterparty to be sure that they would complete a deal before announcing a deal with no conditions precedent? If there was risk to the deal based on the identity of the counterparty or the oil price, is it not their job to know this? and mention it?

In my opinion, I am also not sure that it is accurate to state that JC's interests are aligned with noteholders and shareholders. We have no way to know, but lets assume that the best price available for these assets is 20-50 million USD. These numbers are not real, but just intended to be used as an example. If this was the case, then JC has zero incentive to negotiate a deal. If he was to strike a deal for say 40 million USD, then he would lose his 1.5 million AUD yearly salary and his interest free loan to fund his house. The company would still go into VA and all his shares would be worthless, but noteholders might receive somethin back..maybe. He simply wouldn't negotiate a deal at this level even though it may be in the interest of noteholders.

It is my opinion, management has done nothing to warrant the extension they seek from noteholders.

I'm sure being a CEO is a hard job, that's why it is so highly paid, however, I cant find anything about this situation that warrants this management team being given more time and more money to manage these assets. JC seems like a good bloke and I'm sure he is under pressure and in that regard I wish him well, but I don't think there is any reason for a noteholder to grant this extension.