Received the call. I indicated that I will be voting by proxy,...

Received the call. I indicated that I will be voting by proxy, but I was still undecided. It was a short conversation, but I did get the impression that the BoD is concerned. being a second strike possibility, i can understand why.

In reality, I am only 'undecided' as we have the luxury of time before proxy instructions are required to be lodged. Perhaps the operational updates from Charlie between now and then will influence some of my votes. But I suspect not. I know which way I am inclined to vote. And since some are sharing: I will be voting with the Board on all Resolutions.

While I was amongst the numbers who voted a 'first strike' last year wrt the Rem Report....that was then, this is now. The BoD can only be judged on their performance since the first strike, and frankly, I can't fault it on any material (non trivial or trite) basis. Company has been prudent with their expenditure, struck what appears to be a good farmout (in terms of economics, partner and optionality), and continued to tend to other, albeit more delayed opportunities in their portfolio. The market reaction to the FO surprised everyone and they were forced to partially raise required funds at basement level prices, and they were prudent in supplementing this shortfall when the pre-drill SP appreciate enabled it. So on that basis, hard to have a compelling reason to vote for a 'second strike' and the consequential board spill. I will support the Rem report (Res 1).

Particularly if Charlie delivers. That's a turmoil at BoD level that I'm not sure I want when we should be on the brink of moving towards cashing in on the asset.

Res 2 is the re-election of the non-exec Chairman. I have no issues with that. Particularly as there is no alternative presented by any activists for change.

Resolutions 3 to 6 all relate to past and potential future capital raises. We are a non-producer, and will remain so (to all intents and purposes) even if we successfully flow test both test intervals at Charlie. What other source of funds are there other than CR or further farm-down. The BoD are sufficiently incented to choose the course of action that best meets shareholder interests. I see no value in vandalising the already bare tool chest for fund raising.

Res 7 is conditional on Res 1 delivering the second strike. I will not be supporting a conditional spill.

We all get to vote, and being a 'second strike' vote, this one matters. It is important that one's vote matches one's agenda. Right? Otherwise its akin to 'pissing in the wind'.

All IMO and GLTA.