Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-169

Hi Everyone,

The vesting requirements don't reflect what i would consider LTI's as they appear to be very standard requirements for company employees in fulling their job descriptions.

$1 is also a very low ball target for a vesting requirement as performance incentive. While i believe the directors have done a excellent job, i don't agree that the vesting conditions or performance rights are justifiable in anyway. This definitely doesn't take away from the achievements the directors have accomplished so far, however i personally believe they are already been more than sufficiently compensated with very healthy salaries that exceeds the average salaries for similar roles.

My general view is against excessive performance rights that increases disparity against salary packages within a company at the expense of shareholders who ultimately support the company.

I don't believe the speculation around the DFS is entirely accurate. When there are changes made to such a detailed study, time frames within departs (internally and externally) are extrapolated and "delays" are natural outcome of significant changes being made. Yes we can all agree an update earlier would have been more than sufficient and of course well received. I'm thinking management is aware of this and working to improve area as we are now starting to get more regular updates.

In terms of the Termination payment approvals i personally believe these are much higher than should be. Do i think this is a setup for a takeover etc, no idea. I wouldn't want to get involved in this speculation to be honest. One thing i can say for sure, i won't be voting for a YES unless it's at least $3 near term, in the future i'm sure it will be higher.

So...........NO for 3 to 10

Regardless of all this, I am extremely happy on how the project is progressing.

Best wishes everyone