Ann: Thackaringa Joint Venture Update, page-2

Amigos, I think that BPL's interpretation is correct. And, I'll give you the reasons why it will be found to be correct. If COB's directors were found to be able to take 100% straight after they had said they didn't want 100%, then that would be a contradiction and not in the spirit of the JV. Moreover, if COB is allowed to get 100% of the project by simply calling for $1.5 million from its junior partner for a drilling program which has not occurred and which was halted indefinitely by two external factors (ie drought and COB did not have signed access with the landowners), then every JV partnership on the ASX is in jeopardy of a similar takeover. That is, any senior partner can carry out costless 100% takeover, by calling the junior partner for an impossibly large payment for a non-functioning work program within an impossibly short timeframe. Once again, not in the spirit of the JV. It all comes down to the leadership of the two companies. COB's board are not geologists and have not got the mining experience that BPL's team has. COB's punch was a low-blow and their directors are showing their lack of understanding of the JV system in the mining industry. (Having made this criticism of COB, I am not impressed by BPL's lack of exploration activity in the last 12 months or so.)