Ann: WE4 Production Test, page-226

Just to be clear, and respond to some of the questions coming out of my post, Stuart said he spoke to "Scotland" and not necessarily Biggs, so it's not 100% clear on the source of the WGO wording.

In terms of independent experts, he said they did use them, but not to produce a report for public consumption as that would be unnecessary and costly at this stage. But, they wanted to cross-check their interpretation so they didn't miss something. Sounds like prudent management to me and happens all the time in all sorts of businesses. I know I do it all the time in mine. More data is to come as they go through the process so again, not necessary to go through the time and expense. They'll also use independent experts to certify the reserves, as agreed with WGO, so that specific body of work will eventually be done, but only once all the other relevant work, like WE5 and seismic is completed beforehand. Kind of pointless to do it beforehand. Finally, the well is a producer, in line with other mid-range wells in the area, so nothing unusual to report. It's commercial and allows them to progress with their bigger picture plans. Move on to the next part of the plan and ignore the distractions, which IMO opinion is again prudent professional management.

As to speculation around WGO's motivations, a lower price helps them 'justify' the low CR price and dilution to existing holders + helps them justify the low hurdle on performance options. Imagine if the price rose to be near or above their hurdle before the meeting. Hardly justifiable then is it.