finally there might be some light , page-30

I don't have an issue with either the Fortrend draw down or the Phillip Capital placement. It should be asked why they decided on P.C in the first place.

The placement by Phillip Capital to SOPH investors on the 22nd April was at 5 cents. The 5 day VWAP prior to issue would have been appx 7 cents. That’s a hefty discount of 28%.
The Fortrend facility is fixed at a 10% discount. Granted the 1 for 4 options at 11 cents offsets the placement discount so it works out pretty much the same from a dilutionary perspective. Do we know for certain P.C clipped 4-5% from the placement? I understand this to be the norm but it wasn't specified in the announcement.

The only plausible explanation I can think of as to why ESI decided to do a placement with Phillip Capital would be somehow connected to an announcement released on the 2nd March 2006. As we have yet to determine the parties involved in the placement, it could well be Green Power Resources PTE LTD (Singapore) could be one of the potential CSI's. Phillip Capital is a Singapore based company. Con has stated all previous MOU/DEEDS/AGREEMENTS are still "live".

Something to consider.

From the Announcement 2-3-2006

About Green Power Resources PTE LTD, Singapore (GPR):

Green Power Resources (GPR) is a special purpose Singapore Corporation established to carry out commodity trading specifically focused on green power technologies.
The principals of GPR have extensive experience in the COAL, STEEL, cement and timber industries and have in the past traded significantly higher quantities than currently contracted to purchase from Asia Pacific Coal Steel.


The last time ESI share price reached 44 cents and as you claim was your initial purchase, was on September 2006, a whole 9 months prior to Con's appointment.

When Con was appointed June 1 2007- share price was 22 cents at the time having descended from the lofty heights of $1.06 so it’s a little unfair to apportion blame on him especially for what transpired prior to his arrival.

You give the impression you didn't like Con on a personal level having commented about his ego. I'd prefer a leader with an ego, provided it is not self serving, any time over one that goes cap in hand, bent over a barrel, which I'm sure institutional investors like them to be. Don’t know why he is an issue having recently confirmed he'll be stepping aside. If there were any ructions amongst the board he would not have been invited to remain as a non exec director. His BIO reads: MERCHANT AND INVESTMENT BANKING-COMPANY ACQUISITIONS & RECONSTRUCTIONS-INTERNATIONAL MARKETING. So we do have someone on the board with market experience.

Your diligence in holding the Board accountable is commendable and comments appreciated Ariesman, however in the grander scheme of things they are minor issues.

My 2 bobs worth.

RBA