Northern Gas Pipeline Tariffs, page-5

Hi CoM

My first point -

Jemena's RiT tariff principle looks good for all concerned. It is likely that company's policy setters are smart people and will be good to do business with.

My second point -

When (and this is not the first time) you speak of GSAs you say (or imply) that you are talking of an agreement between CTP and Jemena. If that is your intended meaning, your remarks are not aposite as "GSA" refers to an agreement to supply gas to a purchaser. When CTP enters into a GSA with a 3rd party purchaser [eg. IPL (we hope)] both seller and buyer will need to ensure that all ancilliary issues are covered.

Those issues will include, in particular and very importantly, the quantum transportation charges payable for the movement of the sale gas:

1. From CTP source to Tenant Creek via APA's Amadeus Basin pipeline;

2. From Tenant Creek to Mt Isa via Jemena's NGP;

3. From Mt Isa to Balera via APA's Carpentaria pipeline; and

4. From Balera to either Brisbane, Sydney, Moura, or (most unlikely) Gladstone via the variety of pipes and operators who service those destinations.

Those matters, among others, must be resolved before vendor and purchaser could prudently enter into a GSA. And then the selling company (CTP in this case) would need to ensure that ancillary agreements with each of the pipeline operators were simultaneously entered into at a price and on terms that were suitable to the sale agreement.

If you are using the abbreviation GSA as a way of referring to a gas transportation agreement (which I suggest should be called a "GTA") my point remains. CTP could not possibly enter into any form of agreement for gas transportation with any single one of the pipeline operators (as you consistently suggest it should with Jemena) unless it had "all bases covered" with the other pipeline operators sufficient to ensure that none of the operators could hold our company, as seller, or its customers, to ransom.

This brings me to my third point -

In the light of the above, is it not misleading to continually post observations which suggest that it is desirable for our company to make a priority of directly entering into an agreement (whether you call it a GSA or a GTA) with Jemena?

There is no prospect of misleading me. I am confident that my research in this and other relevant respects supports our management's policy of not making any commitment until it is assured of all relevant commitments being simultaneously achieved from pipeline operators purchasers and other relevant parties as a complete package.

I am however concerned that your regular misleading observations on the subject will possibly influence the judgement of shareholders whose depth of research is not adequate to address such questions. That could have a material impact on the company's anti-takeover stance and therefore undesirable.