re-rating., page-11

BW

Disposal of Gippsland/ Flinders is implied in many recent releases but I'll refer you to the newsletter sent at great expense to shareholders where JMcK says "This goal is supported by... the sale or farm-out of non-core (ie non Cooper (sic) assets."

I wonder how much of your money and mine went into the recent change of logo etc and into the new initiative of a newsletter, doubling up info to 99% of shareholders who have internet access. Of course the change of logo reflects symbolically my original point. I wonder if you can name another instancxe where a company has been taken over and 12 months later taken control like JmcK and the GOG boys have done here. You will notice from some of BLs presentations that even DLS's Cooper assets are on the block. I wil suggest this scenario is unique- if I read it in a novel I'd say it was too far-fetched to be believable!!!

I would also suggest that announcing an increase in a potential resource where so much is problematical is hardly sufficient to make me want to buy this stock. (I'll post an article here from the states on growing environmental concern about fraccing of gas wells!) While this is an industry where uncertainty is inherent in the nature of the business, disposing of your "conventional" portfolio to focus on a geologically uncertain resource of unknown (and potentially unsaleable) constitution, where extraction is reliant on expensive, largely unproven and potentially environmentally damaging technology, where there is no market and limited infrastructure is a bit like taking the $$$ off "black" and putting it all on "35"!!!

I would also point out the issues facing CSG explorers at conventional depths regarding cwell completion and efficient extraction of a resource which is at far shallower depths than we are talking about here. I'm guessing that all other things being equal the technological challenge of efficient extraction at depth will be a huge issue (for STO as well!)

TR