STO to CTP – “Guess Who is Your New Partner?”, page-8

Ash said: "I for one would willingly support a CR to buy the second half of Mereenie. Others may not share my enthusiasm."

PH says: I totally agree. How can there be any harm in a capital raising if the proceeds are going to be spent on development or asset enlargement? That is not a dilutive process.

Ash said: "As the active partner, CTP could argue for an operator's fee before splitting Mereenie's profits, or oblige MCQ to pay more than alf of the needed development cost."

PH says: Ash there cannot be much doubt that CTP is already entitled to an operator's fee. I do not see that as a major questionmark. Had would have been a necessary element of the original joint venture agreement entered into with STO in June 2015.

Ash said: "I surmise RC is negotiating a fresh joint venture agreement with MCQ, who entered with a plan - including exit strategy."

PH says: I believe that you are right – and that was certainly my speculation. How could it be any different? STO cannot make rules for CTP to observe such as "Now you are going to go into joint venture with Macquarie Bank and here are the terms". It just would not happen under any form of legal documentation.