wpa, I'm sure we could sit down and have quite a pleasant...

wpa, I'm sure we could sit down and have quite a pleasant discussion about the merits of each of the decisions made by the Board and management over the last couple of years. We might even agree on lots of issues.

However the differences will obviously remain. When I take an overall view of the performance during that period I see a lot more poor and wrong choices than good ones. Whereas you obviously end up seeing more good decisions than bad.

And while I don't even rate it as one of the worst decisions, I see the award of the long term incentive to Perter Henderson as typical of the poor level of decision making at the Board and executive level.

Peter's base pay according to the annual report is $458,598. Now in anyone's language this is a very good salary. Even with the level of operations at the time Peter commenced, this would be rated as "generous". Presumably to compensate in part for the risky nature of employment at a start-up explorer. Juniors clearly need to pay over the odds if they want the best performers. But the Company has just been through one of those risky periods with a substantial downsizing. It is at a size where it is very hard to justify a full time CEO, let only one so generously recompensed. I believe that shareholders have a right to be upset about that sort of behaviour.

But what really takes the cake, is the Board thinks Peter has done such a good job that they decide to award him almost 1% of the Company as a long term incentive. This substantial stake in the Company is awarded at $0.053 with hurdles set at $0.14 $0.17 and $0.20. Now these share prices reflect an appalling valuation for the Company; i.e. they will all vest if the Company's market cap reaches $90 million.

This is only 65% of the market cap of the Company when Peter's appointment was announced in 2010. And one third of those shares (or about one third of the Company) have probably already vested, when clearly Peter has not done a scrap of work.

I believe this sort of decision making shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the workings of small exploration companies. It more reflects the corporate games of the very large oil and gas companies. And Nick, Peter and Greg are very skilled in this arena, but it just appalling decision making at a junior.

As I said, I don't even think this is the worst example, but it seems to be a typical approach by the Company to many of its decisions. And in my view, this approach has resulted in too many poor decisions.

At a share price of $0.053 there was just no way but up, and the trigger level for vesting of the shares never represented any sort of target for Peter and were nothing more than top up salary.

So I do hope that every shareholder, no matter what their views on the Board replacement, give this share issue, Resolution 5, a resounding thumbs down.