agm

Gents I've just realised I wont be able to make the AGM and had a few quick questions. If possible would anyone be willing to get some clarification on the following for me if they arent already answered (if not ill just email Heugh after the AGM as I have quite a few others).

These are only some off the top of my head.


1. Does the company have a preliminary structure/development plan drawn up (ie infrastructure, target strategy in order).


2. The drilling rig feasibility study seems excessive at 250-500k, how is this cost justified and why is the company considering spending up to 500k for a study when it is not generating any income from production let alone spud a well. This appears to be an absolute waste of time and cash to even consider at this point , especially if the feasibility study comes back negative - another 500k lost. The logical manner would be to get the wells underway - contribute the 500k towards spudding or further seismic, start production, generate income and then consider doing rig feasbility studies/rig operatorship etc. The fact the company is considering a rig at such an early stage indicates that it may be uncertain of its farm in partners ability to hold up their end of the deal hence central may have to go it alone - or a more appropriate answer is that central want a larger slice of the pie?

3. The bond issue as stated by the company is to accelerate development and meet financial commitments over the next few years. How can we be assured the company will meet these required targets and money will be spent appropriately as the financial accumen/capital management demonstrated by the company to date has been sub-standard. Cash burn has been high on a quarterly basis and certain staff are overpaid for a non-producing exploration company in comparison to numerous other juniors (some that are even in production). How does management expect shareholders to approve issuing more options when the initial primary goal of spudding has not been achieved, investors are not updated appropriately and general performance has been below par (not to mention shareprice performance). Options should be granted on a performance basis.

4. Regarding MPS;

a) MPS super contribution agreement - explanation of what this deal is about and why its at such a significant discount?

b) how PXA, He Nuclear, Advent and Rawson deals are progressing. Are they holding up their end of the deal - do they have the funds at hand? Are dated termination clauses in place should the company not carry out their duties in a specific timeframe.

c) How the takeover prevention is progressing (as mentioned in an earlier announcement) now that even more shares will be on issue through the bond facility. What is the companies present strategy in takeover prevention.


5. Upon the options conversion failure the company chose to issue more share rights at 2.5c with an exp 2010 at 25c which has further dilution impacts. On top of this, although the new bond issue is said to "accelerate development" could see up to a further 553 million shares listed on the market over the next few years. As per Schedule 4 Item 1 has the company thought about a medium to long term strategy to rectify this excessive stock spooling such as a share buy back etc to deliver substantial shareholder returns.

6. Are there any extra costs incurred from Harford Vantage apart from the 4.5% commission taken per tranche?

7. When does the company expect to give notification of the Hunt drilling contract. Is there a secondary plan in place should this fall through?

8. Updates on seismic - ie final mt kitty seismic was completed 6 months ago and nothing has been presented to the market. Investors need to be aware of company targets and activities for central to be exposed to the greater investment community