reality check, page-17

Having not the ability of attending the AGM, I too have a suggestion as to what should also be asked of the Directors.

Questions involve:
(
(I) When are we going to be advised as to actual production rates being achieved. How can I make an informed decision on the issues being voted on with only suggestions and conjecture as to what can be achieved by a re-listed O&G company. Surely, all shareholders must be advised before votes are made so we are all informed at the same level. I suggest recent new holders, together with directors, have lots of information that made their investment decisions a lot easier and justified. Some posters here have indicated that gas is being produced at significant levels but I haven't been advised officially and don't know for sure. Hcraboc makes a very good point regarding his comment regarding disposal of water. When are the directors going to give us a full explanation on the entire workings of the company, warts and all!!!!

(2)when was Clark re-appointed to the status of a full director again. Having been relegated to that of an adviser and paid extra money, as per contractual arrangements (some $170k I think) because of that relegation, why would you then pay him full director rates that year and subsequent years thereafter without the formal approval of the shareholders. I recommend shareholders Vote "No" to that proposal concerning salary. bonus share allocations and his ability to buy at 0.006c levels. If he wants the shares let him buy on the open market!

(3) Why did the Directors continued to allocate themselves the extraordinary amounts of salaries over a period when the company was in such dire straits financially, legally and when de-listed? What is their justifications? We now have the ability to vote on this issue. I recommend a vote of "No" to such an unfair package, until much more detailed information is available;

(4) Why, as a result, have the Directors filled their personnel wealth buckets with the enormous percentage of the company under the guise of buying shares & options at record low levels of entry from money which, in my view, was artificially (total self interest on their part) paid for by over inflated salaries which were and have not been justified? Have they in fact used insider information to fill their self interest bucket? Greed, they can, and no accountability required back to shareholder owners of company, is also quite likely. In my view they have not looked after the interest of the shareholders to anything like desired level of their legal obligations. The dilution to shareholders is quite pronounced. The price of shares, if and when re-listed, for old shareholders will need to go up by at least 10 before any return of fair value is achieved, while Directors will see a ten fold gain in their $450,000 investment at 0.006cps (6c after consolidation), resulting in $5,400,000 each ($4,950,00 profit) on the 90 million shares purchases bought whilst company de-listed. Please give special consideration to this issue when voting on this aspect. Yes, I know without the directors doing what they have done, we would have lost everything. In my view this package deal is simply too much! I see an incentive is justified for new directors coming on board but these propositions for all directors being voted on is far too much!

(4) The proposed re-issue of the Dec' 12 Options is great and caught between a hard place and a rock, I will be voting "Yes". It will possibly give recovery of some of the money invested in this avenue. However, the number held is going to be 1/20th of the initial number held (i.e., 1 for 10 consolidation and then a further 50% reduction = 20% left). Then to top that massive reduction we will have to pay 15 cents per option to make them into fully paid shares. That equates to 3 cents (1 for 10 consolidation minus 50%), not the initial 2.5c per initial option, i.e., a 20% increase for existing option holders. The shares must reach at least 30 cents (5 times higher than the 0.06c post consolidation price) before reissue returns any value to existing option holders. The directors reap from the 90,000,000 shares and countless ten/hundreds of millions of options for doing what?????shares that cost them the lowest entry point, while shareholders entry point (mine at least) will need to see share price well over 50 cents before I regain my initial entry value. (50cps would reap directors some $4,050,000 just on their shares alone and total profit on newly allocated options issued....no entry money at all).

I don't know too much about what would happen if shareholders voted down some of these issues. I don't know whether alternative proposals can be put forward to even out some of these gross disparities. I do know that I should be thankful that I may at least get some money back, if only a few cents in the dollar, but I am very angry that the old directors that led this company to almost ruin, are now using the possible resurrection to make themselves millions and millions of dollars while shareholders of old will struggle to get anything.

Surely, there will be sufficient shareholders to voice their concerns on the above issues. Think carefully before voting "Yes" or "No" for all the resolutions and certainly do not just not vote at all, as this will only benefit directors who have formulated proposals.

I have not touched on any class action legal course but am considering same....pending results of AGM.