question for agm, page-8

Thanks for your summary PD.

I went to the first agm (couldn't get to the second one) but I'm interested to know who were the shareholders that requested the original agm be postponed. As I understand it , they wanted a delay as their proxies were late. Given the results of the voting , i'm assuming it wasn't a few little shareholders such as myself. It would appear that it is a few large shareholders together. Was there any mention of such a group at agm #2 ?. Obviously there is some dissatifaction with recent performances but the voting results indicates something else to me. Having said that , I'm pleased to see shareholders getting involved in their company.

As a new shareholder , I wasn't sure on who was who in management so I was suprised to learn that Alan Flavelle is the technical director and yet was silent with regard to the explaination of the problems with Lorraine. Given the interest shown by a couple of shareholders trying to understand the issue with the well , I felt the explanation that Tony gave was a little short on detail.That is not a criticism of Tony as I feel that technical explanations should not be his responsibility. Especially when the TD is in the room??

Actually , at the time I did think that it was a bit unusual that Tony did all the talking but I thought maybe that was how this particular board worked.

I noticed at agm #1 , NFJ mentioned that a european board member should be appointed and now there is a reference to that in the latest announcement.

Could you comment on NFJ's resignation and the statement that EPG could " potentially be working with NFJ in the future ".

Thanks in advance.