Ann: Letter to Shareholders-POW.AX, page-8

Hi Teeskay, not wanting to split hairs here but the one buoy that went into Bunbury harbour came out again fairly quickly, and given that it was placed in that environment with a number of sensors, doesn't that suggest that the feedback early on in the trial wasn't what they expected, so it was brought out to try and understand why. (More buoys would just deliver the same results ?)

My point being they didn't IMO withhold information so much as discover different responses there from when they placed earlier prototypes in other locations. (i.e. previous announcements indicating positive results)

Hopefully they will reveal more about the Bunbury testing that shareholders can understand. Stephen Rogers has an open and inclusive tone of speech in his letter so that is encouraging.

And yes it is disappointing that the licence period has almost elapsed. Perhaps this can be renewed, as even an array of buoys would have a very benign impact on the port it seems. If not, other environs can be pursued (plenty of options in W.A. with so much coastline)

Just a final point, I have been researching the journey other WEC technologies have been taking of late, and a consistent theme appears to be that the motion of water below the surface is so complex (chaotic) that it is virtually impossible to computer model it with simple concepts/formulas, then just engineer a system to those paradigms.

This distinguishes it from wind and solar energy where they can be described and predicted relatively easily by the laws of physics - kinetic and thermal energy. (I know so because my late father was a physicist and passionate about new technologies which he and I discussed often)

This may be relevant here because it is the nature of wave energy technology for its proponents to have to apply a great deal of trial and error in the field to learn how to harvest it efficiently, and perhaps explains why it is taking so much effort to bring any system to a commercial reality.

Cheers all. BC