The TPDC will have to keep us onside. Who else is going to provide gas for all this energy they've promised, apart from the onshore explorers. If they want us to exploit Ruvuma then we need to see doors opening. Orca is in dispute with the TPDC over old contracts , M&P have slashed spending and are already fully committed with an expansion programme for the coming years and Dodsal are in very early stages of exploration so will not be in a position to produce anytime soon. So with offshore gas moving further away and multinationals slashing budgets the TPDC have very few options to gain more gas to power. We need to see red tape cut to allow us forward momentum with our projects.
I got the feeling the BOD are in the process of making headway with Ruvuma but had to remain tight lipped. Just a hunch though.
You may want to stick to the facts as they are and not keep screwing with them to fit your own agenda - if you pay attention and read what I actually said you will see that I said "if I'd had the RNS detail to hand when I asked the original question at the AGM...." i.e. I wasn't aware of/didn't have the detail to hand back then....
Like I say, I don't see what the affairs of AEX has to do with someone who doesn't hold any shares or never intends to unless they hit 0.8p so if and when they do then you may have more credibility to comment but for now I'll continue to take your attention seeking views with the pinch of salt they deserve.
If you also look back through my posts, I've never claimed you tell lies but have just pointed out your other multiple shortcomings - a point of view which does appear to be shared by the vast majority on here given the number of recommendations my posts get.
Lastly, by your own admission in your exchange with gaslady, you agreed to shut up but just proves you don't stick to what you say and can't resist the constant negative spin and arguments - pretty obvious for all to see here.
During commissioning, TPDC are to pay on invoice, but the invoice terms are a sliding scale. The first invoice requires payment within 6 months, the second within 3 months, etc. An RNS does not need to provide all the details of the initial invoicing structure, but if you want to raise a legal challenge for misrepresentation of terms, then that's your right.
More importantly in my mind are the terms of post-commissioning payment whereby TPDC are required to pay 1 months in advance.
Flandy, when you made the incorrect assertion that the terms of the GSA were being adhered to, I politely pointed out to you that the GSA said differently. I copied and pasted the paragraph from the GSA for your benefit and addressed my post to you (as can be seen below). Even after that you still insisted nothing was wrong. Now you're saying it's good that it's being followed up on because you didn't know. Well, you did.
Knowing how super-sensitive you are I intended to omit your name from my post below but I forgot. You need to stop making everything about you. This is a serious issue. I strongly suggest you stop making ridiculous comments about me such as your post yesterday which I chose to ignore. My record with Aex is well-documented here. You may be pondering why nobody supports your viewpoint that I am, or have ever, lied on this bb. It's because of all the things I can be (argumentative, disagreeable, cantankerous, an out and out b*llocks etc etc) I don't tell lies. I think the vast majority of people here know that. So leave out the personal stuff and I will too.
It's inaccurate at best and misleading at worst and if I'd had the RNS detail to hand when I asked the original question at the AGM then I would have asked this follow up question which however appears to be now being asked by Irishmouse - hopefully we'll receive clarification shortly - just hope it doesn't require a RNS - they cost money to release... :(
This should however only concern investors or people who plan to invest in the future of which you (Kev) are seemingly neither... :)
Sorry, the bit below in double-inverted commas was a post of mine from 18th May (last week). The reason I think this issue of payment is important is because if the original terms of the GSA were changed after the fact, that does not augur well for future payments. If the terms of the GSA were wrong (as presented by the company in the GSA RNS) then that is cast-iron evidence of further incompetence on the part of the bod. I know some people want to shut out observations such as the above but they're the simple facts.
Hi Irishmouse, crusty. Sincere thanks for the best wishes. Feeling a hell of a lot better today (not as drugged up either). Still can't work but I'm going back Monday.
Fair play to you, Irishmouse, for not letting this point go. I brought it up twice after the AGM but only yourself, millwall6 and CrustyPete seemed to view it as important. I think it's crucial. Unless we're missing something it would appear (quite clearly) that the terms of the GSA were not as presented in the GSA RNS.
""I posted this earlier, Irishmouse:
"Flandy, the GSA RNS never mentioned anything about 6 months to pay. Here's what it said:
"During the testing and commissioning phase, the TPDC will be invoiced for gas produced at the end of each month and will be required to pay on invoice. "
That would make the GSA RNS incorrect unless I'm reading it wrong."
I wouldn't be as concerned about the money as I would be about the GSA RNS being wrong.""
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.