Ever so tempted to post a sarcastic response ... but ... way, way too early for gum shields.
You post that you are ''not sure how it is the peoples money'' (as in) I am assuming that by ''peoples [Pls] money'' you mean the Victoria Oil and Gas shareholders money - yeah?
You do realise that the Bank Loan has to be paid back - yes? You do realise that it will be paid back with [OUR] shareholder's money - yes?
PLEASE - don't post that it will be paid back through profits earned, please. Because ANY profits earned belong to [US] shareholders - agreed - yes? Although there are times when you wouldn't think so.
mon3y - your analytical comment is spot on, mate - Post Recommended! ''If both are capable of doing the same job they should have went for the cheaper option but we are talking about VOG here and one thing they are experts at is wasting PIs money''
My cash and many more long suffering investors over the last 8 years are whats kept this company afloat long before any bank loans and partners were here. The one thing this BOD are experts at is blowing cash , as long as its not their own.
Copied & Pasted from - 04:50 this a.m. "Basically RSM are not happy that VOG chose Savannah to carry out drilling operations and the deployment of an excessively expensive brand-new Chinese drilling rig instead of using RSM and their cheep [cheap] rig."
I, for one, can see the logic in that! Can anyone else see the logic in that?
Although I am sure that the above is open to (fair) argument, in-as-much-as ''it was deemed by Victoria Oil and Gas - 'the route' that was decided upon was considered (in-the-long-run) to be 'eventually' cost effective and give 'Best Value' to Victoria Oil and Gas shareholders''
But then again ... IF by using RSM (instead of Savannah) and (sic) 'their cheep [cheap] rig' instead of deploying a (sic) ''excessively expensive brand-new Chinese drilling rig'' would have delivered BETTER 'Best Value' to shareholders - if RSM (with a track record) had've been used to Drill instead of Savannah (with absolutely NO track record) would these two combined points ... [RSM + their cheap rig] ... as opposed to shipping to Cameroon an ''excessively expensive brand-new drilling rig'' - from China - delivered greater value to us ... the Victoria Oil and Gas shareholders???
Yet another bout of uncertainty with Grimm once again at the centre of proceedings . 2 sides to the coin though as at least his awareness gives us some sort of control mechanism against VOGs decision to spend a tenner for a service when a tanner may have been more appropriate. No good for the SP though. What's new.
Planned spudding was May 2016 until RSM action by the look:
"After receiving the results of an inspection report showing that the Forpetro Rig met GdC’s specifications (attached hereto as Exhibit 2), on February 24, 2016, GdC’s Financial Controller Andrew Diamond sent a letter to RSM providing an update on the Project. Id. ¶ 7; Exhibit 3.
In the letter, Mr. Diamond informed RSM that the Forpetro Rig was scheduled to ship from China within a few weeks, drilling on wells 107 and 108 was expected to begin in May 2016, purchase orders had been sent out, and mobilization fees would be due and payable in the approaching weeks. Id.
In response to Mr. Diamond’s letter, on February 25, 2016, eight months after first learning of the plans to hire Savannah as drilling contractor and to utilize a Chinese built rig, and nearly three months after approving of those plans, Mr. Grynberg, for the first time, objected to hiring a contractor with a rig from China. Id. ¶ 8."
continues after more on how RSM agreed with plan:
"Although Mr. Grynberg continued to question the use of a Chinese-built rig in email communications, he failed to initiate any legal proceedings after his initial objection in late February 2016 until RSM initiated arbitration proceedings and commenced the present action five months later in late July 2016."
In June 2015, representatives of GdC and RSM met in Denver, Colorado, to discuss GdC’s proposal to drill the Logbaba 107 and 108 wells as part of the Project (the “Proposal”). Id. ¶ 4.
The Proposal included utilizing a Chinese-built rig and hiring a drilling contractor based in Cameroon, Savannah Oil Services Cameroon, S.A. (“Savannah”). Id.; Exhibit 1. Present at the meeting were GdC Director Kevin Foo, GdC Subsurface Manager Sam Metcalfe, RSM President Jack Grynberg, and RSM Executive Vice President Gene Webb. Foo Decl. ¶ 4.
At no point during or after the meeting did either Mr. Grynberg or Mr. Webb object to the use of a Chinese-built rig or the use of Savannah as the drilling contractor. Id.
I just purchased three parts for $5 each...great reading!
"Basically RSM are not happy that VOG chose Savannah to carry out drilling operations and the deployment of an excessively expensive brand-new Chinese drilling rig instead of using RSM and their cheep rig."
"On July 7, 2016, at a meeting of the Logbaba Operating Committee in Douala, Cameroon, RSM, through Mr. Webb, approved the Project’s 2016 Work Plan and Budget and signed the AFEs for the drilling of wells 107 and 108, using the Forpetro Rig and Savannah as the drilling contractor. Id. ¶ 26. Despite RSM’s approval, RSM filed its Application in this Court three weeks later, on July 29, 2016."
How can a company pay out TWO-MILLION-DOLLARS and make a pledge of a further TWO-MILLION-DOLLARS without a contract being SIGNED until 2 months later??? ''Carry on Camping'' - ''Carry on Ramping'' ... more like Lol
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.