London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
@Alwaysup
“ As reported on 14 June 2019, the Environment Ministry in Slovenia rejected the appeal from the joint venture partners against the decision of the Slovenian Environmental Agency (ARSO) to require a full environmental impact assessment for well stimulation of the existing wells, Pg-10 and Pg-11A.
The deadline for filing an appeal to the Administrative Court was 15 July 2019 and the partners have filed their appeal.
The decision of ARSO and the Environment Ministry ignores the opinion of the six independent expert bodies whose advice ARSO sought. In breach of EU law, the decision also mistakenly concluded that the project fell within a conservation area and misapplied EU case law in relation to mitigation measures.”
reso - I agree, as I said in my previous post. I can't see why Geoenergo would renew the contract with AST.
Geoenergo will have Geoterm install a separator and compressor and then sell gas from Pg-10 and PG-11A to Ina for years, taking 100% of profits!
AST has pi##ed around too long and time is about run out for possible Slovenian operations.
AST has already broken the contract with Geoenergo by not fulfilling their monthly commitment to Geoterm / CPP for gas processing.
AST has also broken their contractual obligations to supply Ina with 85,000 m3 dry gas per month.
No problem though. I am sure the Cuban blocks will produce massive oil strikes that every other company, other than AST, could not identify!
Alwaysup,
The Petišovci exploitation concession contract expires end 2021, so no point discussing 2022 in Slovenia. It's not even in Ascent Slovenia's name. Geoenergo are the concession licence holder while AST are liable for all costs attributable to development/extraction.
If Geoenergo do not renew, or renewal refused, AST are out!
jamesjohn - If the permits arrived tomorrow, it would be 2022 before AST would be shipping significant volumes of gas. If litigation is the course selected, you can add the time in the courts to the 2022 figure. One year? Two years?
And, if they decide to leave Slovenia and concentrate on Cuba, how long do you believe it will take to be producing oil in Cuba?
This BOD and the one prior don't seem to have a timeline as to proceeding with activities. Pretty difficult to be successful without a calculated plan on a timeline. Actually it makes it impossible for anyone, including shareholders, to gauge the success of the company / BOD.
retrosec - 6 advisors? Who were they? What were they advising on?
LJUBLJANA - The Environment Ministry has made a step towards simplifying procedures for investors by proposing changes that would allow them to skip the environmental impact assessment in cases when previous analyses show that no major impact on the environment is expected.
We shall soon find out about the independent advisors?
We’ve always had the 6 independent advisors on our side. It’s got us nowhere up to now, but I suspect it’s because the previous BoD weren’t actually doing as much as they were claiming to be doing. I spoke to colin Hutchinson and John buggenhagen a number of times and they both regularly asked what investors views were on what they should be doing. They then just proceeded to do what they wanted and ignored the views of shareholders. If the sp was still at a reasonable amount, between 1-2p in old money, then the approval of the permits would be great. However it’s not and the sp has been decimated by previous iterations of the BoD, whilst the just lined their own pockets. Any approval now won’t get us back to where we should be anytime soon. Litigation all the way i say but we’ll find out soon enough what the current BoDs views are.
With respect I don't agree. If the permit is awarded we could be pumping gas within a very short space of time and be cash flow positive. The license renewal would be some time away, and there would be no justification for them to not renew it unless we were in breach of that licence, which we would be if we were awarded the permit and then took legal action against them. Going to court having been awarded the two permits makes no sense. We now have a government that is only a few months old and should we win the appeal and then receive the permits, this would send out a completely new message to us and any other company that is interested.
However winning the appeal is the difficult part, but we do have six independent advisors to the government on our side!
Totally agree. The only thing we should be looking at in Slovenia is litigation. Even if the permits do come through, Slovenian authorities will look for another way to throw a spanner in the works. For example, not renewing the license. If we’ve got such a strong case, like previous iterations or the BoD have intimated so many times, why is that not the only option on the table.
I'm afraid with AST I've pretty much heard it all before, so really is of little interest to me.
The only thing that I know is that I won't be considering anything that is active in the same region as its too unreliable to be an acceptable risk to me. Simply put I don't trust the local authorities anymore than I do trust old Bushmills Colin. So no matter who is heading up this company they won't get anything from these assets.
The whole new angle on Cuba is just more pipe dreams to raise funds from PI's to fund the boards monthly requirements.
Surprised a lot of people didn’t bother dialling in and ask questions themselves rather than relying on others to ask their questions for them. The cc lasted about 45mins in total, 4 people asked questions, others just listened to the responses. This will hopefully be a regular thing now until we get somewhere so hopefully other investors will ask questions about their investments.
Shinra, typically a third party litigation fund will take several months to complete initial due diligence on the merits of a claim, before even offering a proposal to finance the claim, subject to gets exclusivity to complete a funding agreement (there is an Association of Litigation Funders, so methodology is relatively well known). If the litigation funder was not aware of the new plans for Cuba whilst undertaking it's initial due diligence, then became aware of this after a RNS, this could explain why litigation funding was announced, and suddenly pulled?
If they walk I hope they will get some of that 50m spent. Even a mere 10m will be a good start for the Cuban venture. If they just walk away without any resolution then I would be very disappointed as that clearly means further placings to cover overheads and dream big ventures. Didn't anyone ask the question on ligation funding and why a day later it was pulled?