Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
Ascent is done in Slovenia, done in Cuba, done in South America, basically just done.
To win the law suit they will have to prove that Slovenia refused to give them a permit to frac the PG wells, which is not the case. Slovenia just requested an EIA be done and submitted with the application. Ascent decided not to do that and therefore Slovenia could not issue a frac permit.
I have trouble seeing where Slovenia is responsible for Ascent's decisions.
And Cuba has been all but forgotten. Paid a lot of money for nothing.
Other than to manipulate the stock price and fill the pockets of those close to the board.
Silently slipped into nowhere.
That fiasco alone would be enough to get rid of most BODs.
I do not, and have not from the very beginning, believed AST will win their case against Slovenia for one important reason.
Slovenia DID NOT prevent AST from fracking. When AST applied for the permit, they were told that the government would not approve their permit without and environmental impact assessment.
Instead of hurrying and doing an EIA, AST twiddled their thumbs until a new law against any fracking was put in place.
The defense will surely show that it was AST who caused the delay in the permitting of the fracking.
I said at the time that AST should have rushed ahead with the EIA for the entire field, but CH had already left and the JB board had no interest in improving the company.
I would be amazed if AST was to win the case.
It doesn't matter how many other lawsuits, in other countries, are settled in favor of the plaintiff. The facts are different in each case.
The facts in the case of AST vs Slovenia are based on AST claiming Slovenia prevented them from fracturing the wells.
This is not true. The government requested AST do an environmental assessment prior to applying for approval to fracturing. This requirement is very common in countries all around the world.
The board/s of directors at AST decided not to perform and submit an EIA as requested, so the government could not entertain their request for fracturing.
It is the fault of AST, and not the government of Slovenia, that sand fracturing operations were not conducted.
I don't remember exactly when Colin H left. Do you?
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/watchlist?id=ao64p2&tab=Recent&ocid=hpmsn&cvid=b171b7056bb3461db04b2fcd121e7994&ei=12&duration=5Y
This is crazy! People rushing to get in on Ascent. I guess they have not been following the company for long.
The claim has increased, but the settlement is the same.
I doubt Ascent will see one cent from the Slovenian government.
Just another story by the BOD, just like Cuba and Peru.
PetTrader - I agree. The settlement is strictly for stock price manipulation and very, very unlikely to happen.
The settlement, like the Cuba and Peru operations, is so close to being an out and out lie that you cannot discern the difference.
Seems some are very excited here for some reason. Just trying to force the SP higher on fake news.
There are honest investors that want to make money on the success of a company. Then there are those whose morals are less of an issue, and they will make money by inciting false news.
Nothing has changed, and AST has no chance of winning any settlement with Slovenia.
AST was told from the start that an EIA was required and they refused to submit one. That will be the defense that Slovenia uses.
Let me get this straight. Beryl is so impressed with the performance of the AST BOD that they are willing to invest £1,000,000? I would not be putting my money into Beryl or AST.
This is just another JP scam, different than the Cuba one, but also the same. It will be interesting to see if this one works.
AST needs more cash to pay the BOD and for the repairs on PG-11A.
I am amazed at how many times the same basic scam has been pull so far. Starting with JB and continuing with JP.
Oldblue1973 - The insight of this BOD is simply astounding! The tool became stuck in the tubing a few years ago and they are just now addressing the issue. For 200,000 Euros, they could have removed the tool using coiled tubing and increased the production years ago. They have lost years of production income. The only reason they are speaking about removing the tool now is that there are other issues with PG-11A, that they have been forced to address. The BOD believes they can "cover up" these other issues by telling shareholders that the work is being done to remove the stuck tool.