Member Info for BOTS_PROJECTS

Free challenged me previously on the issue of TG having lost control of the company. Well, he has 66m shares = 5% ownership (important number - but definitely not controlling). Admittedly he may have management control, but for sure he does not have economic interest control.

Feel free to clarify here for us all Free - thanks.

Clooless - really is time you started trying to get clued up mate. And stop making an endless fool of yourself.

Just to help ensure you are using correct numbers Brad:

Total shares in current issue - 1,270,133,251;

Doc shares under ILC - 357,142,856 = 28.118 per cent;

BPOPF shares now - 208,521,092 = 16.417 per cent;

So presently short of 50% - although conversion of their convertible notes would issue approx 400m more shares based on my maths - 160m to the Doc and 240m to BPOPF.

On that approx basis, the %s would change to approx 31% for the Doc and 27.75% for BPOPF = 57.75%.

I am wondering what waivers both parties will have sought / or the various Stock Exchanges will have given so that niether party were required to make a formal offer to acquire minority shareholder stakes.

For once, you raise an interesting point - but unknowingly. 1.670m shares potentially in issue ie fully diluted less approx 1.0 billion owned by Doc / BPOPF. Leaving 670m owned by management and other minorities - assuming the majority shareholders have Zero interest to particularly protect minority shareholders, and assuming there actually is a viable sustainable and successful business opportunity here ahead, they could consider tabling a bid to take out Minority shareholders - at what price I wonder....

Now there is an interesting topic to debate.

Wonderful sunny weekend in Doncaster. Sorry it was raining where you clowns are.

Gee whizz guys. How much longer until you realise you are being strung along here

You keep telling me what I am saying Cloo. You seem to enjoy doing that. All being well you will get something right, soon.

Hope you and yer da have a nice weekend.

Wrong yet again. You guys are the ones that say I am the expert in Botswana. Not even a subtle difference - no doubt you wont agree.

I mean really - come on Cloo. Stop making an absolute tool of yourself man.

No need to answer

Deny ??!!! I stand by it 1,000 per cent. 8 per cent was a pathetic outcome. The only thing more pathetic is your child-like efforts to think otherwise. Are you really so dumb.

If you say so Cloo.

Maybe we should swap profile names then.

Likewise - and what a foul mouthed one you are yourself !

Wrong again brad - I was not poo-pooing powr generation at Selemo. I was simply saying power generation on site there was not in the quantity and volume you seem to think. Why? Because it is a base camp with minimal electricity needs, such that it would never make economic sense to keep a CBM reservoir being used to draw feedstock therefrom. The cost of doing this; field staff to man equipment, gas extraction from the gas/water mix, never mind keeping a horizontal well that cost 2m dollars to drill in constant production to run a kitchen and lights and perhaps an occasional air conditioning unit running. This would make Zero economic sense given only petty cash expenditure amounts are being saved - and as you love to remind us, TG is no fool and parsimonious to a fault.

Just goes, yet again, to demonstrate how blinkered, blind-sided and monocular view the cheerleaders take here; Brad in particular. But i know you guys are too soft to take issue with him..

You should not speak about Brad like that TB. Disrespectful.

As for a generator capacity - does that mean it was switched on and in use throughout. Really and truly, some basic assumptions used as foundations for opinions here are worse than elementary school.

And YES, Tlou is finally close to its goal of joining the 'grid' - it had better go well dont you think. Because if it doesn't - what might that mean...... Yet more dewatering, wells not performing, flow rates and gas composition problems, ...... Not much scope for many more excuses here - except for the 4 cheerleaders here who believe everything they are spoon fed.

As for Brad second message - utter drivel. Complete and utter shoite !

For starters - amount of elecrticity needed at camp is negligible and i would be confident they shut wells down for extended periods rather than keep flaring methane unnecessarily. Remember we had covid for best part there of 3 years.

And dewatering - given they talked so much about dewatering previously, then stopped and then drilled elsewhere, it would not surprise me in slightest if there was problems with the horizontal wells collapsing in on itself. Of course I have no proof on this - all i will say is the amount of time to dewater a well according to Brad (remembering Saint Tony said Botswana coals were the best he ever saw) is some kind of Guinness World record feat. My sense is Tlou have not been open and honest with the market on this; same as for gas flows and composition. If there was GOOD NEWS here, we would have been told. Fact !!

And please stop talking about how much money was made previosuly - it is totally irrelevant now. Anyone with a brain following CBM in Botswana knows there is no correlation; Tony thought he could replicate himself. Sadly for him and us - he has not been able to do that. History means diddly squat Jeremy Clarkson here !

Never read so much tripe in me life. For Brad to accuse me of being the centre of attention and to remind us this message board is to discuss Tlou - well, I rest my case. Nuff said.

And completely fanciful to think I am trying to manipulate the price of a stock listed on AIM downwards via a message board. Again nuff said - anyone that thinks i, or any of us here, have that 'power' well then you are as stupid as he is.

2p or not to pee - that is the question we will all be facing (if in the UK) in about 7 hours time.

But Tlou at 2p, with a finish line of some sort in sight just says how badly out of favour this stock presently is with the market. Too many times bitten - so now Tlou and Tony need to demonstrate more tangible results.

Hard to do when there is 1.5 billion shares potentially in issue - oh i forgot again, nobody here thinks that is important.

I am starting to get a little worried about you Clooless. Maybe get your friend to check in on you.

Not for me to tell you what to post - BUT - I think you are losing your audience. But i hope you keep posting same same. It just keeps adding to this totally destroyed mesage board thanks to you, Brad and others. Keep up the good work; I'm lovin it !!

Such a light bulb moment for me today - realising you guys take solace in endeavouring to get me on your hook. I guess that is your way of avoiding facing your reality of years more to go for Tlou before it a) has a viable business; b) generates meaningful revenue; c) even longer to distributable profits; d) payback on your investment.

Stupid me realised that years ago. Something I faced up to accepted back in the day. But you lads, well you all seem to still have that journey of 'enlightenment' still ahead. Enjoy.

Brad - you filtered me. So stop talking about me please. It just destroys further an already badly destroyed message board.

I know that you chose your profile name really appropriately.

Must be fun for you to keep posting telling me what I dont know. The Fab 4 here seem to get their kicks doing that. Well as long as they are happy .......

How do you know what I have run?

It is you that thinks I know better the professionals in the oil and gas industry.

Most people would appreciate if someone posts articles appearing in local press where they have invested their money. Not here though. No class; no grace; and now making disparaging remarks about 3rd world countries and Doncaster. What a truly delightful bunch of happy Tlou investors we have inhabiting this board.

I guess you just find it tough to not react or respond. keep it coming, I am here to help you work out your frustrations with involvement in Tlou. I sympathise with your pain.

I mean ... really ... is that the best you can offer. You must be tired - good you are off for a snooze.