Member Info for cbaron

Fatty,

An article was posted. I watched and listened to it. The poster cherry-picked a couple of points which were clearly intended to place the situation of the PANR presentation and the Q&A in a positive light. I added comments about, not only the PANR element, but the start of the Hilcorp presentation which highlighted some of the disquiet we've seen from those in the Alaskan Legislature who are concerned about the giving of land tax relief. Without that relief Glenfarne have clearly stated that the LNG pipeline is unviable.

If you disagree with my interpretation then say so, but I like to review all information dispassionately, good and bad. If you think it's bad attitude then so be it but don't label me negatively for your own warped sense of values. Must we all post rockets at every opportunity to be found acceptable in this little community?

I am long, whether you like it and can accept it, or not. I object to being accused of dishonesty by someone who clearly does not know me.

Correction

Line 3 should have read 'were' not 'weren't'.

If that was a 'Boom' I suspect it will have blown up in their faces.

What a truly underwhelming performance - I'm surprised the committee were still awake at the end of it.

Unfortunately, they weren't, as they asked some telling questions in regard to permitting which Galvin stumbled over and also FID of the PANR project where he went one better and fell flat on his face.

Galvin talked about the gas flowing with the oil and I'm surprised the committee did not pick up on the fact that no oil is yet flowing and they are openly looking for partners. That must leave questions about when they will deliver the gas to help make the pipeline feasible.

Interestingly, the Hilcorp man who comes next started by saying there wasn't much he could say about his own agreement with AGDC/Glenfarne as it was bound by an NDA.

I can't see how any of this would help the Legislature in making a positive decision about the economics of the pipeline as it appeared not to allay any fears as to viability.

I say Squidgames, how terribly thoughtful of you old chap for such a supportive and meaningful contribution.

This goes back to the style of old JS when he used to be based in the Yorkshire Dales and sat at the corner of the bar in a pub in West Burton and bragged about stylish cars and such.

We then went through the bluff self-made man stage - left school at 15 with no education (no surprises there then!) and here we are with oodles of shares and hob-knobbing with the great and the good at Wentworth. Not forgetting that we know Spencer personally.

Have I missed anything out?

Siggins,

When you start talking about the share and not the individual shareholder you may be worth listening to.

Have a nice day.

I don't 'object' to the price rising. It would be both futile and silly. What I object to are those who constantly ramp without any substantiation or reasoned justification and without a balanced judgement which at least recognises risk. As an example, why don't you give us your own thoughts on the forthcoming Alaskan vote on land tax and its potential impact on the LNG project, for and against?

I hold shares and have done for many years. I'm certainly not a phoney and nor are the points that I make and nor are the justifications behind them. My post this morning was merely directing others to some of the more sensible and justified arguments on Discord. There are points there too which actually don't support some of my own views, but that's balance for you.

Siggins,

Read and digest, or not, I don't really care. You offer absolutely nothing other to support the blatant, ramping, unsubstantiated nonsense. You critique others offering an alternative view without actually commenting on their opinions and content.

You are valueless here and, I would hazard, in life in general.

Interesting debate over there in the last few days which may explain market jitters.

Lack of obvious partner.

Requirement to refinance if farmout doesn't happen.

Past failures, and most important

Several large investors looking for their b/e exit point to leave as soon as possible.

Lots of other stuff too - all there to analyse for yourselves but a little more substance to read than clucking rockets.

"vile and offensive comments"?

I think we can leave those in your capable hands, James.

Look no further back than 09.36 today - what an utter disgrace!

....and all of the rockets and unsubstantiated ramping?

...oh, that's OK.

....for the recent rise - none whatsoever.

....for today's fall - that there was no justification for the rise.

Simples.......

😲

...only a week ago we were waiting for a make or break binary decision from the Alaskan legislators which would almost certainly impact the decision -makers in the potential farm-in/out partners and now we're back off to the moon. It must be the heat!!!!!

The decision of the Alaskan State legislature remains one in the hands of its members in a single vote at some time over the coming days by 19 June at the latest.

It is clear that some members are unhappy that they feel Glenfarne have not been sufficiently transparent in updating costs and nor have they updated the beneficial forecast gas prices which will ultimately be available to the population of Alaska. To that extent they cannot see the updated calculation of benefits, yet they are being asked to forego $Bns in possible property tax revenues. Their argument appears simple, 'show us the costs and benefits and we'll consider the relief'.

On the face of it that does not appear unreasonable. We should understand it, given what we've experienced with HS2. Had the true cost been known at the time of the investment decision, it would never have been given the green light.

...another ploy ?

😎

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.............

James Simon?

...............or are you just trying to make it appear that you know something you shouldn't?

Wouldn't it be great if Mike Dunleavy had the only vote on the matter?!

5.50

...........not forgetting the binary decision of the Alaskan legislature which will have a major determining influence on the interest of any potential investment partner!

16.12

It's not unreasonable for any government anywhere to demand up-to-date development economics for a project it's being asked to fiscally support.

I commend the link posted by Scot re the Burgum/Dunleavy press conference. It demonstrates their strength of feeling for the project and its benefits but also suggests that there is significant opposition. Burgum stresses that the no more federal money will be committed unless the state sorts itself out first.