Member Info for CrustyPete

So SWLC if they still had the lion's share of the £8.7m as of 7th Feb why did they need another £4.7m ? Well if you actually read the RNS for that £4.7m raise properly it spells it out for you:

"The company led placing provides the Company with sufficient working capital to progress its planning for the next stage of the work programme in Tanzania......"

"This placing enables the Company to determine the next stage of its work programme following the success of the Tai-3 and Itumbula West-1 exploration wells."

So it was to provide the company with the ability to "PLAN" and "DETERMINE" the next stage of the work programme. Note the words "plan" and "determine" SWLC. Things that they are doing currently that amongst other things necessitates expanding the team, ordering long lead items, basin modelling, sub-surface activities and many other things.

It does not say that it provides the company with the capital to initiate or complete that work programme. If it did, do you not think they would have said so?!

I wish you well with your Euro lines Tanzania. Fingers crossed!! ;0)

And just to stop Rojo saying it - you are more likely to make a fortune on the Euro-lottery than with AEX...

No, only joking Tanz :0)

The perception of "discount" on fair value is a fairly subjective one unless through share issue and share price which is fairly transparent. I am aware of one "farm-in" that valued 50% of a company's principle asset at $35m when the anticipated revenue from that 50% is anticipated to be over $20m a year..... now who says that is good or fair value. It is a lot easier to give shareholder value away through "farm-in's" or "JV's" in my opinion as it is far more difficult to assess the immediate "cost" to shareholders.

But no matter I have to get to lunch!

That may "literally" be true Blubay, however most forms of funding involve a "dilution" of one form or another - for example a "farm-in" may raise you money but if you have to give a way 50% of your assets for that funding those remaining shares are backed by 50% less assets; once the funding has been spent every shareholder owns 50% less than they did before. The outcome is exactly the same as doubling the number of shares in issue for the same level of funding.

Both dilute the shareholders equally but by using a different process.

Dear oh dear here we go again - dilution does not mean just the issue of more shares! Well not in anyone's version of reality but FRED's. There are umpteen ways of being diluted.

Yes Blubay I would agree but we are, as you have indicated some way off being in a position to do that; indeed much of what you point to forms a large part of the feasibility study mentioned yesterday in the RNS and interview; which is not expected to be complete for 6 months yet (and then some perhaps). I was half expecting them to give some hints on the hiring out of the rig yesterday but rather than that they seemed to suggest the opposite; that they had it in a state of readiness for our own use? If that interpretation is correct I do not see how they can avoid raising again pre EWT and certainly before appraisal well drilling.

Anyway enough of this I am off up to London for lunch. Wish you all well.

This is AIM FRED - capital raising is the name of the game. He1 has no income and a large development programme. It needs funding. So "no" FRED I am not guessing, it is an inevitability, the only questions are when and how. So until you tell us all what that non-dilutive funding option is I will be assuming that when it happen and how ever it happens it will be dilutive and I will be ready to take advantage of it.

So what is that non-dilutive funding option that you are going to offer to change my mind FRED?

I don't know when there will be a raise FRED but I am convinced that there will be; a cap raise of one form or another - it is a question of when, not if. If so, I will be ready. If I am wrong I am happy with those I already have :0)

So what is that non-dilutive funding source then FRED?

FWIW Wimbledon I think that is a really good price to be buying more - I would be doing the same but keeping my powder dry for the next raise.

Total silence I see from FRED - has nothing to say except that black is white; because he says so....

So what's "incorrect" FRED, please correct me? What are those non-dilutive options then? Just saying "incorrect" does not make it so Lol! Are you going to give them an interest free loan?

I ma perfectly chilled FRED - it seems that your form of "banter" only plays one way eh?

A "loan" requires the payment of interest; something that He1 could not support and hence is not going to happen this side of production. Unless of course they do so through a Death Spiral loan, which repays interest through issuing more equity FRED.

Yes I would agree any form of funding, dilutive or not may be good for shareholders but that was NOT the question - and, as you have proven, you cannot come up with any options available to He1 that is non-dilutive. QED

Nonsense Doggydic, I have been quoted 1.285 for 500,000

I already have CODEFRED. As I said earlier a JV a Farm-out, a "death spiral" loan are all dilutive - not issuing more shares to get funding does NOT mean that it is NOT dilutive; is you give away 50% of your future income to get the funding it is dilutive you "plonker"!

Is it your lack of intelligence or your refusal to accept anything that defeats your simplistic agenda that means you cannot see that?

Common sense is different for different people RJ, hence it is your strategy, in my view. I may read the situation similarly but choose not to apply the same logic - a different strategy. Hold and buy on the dips is my strategy. As someone said earlier unless you can afford to sit and watch the intraday movements being out of the market could become an issue.

Come on FRED, what's the answer? What methods of non-dilutive funding can He1 avail themselves of?

So CODEFRED please explain. A JV, farm-out, "death-spiral" lending, company led funding, rights issue... etc. all come with dilution in one form or another and, as He1 has no income, they are precluded getting a conventional "loan" or "bond" as they cannot make interest payments. So pray tell what those "many ways" of non-dilutive funding might be?

I agree 100% flava. As I have always said there is still a lot of uncertainty here and that i what creates the volatility in the sp. One reason that my holding is now larger than it ever has been (buying on the dips) and why I do not subscribe to RJ's strategy is that I perceive the risk to reward ratio of He1 to be tremendous. Yes that means you have to be able to ride the volatility and "fund" the dilutions (so as not to lose shareholder value). And I accept that I may have to do that for a little longer yet. Once I no longer have the financial bandwidth to continue that strategy I may have to reconsider. Either stomach the affects of volatility and dilution or follow RJ's strategy.

Yes Discodog but only implement those steps if or when the EWT confirms that they have a commercial discovery.

I may keep a few Rojo, just so that I can attend the AGM and report on it for the likes of you and others who, despite living in London, can never be bothered to attend! ;0)

In truth yes I may keep a few but I will certainly be selling the lion's share of my holding and, likely as not, I will revert to my more usual tag of "Hold". As I have always made clear the tag I choose to apply is not a "recommendation" it just reflects my current "attitude". If I am or have been buying it will be "Buy" but after retirement I will certainly not be buying any more.