Member Info for dunderhead

Smasher apologies I should have been clearer, I was of course writing that in the context of TXP being one of the organisations that were being contacted NOT external public agencies for which I do absolutely agree with you actually!! They don't want to be bombarded or deluged with letters from disgruntled small investors in a small
abeit relatively important foreign owned E&P company!!
Apologies for not being clearer there!

What about the damage done to personal investors who bought shares based on RNSd statements regarding COHO development and PBs informal paid PR videos that quite frankly up until the last one or two look absolutely laughable now.
What about the "management" using 80 day estimates for EIA approval when this has been found to be "way off the average" marks as per recent Guardian article?
Do you not think these people have a right to be p***ed off too Smasher? So what if "management" get p***ed off, are you implying that will affect our investments further negatively and in what way may I ask?!
All IMHO and DYOR of course.

Actually Bev Smith (ex BG?) does have I believe but I certainly don't "rate" her as being a good fit for the current requirements of the management team however ironically probably better than some others there, lol.
All IMHO of course and as ever DYOR.

HS, Christ - "Fingers crossed" - lol!
By the way three quick things 1. Certainly was not criticising you for contacting the newspapers and 2. Wanted to personally thank you for all your efforts with regard to contacting the various agencies. Really great efforts. 3. I am also in contact with the company - as I am sure a lot of other disgruntled private investors are as well!
Best of luck all. Shouldn't need it and upset at where we are but, that's the way it is.

Well I certainly hope you're right HS and agree the press exposure could just as equally produce your suggested outcome, as my suggestion, so let's see what happens. I am a little concerned though if it were that simple, why didn't the company follow that strategy? I'm assuming, because they are potentially less in charge of the narrative?
To be clear I didn't say mine was a definite outcome just a suggested one and obviously as a holder hope you're correct.
Got to admit am tempted to buy a few more if it drops down to 50p'ish' but, it's a long summer so will wait for the moment.

Ezhik again I don't agree - you keep on going on about EIA (planning) equivalent here in UK?
What's the relevance - we are talking T&T but regardless there is a world of difference between your planning consents and EIA for E&P project (with genuine safety issues) - so again don't get your point - UK is full of NIMBY's etc but this is not the case as much in T&T and basically whilst I fully appreciate "some" of the information they require may be tedious in nature and difficult to quantify - just get on with it and if "wholly unreasonable" - 1. then move that issue elsewhere and lobby accordingly internally with more senior personnel.
I stated both parties are to blame here (as I "feel (IMHO)" TXP were too relaxed in some of their approach) and if the government want something - you generally just ask how high - NOT put off the question and hope it goes away??!
If 1. does not work then try 2. Lobby again (!) with well connected former employees (now EIA 3rd party contractors) who still have friends in high places who can explain clearly where appropriate, about the unreasonable irregularities required.
Let me be clear I am absolutely not talking bribes but there are other ways of getting things worked out.
My issues are - the local paper the guardian today talked of significantly longer "average" time of approval so why base all planning on an unrealistic 80 days and over promising and under delivering?
As a result now (worryingly) this is much more in the public glare and this is where people really start to dig their heels in and things can take even longer to solve and other diplomatic solutions become much more difficult to attain.
Re your issue re sound emissions - I do sympathise - I wanted to extend a business of mine which "may" have had potential longer term genuinely acceptable sound impacts but I would have worked with everyone involved locally to reduce these impacts as I am a fair man and wouldn't like what I was proposing to be "imposed" on myself (without some form of mitigating measures in place) - unfortunately planning would not allow this at all - due to one "well connected" individual who lived locally - I could have done exactly the same thing with sound monitoring etc but it was relatively expensive and tedious - so I just walked - taking quite a bit of (relevant - nothing like your project) investment locally and f him off by having a loud outdoor party pretty regularly but not often enough to get me into trouble - which causes him far more inconvenience than which I was originally proposing.
I don't understand your point regarding pigeon cooing though - because all of the sound data should be recorded with relevant measurements at the time and if it were non site related then surely it would be identified as such? Are you saying that the monitoring equipment is live fed to your site and if it exceeds a certain level then you have to close?
In which case that does sound wholly unreasonable !!
As ever all IMHO

Even I'm positive now for IOG !
It does seem an absolute bargain at this price and as alluded over on ADV I may have to bring my average price up a little in the near(ish!) future!
All IMHO and best of luck all.

Trek - they have had plenty of time during this period to ascertain the expected requirements and it seems TXP are puzzled and confused by this situation?!
EIA is obviously a massive controversial "world" issue and should have been recognised as such a big challenge from day one with appropriate respect, professionalism and resource, allocated towards this issue.
TXP are not coming out of this "smelling of roses" at the moment, IMHO.
The share price tells us a story as well, methinks.
DYOR of course.

Thanks very much for clarification Johnoxxx

HLM, well if they are - which I very much doubt - that is also an unacceptable "excuse" (not reason!).
The EIA should of course be written for the area it is submitted for and anything else is beyond crass.
I certainly do not think that is the case - I think it is sloppy overview of the final submission and poor communications - if anything is not understood by either party - get on the bloody e mail and or phone, then meet face to face summarising all such points before submission.
All IMHO and DYOR.

Ezhik, don't agree at all mate. I have worked (vicariously) with E&P HSE submissions for many years in Africa and found that good communications and meetings prior to submissions with the view to clearly understand what the "pressure" areas were and most got through either on first or second submission with relative ease.
TXP management appear to have completely over estimated their competences (whether technical or "soft") here and I think criticism is very fairly aimed at them for this. The "leaking" of the letter is atrocious and I really want to understand the source of that - as should TXP - and hope they are doing so "behind the scenes".
All IMHO and DYOR.
Best of luck all.

Johnoxxx - can you post up a link - because if this is the case then why no RNS - this is clearly absolutely not good enough.

I don't think PB has any credibility left at all does he?
Seriously he has to be in tin hat survival mode now, surely?
He is either going to look very clever in a few months time for spending all this money on Casc LLI's and transportation or and never thought I'd say this, we need strategic board changes - as I'd have always liked a small 10% placing when shares on a high - to have in back pocket with regard to what I perceived at the time (!!) was going to be accelerated development but now looks to be needed - just to keep rowing against an ever increasing tide - due to possibly erroneous capital allocations based on too optimistic deadlines?
IMHO and please DYOR.

"Roguing wild oats" that's a new one on me?

So it's a MM conspiracy?
Nothing to so with bill**** managent over promising and delivering nothing much tangible at all over last couple of years?
Do you think the masons are involved?

MMs don't give a crap about capitalisation of company - all they are there for is to create an orderly market - simple. If people think that market cap is good value they will buy - again simple.

I don't fink anyone expects it tomorrow? I certainly don't but...
Even if it were - they will not know until later in the day probably and will have to RNS the following day anyway?
All IMHO and DYOR.

1. The balance sheet structure is atrocious - but "we" all knew that when set up - a few lemons on here didn't appear to realise the significance of what was going on but it seems were just relieved the muppets who ran the company had "saved it" by giving the institutions and LOG "free / ridiculously cheap" shares - but hey ho - it kept them in jobs and ultra cheap options - so that is all that matters of course! Ironically because IOG made such a f up - they will likely wait as long as possible (so they can come out and say - actually we did know what we were doing, LOL!!) before they agree to sell their shares and options etc as they probably over estimate their "current" value and will have a veto for any attempted take-over - but I'm sure that wasn't the original intention of their "allocations of IOG"!!
So for long termers (like myself) this aint such a bad thing.
2. I can (dummy) sell past 520k shares and have given up as got bored so that implies there is (some) "interest" in the shares? Couldn't (dummy) sell 720k - so in between these is the "limit". I have IOG spread amongst different providers and different accounts.
All IMHO and DYOR and best of luck folks.

Junky you'll have to message me on ADV - still can't get in, lol!!

I'm still getting invite invalid reply!!