Member Info for ericnat17

Hi Trellis

I do not think any of my questions relate to JP. I am a little surprised that a high number from other investors do.

I can understand why people are unhappy with JP, but I do not want a witch hunt I want information about the deal, the status of sound and sidi.

This is going to be difficult balancing act for you to represent us, but I am sure you will do an excellent job.

Eric

That 9% represents approx $200 million worth of gas.

Sorry should say the SP does not represent the value of out asset.

Don’t forget we have approximately $900 million worth of gas

Hi mah

We can all see the SP does represent the value of our asset. But it does represent what the market thinks of this deal. I do not want to accept 10p, but I would.

Remember Malcy Blog, a couple of minutes after the RNS. Making out the dal was worth 17p per share. I posted the other day that the purchaser is baying $160million for 25% of the license to get to first gas. Who is to say that we did not get offers similar.

I can believe that we got offers of 12-15 p share to buy us outright, but that deal would not suit JP, he has to try again and unlock the basin.

If there is a choice I would take 10p a share now, I can not speak for anyone else.

Hi Jez

Glad to see someone making money. Well done buddy.

I think we will be waiting a couple of years here.

500k buy order just below the bid

into the 3s
taking out stop loses
L2 13V37

this is taking the ****sss

Hi Crude

I think we are agreeing. The 9% is not in the interest of Sound shareholders in any way.

It will take us down to a very unhealthy 14%. The revenue will obviously be taken down to 14%. The issue is that we will using some of our revenue to keep the lights on and further exploration. The is nothing left to distribute.

Hi Jez
Its a shame you could not stay until the end.

Good luck with EUA.

HI SO
The RNS was title Agreement - and the some details of the agreement including the JV and 9% where included in the RNS. JP has provided more details about the deal in emails to me (which I have posted).
I think this is the perfect time to request that part of the deal is removed. It will be difficult if not impossible to get it removed once the deal is signed.

Hi Riddlers

I have questions and have posted some of the answers, but not all. I have like others a response of wait and see.

The share price is being constantly eroded, from L2 it looks like another bad day. I think most if not all PI can see the damage this deal is doing to the already under pressure company value. The black hole of the JV which is going to contain all of our license is not good. But this 9% is just too much.
With the help of Exploration it appears that we may have difficulty keeping hold of sidi, due to lack of undertaking work commitments.

Many investors have now joined with Trellis to initiate communication with the chairman. Trellis is collecting questions and we start a controlled action at the end of this week.

Hi

I think we can agree on one thing. the 9% needs to be removed from the deal. That is a very clear and unambiguous message to the company.

L2 would agree with that Trader

This is why it is so important to support trellis. if not by the time the Deal is up for the vote the shareholder value will be far worse and then we will all vote yes

Hi Riddlers

the RNS is clear the 9% is undertaken at the same price and carry ratio as the rest of the deal. Therefore if the JV is overspending on the initial infrastructure we may be diluted to support the overspend.

There is Zero Benefit for us and massive benefit for the "private anonymous" purchaser.

Hi PS

What is concerning me is that this deal is weak, and JP appears to be saying he still needs to get it over the line. Sounds like he is preparing us for plan C. Which maybe better than plan B.

Hi mahat

I have asked questions with the response “let’s wait until the deal is signed”
So hopefully Trellis may get more answers from the Chairman.
With this specific issue I am trying hard to see the benefit for Sound, so when you cannot find one you have to look for reasons the purchaser might need it.

The BB is here for debate, we all debate and post in different ways. By the way can’t spell either.

We are concerned about the 9% the purchaser may want to exercise.

If you read the RNS, the 9% is undertaken at the same carry ratio as the rest of the deal. Therefore if the JV is overspending on the initial infrastructure we may be diluted to support the overspend.

I can now see the real reason for this 9%, it is not about how attractive the purchaser see the license, it’s about how much money sound may need to provide to get to first gas. Now you know why this 9% is there, IMO.

This is just an example of some of the questions the Trellis is being provided with.

Hi Trellis

You have got my questions. I would love all of them to be answered.

Eric

More than happy for Trellis to represent my views. He knows what my concerns are.