Member Info for in4cedros

LayLadyLay - that refinery business looks a bit risky for you but good luck anyway!

Rossa - re your post of 23:23 Sunday and the follow up 09:26 thanks for clarifying that Petrotrin think SWP is the way forward ' both on land and offshore ' - de ramping is tolerated here but inconsistent tosh talking will be consistently highlighted!

Rossa - seems like you're letting yourself down badly now with your desperate stance.

When you were ramping the whotsits out of this after LK came to power you never cast doubt on SWP drilling - you'd led us to believe you'd fallen out of love with LK because he hadn't got the results you wanted from Goudron and he's spending cash.

Now you want us to believe that SWP is not worthwhile pursuing because if it was any good it would have been explored before. Most people know it was but deep drilling is expensive and the drill broke on the last one many years ago so it needs to be approached carefully which is the plan LK has advanced which you always ignore when you comment on it.

No one believes the drilling is risk free but with the LK plan shareholders get the opportunity to participate in that risk and reap rewards without Shyte or Bust fund raising which appeals to many - if you don't see the benefit that's fine no one is obliging you to invest or even comment on here bit it's rather odd you are scratching around for weaker and weaker arguments !

Benjie - I would speculate that most shareholders would have expected AAU to pay for the road to be deviated around the pit and this was factored in to pit design. I was surprised at the way Kerim handled the news from the Turkish Government as were some shareholders hence the chat on advfn and here. AAU have a NED who should be looking after shareholder interests so he should have reminded Kerim that it would have been worth fronting up the news at the earliest opportunity, given the chat at the America Square meeting - he’s also the guy who should have questioned if paying huge bonuses shortly after the Placing was a good idea having regard to the SP and whether salaries should have been hiked hugely.

The BOD have a nice set up now and can afford not to be too concerned with the SP for some years as the options were 5 years and the remuneration hikes insulate them from the sideways movement.

On a positive note the pit grades were excellent recently!

mojobojo - have you thought about adding FOMO to your moniker as you seem more than a bit tentative - I'm liking mojobojofomo!

Teacup - Based on personal experience I would implore you to phone for an ambulance ASAP.

Rossa - as you are accepting the VSA figure you presumably accept the basis of their calculation, which some may argue is quite conservative as the geological COS was higher at 25% but they applied only a 40% commercial factor to reduce the overall to 10%. ‘ At this point ,with an overall COS of 10% ( 25% geological and 40% commercial ) and this scaling factor means that changes to assumptions have a minimal impact on the overall valuation.Our SWP valuation remains barely unchanged therefore at 10p/share ‘ . ( Note this is just the SWP explo part of the CERP valuation! ).

Here is the bit for LLL as he didn’t seem to know how close SWP was from Soldado Platforms - ‘The SWP leases are estimated by CERP to have gross unrisked prospective resources of 1.38boe to which we have applied a 15% recovery factor based on company guidance and data from the NEARBY OFFSHORE SOLDADO FIELD.

Really glad you derampers are getting on board with the VSA projections - as I’ve said before I don’t need these COS figs to help me make up my mind about the mouth watering opportunities here but if you feel the need to rely on VSA figures I’m not going to disabuse you LOL!

VanVan - I've gone through the chronology in detail here - if you accept Kerim should be revealing the information and any financial implications in the production report I'm sure you would accept that it would have been preferable to have fronted up in the last production report - especially as he KNEW shareholders were interested in the road development - shareholder John would not then have phrased his comments in the same way and this latest debate would not have occurred.

VanVan - thanks for your thanks regarding my identification - you and regular readers are well aware of my moniker on Advfn - perhaps John wasn't - you may want to reveal you post under a different moniker on Advfn to avoid any misunderstandings

John - I post on Advfn as Arry and have run the story over there as one of the other posters mentioned the road and seemed interested in news which you have published here. I certainly have not suggested BOD have conspired to deceive shareholders but I have made the point that if Kerim had a sign in his office saying ' What would the shareholders think ' it might improve matters!

You advised you questioned Kerim at America Square about the road and others remember the exchange so he knows shareholders are interested and he gave the impression that Gov would pay for the road. According to your posts he found out soon after that this wasn't the case. All he needed to do was to communicate that in the production rns with an explanation of the financial implications, which may be not hugely significant, that would have been the end of the matter.

Instead you continued to be under the impression that Gov were paying and commented such about the Twitter photos - subsequently I listened to the media and it rung alarm bells because Kerim's phraseology was not consistent with Gov paying - I put that to you - you agreed and emailed Kerim. He replied and you posted here but although you mentioned Temporary Road we don't know what the specifications are or the cost.

I have posted that Proccea would be able to complete the work but they may have specifications for groundwork that far exceed the mine site roads and therefore involves more expense - all that is necessary is communication with shareholders - ideally all of them through rns or media to avoid this situation.

BTW I'm not advocating consulting shareholders on these matters - clearly the job needed to be done - just tell them what is happening and explain any cost implications to the company - I would have thought most shareholders would agree with that!

Irene - just noticed there was a FAQ on CERP website dealing with POS - why settle for an oily rag when you can have the answer direct from CERP - unfortunately for you they don't seem to want to put a number on it at this stage either!

faz - I would like to take this opportunity to pay homage to, probably, the longest serving poster on here!

I first became aware of faz posting in the days of the Maltese court case - I was just a reader then, as well as a shareholder.

We've seen the highs and lows of this share - detractors come and go, some are like Klingons others have chameleon like qualities but faz always looks for the positive - well done faz!

Irene I'm a bit concerned the wrong terminology is being used here - as I am optimistic I would like the alternative used POS - Probability of Success as it sounds better for the bull case than COS - Chances of Success - both are accepted technical terms for the business - when you write to VSA perhaps you could point that out to them - those rampant bulls missed a trick didn't they Irene !

Irene - I am not aware that CERP have published a COS on the SWP drill, in fact I'm not aware they have stated the site of the next drill. You would have to ask VSA for their justification of the 10% figure.

Despite my long association with CERP I don't micro manage the company but I'm happy to pay experts to do that and I will support them when the time comes to drill SWP - even if they state COS is 10% I would be happy to support the drill as I would expect them to have used all the tools possible to reduce the risk and achieve the best result. Clearly if the drill result is disappointing I will have a good cry along with everyone else but I will still have been pleased it was attempted and I was here to see it - I might change my moniker though LOL!

Bit harsh to suggest I have no clue but what I've posted is the best I can offer you - if it means you don't invest I'm pleased I've helped you with your decision. With regard to COS and the bull case for CERP I don't believe that it's top of people's concerns here and I've already suggested that to you particularly in view of the LK plan for shallower drilling initially followed by deep penetration.

LayLadyLay - i've referred to the impressive slide because it was info that's readily available - the other material has been debated here and considered by me over many years going back to the portfolio produced by ' Speculator '. I don't feel a great need to prove it to you as I'm satisfied for my own investment and I don't need to persuade LLL/ Dross/Irene to invest as there are plenty of people who apparently share my view and are prepared to run the risk particularly the way LK is planning it where it's not Shyte or Bust!

LayLadyLay - I'm surprised at you today - no horizontal drilling needed - you don't even need lateral thinking to deduce the chances of hitting the big time on SWP are very good ( Irene I didn't want to use COS in case you pressurised me to reveal a meaningless % which we would then bore everyone silly debating ).

Just to refresh your memory SWP is on the edge of the basin - geo surveys confirm same structure plus LGO sponsored ArKeX survey - last AGM showed impressive slide confirming info - plus deep drill there did hit oil historically. No guarantees LLL but I believe probabilities are good enough to risk my money - don't know what other shareholders think about the risk but LK has decided to go ahead so if they are not comfortable they should reconsider their involvement here - perhaps rekindle enthusiasm for the Post Office account I often associate with you!

You need to step up your game LLL people expect better from you!

Garnhiem - I wondered how long it would take to highlight LLL’s dropped testicle - practically scraping the floor there!

LLL- everyone knows you can see the Soldado field platforms from Cedros - even through a malaria net!

Ross - I’ve just had one of those eureka moments -what I suggest is a wee one in ten Placing at 8.1p per share. the Placee is Lind and they are prepared to loan the money to us now and allow us to repay in instalments - bet you wish you’d have thought of that dross!

Irene - if you posted you thought the COS was say 1% I’d give your opinion as much weight as VSA or dross - meaning virtually nothing. I have my own opinion about prospects in SWP and the approach of CERP BOD to the subject suits me as they will ultimately take the risk and deep drill but on a basis that is financially viable for CERP.

It was interesting for me to note in the AGM media that GS said if Predator exercised the TI option and moved more than $4 million to CERP they would probably deep drill straight away - that’s because the risk of failure could be readily absorbed without damaging long term viability of CERP - hope that helps Irene!

LayLadyLay - thanks for the history lesson - an informative post!

I’m feeling a bit provocative today so I’m going to make myself more unpopular!

Firstly congratulations on the last CERP rns - people needed to hear from LK and he turned round the SP on the day.

I am slightly less rose tinted on that subject as NR was always on about the API level and how great we were for Petrotrin but Petrotrin were not keen to offer us significant improvements to the IPSC - except the sub $50 deal which was very worthwhile, without which long term viability would have been questionable at those levels.

Petrotrin act in the interest of the Government - the IPSC contract is long standing and I expect them to honour it and keep taking the oil through the established pipelines the only difference is they will not lose $ per barrel subsidising the refinery. Petrotrin still make a good turn on the IPSC deals so I don’t see why they would want to change terms in CERP favour just because the oil is no longer refined in Trinidad - after all Petrotrin still have issues apart from the refinery so why sweeten existing deals?

In due course LK may have a better negotiating hand with Petrotrin if he can increase bopd from Goudron and certain Steeldrum assets and offer the carrot of more CapEx but I’m not hugely optimistic for a significant change of terms but I understand why LK keeps it on the agenda!