Member Info for in4cedros

Soup - our exchange to date has been about whether there is a specific production targets for 2019 - I had hopes you might have been able to point out where LK has set them - something I might have overlooked - but you've failed in that challenge and now, to cover your embarrassment, you now wish to somehow associate it with my personal shareholding details.

I wouldn't even give those to Petersalkeld, who I believe is well intentioned, so it's pretty unlikely I'd divulge to some random scum-bag who seems to have difficulty grasping the concept of a fact and evidence!

Soup - I think you are beginning to understand - yes there was a target for 2018 of 1000 bopd which was met.

In the same January rns revealing the target achievement LK advised the change of production policy going forward - with no specific target that I can recall - if you've seen one produced by CERP just quote me the evidence.

If you came on here criticising LK for not providing production targets in 2019 that would be fair comment but facts are facts - if mine are wrong and there is a target please share it with us and I'll certainly apologise for misleading !

joebop - re your posts about Ritson - it's clear to me he destroyed shareholder value in this company by following a reckless strategy, which failed, with borrowed money that he couldn't afford to repay - almost bankrupting the company.

Soup - I'm all for fair comment and that last rns gave anyone with a decent knowledge of CERP plenty of opportunities for adverse criticism.

You have, however, selected the end of year target 1000 bopd. That was achieved but if you actually read the rns it's quite clear that LK wasn't rolling over that target for 2019 as he said he would be concentrating on profitability per barrel going forward.

Despite his pronouncement he wasn't able to turn the taps off immediately so there were some periods of high production in Q1 detailed in the April rns.

Hope that clarifies matters for you - if I've missed something and you are able to evidence a specific production target for 2019 I'd be delighted to take it on board!

Dross - I'm not sure how LK will manage without your hourly Input!

Noticed TRIN are becoming aggressive risk takers with the HAW - you'd better look that up on wicki and then tell the board over there they shouldn't be taking such risks without your permission or do you only do that if you are not a shareholder- noticed AMER also drilled a duster - did you warn them constantly about the risks!

johnjunior - must endorse the point Daz made - I don't believe most people have a problem with traders - it's the blatant manipulation, often by misinformation, that I find objectionable plus the Goebbelisation saturation campaign.

Dross - it doesn't bother me you if you don't watch the video but it is likely to be you having your credibility called into question by those that do bother to watch.

When LK makes a comment about the likely drill cost it's reasonable to assume it is a considered statement probably based on quotes he may have obtained - the alternative would be to believe LK is bothered about the trash you write and has deliberately floated a false figure to thwart your cash burn agenda- only to be ' found out ' in a few months time!

1750 - I don't just make stuff up like Dross here is a quote from Paul Baay earlier this year talking tough:-

If oil prices stay at this level for the next two to three years onshore gas development in T&T doesn't work economically. That leaves two options, he said - You've got to either look for somewhere else to spend your money or just don't spend it and THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS WE ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW !

Subsequent to this tough talking he announced the Ortoire Placing which surprised me at the time but not once I had read about the minimum drill obligations THIS YEAR AND NEXT !

I'm supportive of PB and LK to get the rules changed but I also like facts and don't care for manipulative spin as promulgated by Goebbels Dross!

neon - as was said at the time the rig deal wouldn't be st some vast discount - LK was more interested in quality of service and equipment.

The lower cost suggests to me shallower drilling - ability to test infrastructure pending the big push.

1750 - I don't follow TXP very closely which is why I asked you a question recently about them but I'm standing by my comment as the rns dated 27/03/2019 stated re Ortoire :-

We continue to focus on advancing our internally identified exploration prospects on the property in order to complete OUR FOUR WELL DRILLING OBLIGATIONS IN 2019 and 2020.

Don't shoot the messenger 1750! I only bothered to research it because Dross was putting it about that LK should take masterclass lesson from Paul Baay re grasping Placing money - my speculation is Paul Baay had the Magnum to his head over those obligations - possibly if he had the chance he might have delayed it because he is in a high profile lobby campaign to get SPT changed and delaying exploration adds negotiating pressure.

Unlike Dross I'm happy to debate other points of view - I'm not anti TXP I wish everyone well there but I'm not keen on Dross misleading people here!

GRQ - that spending target for the first drill was notable - explains why he is not unduly concerned about the cash balance and spending part of it.

Does mean we are unlikely to see a return of cash burn/placing agitation.

The development outside Trinidad appears to be significant focus in the short term and I wish him luck with that as I believe he's saving a good bit of energy for that venture.

Re SPT we had similar types of argument in UK re Stamp Duty on house purchase - took ages to get the graduated scale which to me was a no brainer - hopefully these chats with Heritage might eventually achieve something - Paul Baay singing from same hymn sheet but obliged to proceed with new drills because of minimum work obligations.

Not clear what he was sorting out with Heritage re Inniss Trinity meeting - possible renegotiated IPSC - would be great but wouldn't hold my breath!

understanding the significance

Dross - re your analysis of rns priority clearly there should have been an IMO in there somewhere. My advice to you would be to read the whole announcement then you won't appear foolish by not underim he significance of profitability claims made by CEO.

Re the cash balance I'd want to consider that in context - eg if it was virtually zero and LK's had pre paid the first drill I wouldn't have a problem with it. Alternatively he may have spent cash elsewhere on worthwhile projects which he will need to justify.

You make the mistake of believing LK should run the company how you want him to even though you have a low opinion of him and are not a shareholder - you are allowed an opinion but shareholders opinions are more important!

Dross - I know you are selective in your rns reading - it's why you were very slow to pick up on the LK profitability claim for Q1 2019 in the last update but in the same rns it also referred to drilling a compartment well on South Erin - wouldn't surprise me if that's happened - I'm certainly looking forward to being updated shortly!

Dross - if you thought LK 's record was sub-optimal in some way why did you so enthusiastically embrace his appointment and Ramp the Shyte out of CERP when it suited your position ?

wraith - cogent response !

Magoo - that's what these boards are all about - everyone entitled to their own view on these matters and I hope you're right!

CDM - please note my posing frequency is very much related to troll posts - I've noticed Dross's momentum is reduced when the wind is taken out of his sails by positive company news - that LK claim in last rns about profitability in Q1 forced his cash burn train into a siding and possibly towards the scrap yard - if LK maintains positive momentum with his update you may well see a great deal less of me in the future !

CDM - have a look at advfn and the way jsgswims controls the thread - it's not an ideal system as it relies on one person's judgement - he/she does a great job and is very tolerant but I know the monitor has the power to exclude me if I become too irritating!

Now contrast with the LSE position. If my life depended on it I know I would prefer LSE because provided I complied with their rules i could carry on posting even if 99.9% of posters disagreed with me.

There are many great supportive posters on here but I'm not convinced I've seen anyone emerge who is prepared to research and present counter arguments to Dross, consistently, in a way that makes me feel comfortable I can take a permanent back seat here in supporting my investment - Dross makes some good points at times but he appears reluctant to consider alternative views ( more filters than B&H!) - he is knowledgeable about the company and has a great ability to be selectively manipulative.

This board historically has been one where tetchy exchanges have taken place - if you asked shareholders would they have preferred less exchange and more SP growth I believe 100% would have foregone the sometimes very tedious spats but if and true stories don't align as often as most of us would like !

thechancers - knew it wouldn't be long before Dross contributed - I'm happy to agree that a disappointing update would be negative for the SP but I don't pretend to have KPI at my fingertips that allows me to review LK's rns and come to the conclusion that Dross does not to believe them. Dross has a trolling deramping agenda here on a Goebbelistic scale and style the like of which I've never seen anywhere else!

Leaving Dross aside anyone wanting more reassurance about the resurgence here should await the update - whatever the update says I'm absolutely confident that Dross mislead readers on here either as an indulgence or to support a negative position on the stock - at one stage he offered to cease posting in exchange for financial inducement !