Member Info for isas

Bat: as usual they had a get out clause saying it was out of their control, so it was non committal, but they need to re-assure the market that it is proceeding or some sort of progress is being made, don't want to find out like Mercuria walk out in the last minute, being a quoted company Vast bod need to show some professionalism and sensitivity of the market situation.

Finance is the main issue to resolve at the moment, we are at the end of the 8th week of the 3to 6week indicative period, they surely need to update the market, even just to say they are on track.

Yes I think he has parked the Bus- we have to get some traffic on Vast bb, it's so depressing at the moment.

I would much prefer it if went back to 0.6p and settled and hovered around there, don't like sitting on 250% plus devaluation of my stock.

We must be in the 7th week for the Mercuria replacement funding.

Yes about time too, some clarity on funding desperately needed.

Sandy: it probably is, But why do pay lawyers extravagant amounts to construct contracts, when a party can walk away from their obligations and in the process cause irrevocable damage to the company. Why not shake hands and say we can screw each other when ever we feel like it? Of Course I am being facetious, as FHP has alluded there is no rns to state that Mercuria have reneged on their contract, it's another of AP's bs statement made off the cuff. In the interests of balance and fairness, if the board have not told the complete truth we should criticise and try to hold the culprits to account, Shareholders interests are not best served by falling into blind support or plain opposition.

If that is actually the case then shouldn't Vast be suing Mercuria?

Sandy: In those negotiations they have a strong hand, Vast being operators would/ could vast need to sell their 25% to a third operating company?

Lee thanks for a very comprehensive update and a very logical set of observations and their interpretation. I agree that PP should be divested, however, as you mention SSG are using us a incubator and the with Mercuria letting us down, surely they (SSG) have got vast over a barrel, why would they play ball, surely from their perspective they would want to squeeze us?

Starvest- I think shareholders should be demanding a full update on the Manaila and truck issues, otherwise they have told a straight lie and the Nomad needs to take some action.

Fools thanks for your take of the interaction. Wonder if someone mentioned on point 23 that enhancing company value and short term shareholders interests are not mutually exclusive.

Sandy: Yes we both agree and the most annoying thing is that things are mentioned and then not followed up, no proper accountability, we the shareholders have support the company according to a story that the bod have concocted, the least we deserve is a honest narrative even if there are hiccups. We pay them good money and that should be reflected in consequences if things don't go as suggested. Lets hope there are some honest reflections at the meeting this afternoon and some conclusion to negotiations after re-allocation of the headroom.

Sandy- yes I agree there is a difference between the scale and regulation of different type of finance lenders, especially lending to a buoyant rising property market but repeated the analogy as Pepco had mentioned it. However, AP and the rest of the bod are paid very good money to resolve these matters in a timely manner and they can't just mention passive hopes. I recall beck in Oct or November in one of the podcasts he was saying the financial institutions were clambouring over him and that was going to be his main focus going forward and what did we get back for all his efforts? Bergen.

So in essence they can spin us for however long and at the end still say no, like Mercuria did. surely there has to be a finite timescale when the decision needs to be made in principle? the last time I applied for a mortgage a number of them lenders gave me a definite time scale to come up with the decision provided I gave them the information they wanted within a certain timescale.

Pepco and Sandy- yes those are the get out or wash their hands sort of comments that AP has made but it shouldn't be the offtakers and lawyers have should have been given clear deadlines to come up the goods in a timely manner. We can't afford to repeat the Mercuria saga again. By just washing their hands by saying it is out of Vast's hands is not good management, they need resolve issues by targeted timelines and there should be consequences if they don't happen within timelines. The shareholders should be demanding focus and attainment of goals, after all the delaying are costing the company significant monies for upkeep of assets.

Fantasy and then very quickly discarded because we can't afford the HP payments.

Fools if you table that if they could deliver a visible strategy with landmark targets against which their performance could be judged. Appreciate some feedback, don't let them fob you off, good luck.

Bonker-If only we were producing, would be nice to know we have broken through to the sulphides at PP.

Sandy- Hopefully AP and the bod invest a few pounds into a good quality super glue and discretely apply it into the palms of recipients of future issues.