Member Info for jamesjohn

For fun only, here's my prediction.

1) We are required to start the process all over again, but with assurances that the procedures involved will be quicker and with time-lines given.
2) Shortly after this is announced an offer comes in, for a percentage of the asset in return for future funding.

This would be I believe a decent result, but of course I would prefer the permits to be issued immediately or at least fast tracked through the process.

Don't get me wrong, abusive e-mails are a disgrace, unfortunately these days they have become a part of life.

However the only thing that is obvious, is the constant delays to deciding on whether or not permits should be issued.
This is what he should be reviewing!

Anyone with any common sense will tell you it shouldn't take 4.5 yrs & counting to complete.

These stories are highlighting irregularities coming from our side but do not appear to suggest irregularities on their side, such as why they have taken so long.

These stories are basically one-sided. They never mention any time-lines or the process we have been through. They never mention we have been through the administrative court twice or the constant appeals we have come-up against. They never mention the frustration of the share-holders or Ascent.

I think Colin would be best advised to stay cordial, but present our side of the story and inform them that legal proceedings will start should a decision or at least a meeting is not is arranged shortly.

Sorry if these points have been mentioned, I've not had time to read them all.

From my reading of what is a fairly poor translation, it doesn't say we are being denied the permits and it doesn't say there is a problem with are application/report. It appears to comment only on the lobbying aspect.

Now considering it has taken 4.5 years to reach this point, it could be concluded that we need to do nothing other than allow them to re- examine the application. It will then depend on how long this will take, which is what we will need to wait for.

In the mean time we could as I have said in the last few weeks, inform the Slovenian government that we are starting legal proceedings, and not spend anymore on this project during this time. Assuming we can do this of course.

It all depends now on the conversation between ourselves, our partners and the Slovenian authorities as to the next step.

Yes, as far as I am aware.

Not2... I know what you mean, but you can't say the BOD are on a shoe-string. However if you employed a CEO it is difficult to find somone with experience who will work for a small amount. Most of the money goes on other things and we are a small company, we don't have the deep pockets that the big players have.

I do believe there may be a few people on here who want to bring the BOD down, not necessarily the company, but unfortunately it could do both. I don't believe you are one of them, but if shareholders only have a few shares, then clearly it won't bother them unlike the rest of us.

The BOD have made a number of errors, but the main reason for this problem is the time taken to say yes or no to the permits. No business can function without planning! 4.5 years and counting to give an answer is rediculous.
We should have had an answer at least 2.5 years ago. Changing the rules in the middle of a process and then asking us to start again was beyond a joke. You don't start a football match and change the rules in the middle.

If the authorities had given us answer 2.5 yrs ago we would have saved many a fund raise.

Statement 6) Probably I would have done the same under the circumstances.

Time for me to go, let us now wait and see what happens this week.

Statement 3) He has had no meaningful response from ARSO, and what I said previously.

Statement 2) The permit for the plant may not be a priority, but the permit for re-stimulation I imagine is.

Statement 1) True, but you could still be independent if you just use the two current wells in production.

Statement 1) I said the same below.

Statement 2) Because they are waiting on permits. 'Still negotiating' could mean they haven't ended their interest.

Statement 3) Because shareholders didn't sanction a fund raisind during last meeting when price was higher, and then realized the permit was not coming a few weeks ago due to the news article and the minister going on holiday.

Colin knew that he was now in for yet another delay.

Statement 4) Probably true.

Statement 5) Probably true.

Statement 6) The news article was in the public domain so the share price was heading down anyway. Raising funds is going to hopefully help the share price.

Best I could do, with limited time.

This is the way I view it, and I understand there are many different view points.

The fact remains regardless of whether you delay the ability to raise funds, at some point in the not too distant future you will have to raise funds to continue the second phase.

Even if the minister were to issue the permits next week, we will still require to raise funds at some point. Either
1) Because we have no offers, and we go independent.

2) We have a partner offers funding in return for a % of the asset, but we will still require are share of the costs, depending on what they offer.

Only if someone buys AST outright will we not require a fund raising, and having the ability to raise cash puts us in a stronger position.

If the minister says next week it will take a few more weeks before a decision, we will end up in the same situation, ie waiting once again for a deadline that may expire without the permits.

If the minister says he does not know how long it is going to take, then we will still need to raise funds at some point.

So almost any outcome of a meeting with the minister will probably need us to raise funds at some point, except for a full buy-out or a very good JV offer.

We have all known for a long time that phase 2 is going to cost the same as phase 1, and that requires funding!

error.... could be less.

Duster I asked you for a plan if there was a no vote. You have not provided one!

1) If the permit is awarded quickly then there is unlikely a need for a fund a raise, as most likely an offer will arise. So voting yes will give us a stronger negotiating position, voting no weakens that position. Should a fund raising happen after the permit is issued the sp will almost certainly be a lot higher than today meaning dilution cold be less.

2) If this week we are told we are going to have to wait a very long time for the permit, and we have voted no then we are going to struggle going forward. Then a very low offer comes in or nothing at all. If we have voted yes this means we at least can carry-on for a period of time and helps with any predator offer.

I feel you have very few shares invested here, but that is your business not mine, and I imagine you are not going to provide a plan for a no vote. So we will have to agree to disagree and move on.

Enjoy your weekend everyone!

Food calling! Have to go.

Let's hope next week we receive news on a meeting taking place so we can get some answers plus an official time-line.

WHY.... It is unlikely that Colin wants to walk away from the SR. He is just more concerned that if the permits take too long to be issued, and no offer materializes, then he can keep the company going. I think he maybe talking about the permit for the plant not the permit for re-stimulation, when he says the permit is not the issue for some parties. However I do find that hard to believe, but INA is one that could do it without the plant.

I'm still waiting for your amazing plan with a no vote.