Member Info for JMAX

If it was that attractive then the directors would be buying shares.

Marcel,

Have you wised up on the Kenya agreement yet ?

YWSML :)

I appreciate all sensible views - but this stock gets pumped and dumped, and that's dangerous.

What's your rationale for this belief ?

All this talk of a T/O is nothing but desperate.

The back-in terms are plain and simple.

YWSML :)

Look at the SP........

YWSML :)

Tman,

You and the other losers have nothing left but to post child like insults.

Tman,

You have claimed to have blocked me - so how can you see my posts.

The costs for the Kenya project are estimated to be circa $3.5B, how many barrels of oil will need to be sold for these expenses to be recouped ?

Only then can TLW exercise their back-in option.

TLW have put over $1B into Kenya, and you think a deal like this is good for the longs. Why did the SP not rise when this deal was announced?

Loon,

What nonsense have I posted ?

I can destroy you with facts :)

I'm posting fact and it is no problem for me. Why has this board attracted so many people who can't handle reality.

The market reaction to the proposed deal says it all. So much for 'shorters burning'.

It is a dreadful agreement when you look how much TLW have already 'invested' in Kenya. The final $40m payment isn't due until 2033 - but some on here think TLW will get 30% of first oil.

Just a reminder as to what 'Back-in rights' are:

'A back-in right is a type of reversionary interest in an oil-and-gas lease. It entitles the assignor to a share of the working interest after the assignee has recovered specified costs from production.

For example, let's say Company A assigns an oil-and-gas lease to Company B. The lease includes a back-in right for Company A, which means that once Company B recovers its specified costs from production, Company A has the right to regain a share of the working interest in the lease'.

https://lsd.law/define/back-in-right

Marcel,

' Option to back-in for 30% of potential future development phases at no cost'

Why is the word 'option' included in this statement ?

Marcel,

Taken from the Head of Terms RNS:

'Tullow agrees heads of terms for sale of Kenyan assets for $120 million

$80 million near-term cash receipts Option to back-in for 30% of potential future development phases at no cost'

If TLW are to get 30% of production from first oil. Why then is the term 'back-in' included in this statement ?

Bullsigh,

YWSML :)

Bullsigh,

You can't answer a simple question - can you.

You won't stop me laughing :)