Member Info for micru

I'm assuming the formal agreement will commence Jan 1, 2022 as well. Kind of makes sense, no? So will probably be a dual-purpose RNS next week.

A new mine, with ample parking and drone parking attendants, and air conditioning, and bitcoin vending machines.

Oh these Twitter environmentalists. Tweeting from their annually bought newest iPhone lounging in their designer clothes on some IKEA furniture, sipping on some pretentious drink like a Starbucks Caramel Waffle Frappuccino.

Maneater, what is your expectation, exactly? A vertical rise in perpetuity? And with regards to RNS, the requirement is to announce any news, positive or negative, affecting company operations without undue delay. The fact that we have heard nothing is not a negative or a positive thing in itself. In fact, if it was a hard no, I would have expected that to already be known. You attach a negative bias from yourself pulling it out of a place that your mother didn't spank enough when you were little.

Moneymunch, you reckon the gov are waiting to see how the majors' drills are going to go before giving the formal approval here? Shouldn't be a factor, but just a thought.

I'd love to live in this parallel universe of yours, where a large volume sell goes through at a price not just above the bid, but above the ask as well!

If the rules of your parallel universe are opposite of the real world, doesn't it mean you can make a lot of money?

Cornish,
I think everybody on this board owes you a big thanks and a drink for your health for single-handedly carrying this board through the difficult spring and summer months.

I have learned an incredible amount from you and your posts. All the best for the new year.

Some of the staff have also been around for years. I think I recall coming across a 2017 presentation, and Eason Chen was there at the time.

Ftseinvestor, I think that's a reasonable expectation. BoD delivering aside, we really need investor sentiment to come back to more healthy levels. That will allow for more forward-looking long-term behaviour. What we seem to be observing now (AIM in general, not this share) is people being very trigger-happy on profit taking. No blame, and not something any one person can change individually. The finance is there, the plan is clear. Guess we just have to hope it all comes together.

Tilly, fairly new to this board and don't know if you have financial incentives to post, but can I just say I appreciate your positivity.

Looking forward to the "shorters' tears all round" closer.

Perhaps the read on that is:
"I was expecting short-term upside on EGM outcome RNS, it hasn't happened, so I sold out"

What usually follows is the walk of shame back into the position at a higher price.

As we go for another rise, could anyone reading this please put pressure on LSE to fix the risers' board? Still an issue with CGNR now showing up I believe. I had flagged it with them during the rise from the 20s, they acknowledged, but still not fixed.

info@lse.co.uk

Would also be good if this was brought to company attention if anyone has the right contacts.

vampirekitten,

Your post yesterday:
"What happens on weds morning if there is still no wet signature ? Will there be panic ?"

So yesterday, you were not sure.

Today, you make this definitive claim:
"Wet signature might not be until next year which means this will drift back towards 30P"

What piece of information have you obtained that moved your position from doubt to certainty? Care to share? (Rhetorical, I know the answer)

Good luck to you as well Moneymunch, may you have much more money to munch in the coming year.

To all invested, whatever may or may not happen next week, don't let it control or define your week either way. The focus next week should be elsewhere, closer to home.

Yes Moneymunch, they do say 60 days in the RNS, but context and phrasing are important. Having read the posts here prior to the actual petroleum code, I actually believed that was a strict regulatory deadline. It is not. Perhaps it was, but in a previous revision of the code, or perhaps JA is just speaking from general past experience (which has little relevance due to current circumstances and associated delays).

One of the things that does give me reassurance though, as stated by JA in his interviews - the Cameroonian government is keen on O&G developments. Part of the reason why is that, up until very recently (and possibly still), they relied quite a bit on diesel for power generation, and their power grid has been notoriously unreliable. New investment into alternative energy (hydro-electric plants), but also gas - helps to remedy that. From that perspective, I see the government as being keen on O&G exploration work. This is of course in no way a reflection on the potential success (or failure) of TRP, but from a government approval point of view - don't think I see an issue.

I actually registered out of annoyance from posts of people like OLLIE42.

"On 21 Sept they did inform us that a 60 day window was enough for them to get the deal done"

False. Direct quote:
"We cannot be sure how long the MINMIDT approval may take as it can be as long as 60 days, but we hope it will come much sooner"

They literally say CANNOT BE SURE. Are we both reading the same piece of comms? Furthermore, as others (credit to MrSmithmeister) have pointed out - too much emphasis on 60 days. If you bother to actually google the Cameroon petroleum code and search for the number 60, you will not find any such deadline. As I recall, the number 60 appears twice, both in reference to Section 60. Furthermore, in some of the previous interviews (believe it was one for LSE actually) JA directly addressed the question of more frequent comms, and his position cannot be clearer - they do not want to RNS speculative statements that they will fall short on. Of course, it is their fault here they did not account for some people's lack of intellectual capacity and had the recklessness to drop the '60 days' in there, but the irony of the phrase DYOR in this case is palpable, as people don't bother even attempting to think critically and do a simple Internet search to verify against the prime source of information (the petroleum code).

This does not mean we will get positive news. This does not affect the chances either way. But JA and the Company have in no way deceived their shareholders in this regard.