Member Info for mikemike

Rich T let us dispense with numbers

You have made quotes that are so far back in the history of time that you could not have known them as low numbers. thank you for confirming that you have just outed yourself.

Being fully funded for present use is not the same as not wanting to raise funds for future use. Then again Rich t you'r such a bright boy you knew that anyway.

Rich t you were desperate to know about the liability to Galp, only yesterday and again you have confirmed you do not accept anything Dw says so logical conclusion is you need to write To Galp. A little bit of Google will tell you where to send your e-mail.

Suggesting that Dw was responsible for TPET drilling is now getting a bit desperate.

Yet at the same time it begs the question why would you invest in a share that you do not believe that the MD can be trusted or your view of his drilling track record is so bad.

Because you never invested at any time.

Haters are going to hate and trolls are going to troll.

I suppose the problem you are going to have now is to decide whether to respond here or do as you did this morning and stalk me over on the board.

decisions decisions!!

small numbers/ rich T just to remind you of your interest in GALP as you spent so long on the balance sheet and asking questions here. I know yesterday was along time for you. But still you need to try to keep up.

''So small numbers let us make sure we get this right.

1/ You do not believe a word the md says

2/ You will not seek confirmation from GALP

No point in raising the issue so why raise it when you are not prepared to do anything about it.

You are a funny guy but not in a smiley sort of way''

Please do update us with your Galp response.

Stalking me over on the Kibo board with the silly post that was removed for FCA breach is all your own doing, get over it.

Perhaps because if Dw and the rest of the team, it is not just Dw, do well it will mean the SP is far higher.

proselenes

they were correct for UPL. that does not mean they will be correct for MATD.

Still worth getting confirmation by those who feel that it is part of their due diligence process.

MATD is still on my watch list, I did not invest as not sure of the recent drill. I am waiting for a response from the company re this suggestion of a Q1 2019 drill and will invest or not accordingly.

AVB to all

https://upcomingdrills.com/ suggest wild horse spud is in Q1 2019

They reported same for UPl being a q4 drill 2018 , when UPL had advised Q3. UPl then had to issue RNS confirming Q4.

Maybe worth asking mr Buck if he is aware that the spud date is being posted for Q1 2019 which probably means back end Q 1 due to winter

i think if it was a ''random new policy'' then it would be very very disappointing.

I suspect it is because Tanesco are being held to be legally obliged to have a tender policy following a recent court case they lost.

I suppose we will just have to watch and wait for LC to tell us more.

In the meantime the SP will rock and roll all over the place.

I am more than pleased Kibo is a multi instead of a one trick pony!!

bcl

''understands what they are trying to do.'' If this is their first energy tender then finding that person could be a big challenge. If Kibo are the only ones advanced enough to submit a tender for Mbeya, the envelope opening ceremony should be brief.

Question is, what does the tender document look like, and is it compatible with all the work undertaken to get it to PPA?
I would like to think they have an idea as to what it is they are looking for so it could if needed withstand a legal challenge.

In a way I am surprised at the submission date being so near. i had expected this date to be deferred. If Kibo are the only viable submission does this mean they automatically defer the process with a further 3 months submission period.

All very much unknown

If the first RNS was incorrect the new one would be issued as a correction. It has not been issued as a correction,so take the sale at face value. or, contact the company direct and seek clarification/confirmation.

make it two or more, those who bought in at or below todays price are already ahead on the curve

Of course we will hear before, during and after 2019, plain common sense. Well. for most.

so small numbers let us make sure we get this right.

1/ You do not believe a word the md says

2/ You will not seek confirmation from GALP

No point in raising the issue so why raise it when you are not prepared to do anything about it.

You are a funny guy but not in a smiley sort of way

stop, promoting another stock

answer the question when are you going to write to Galp and ask then to invoice, like you did when you posted as rich T

Small numbers you are rich t just you forgot,

you raise the same issues and in the same way

So when are you going to follow your Rich t path and write to Galp asking why they have not invoiced. That way you do not have to rely on DW you were pointed in the direction of wiki but have decided as it is the words of the MD you will not bother.

Dw far more honest than Rich T

Why not ask galp again why they have not invoiced.

In fairness to Tanesco this new feature is due to a court ruling so they have had little choice to adopt the Tender process. If we had gone to completion with PPA/SML and a third party stepped in down the way crying foul it may be a serious issue. so best out of the way now.

These liability is the GALP payment which will be transferred back to cash asset once this time line is ended and GALP have not invoiced for it. The full details are on WIKI. The MCAP is already above the minimum figure to trigger a claim and has been since since mid 2016.

DW covered this in Q & A at the Melbourne meeting also in wiki. I did ask about this figure after the Q2 report was issued and received the answer, ''almost forgotten about'' In effect suggest that if Galp had a valid claim they would have invoiced. That they have not is pretty much that they do not have a valid claim as they did not meet performance requirements at the time of the last TPET drill.

88e made provision on the balance sheet about 2 years ago when the MCAP hit the trigger figure.

Suggest anyone wants to know more about a non event they e mail dwall@88energy.com

I remember Rich t going on and on about this as well, until he was banned again and again and now it pops up again out of the blue as though it is a latest big news story.

Lurker you know better, or so you like to claim.

Purchased value is not the same as expanded value to asset accretion. Taking what in effect are non performing assets at the then value is a world of difference to full performing value.

Then again you knew that, did you not?

I cannot see any evidence of asset trading that purchases an asset not to see fair value at enhanced rates when work in progess is complete.

Otherwise no share anywhere would never at any time go above IPO price. Equally, they would never fall either.

A sort of investment la la land. Certainly not where I inhabit.

''It would appear that the bod are doing nothing to address this ''

The presentation tells us otherwise. Snippets from the last Corporate presentation held in London also suggest otherwise. Will be good to listen to the presentation video.

Agreed this no longer about Tanzanian Kibo. Sepco will valuing MCIPP and BIPP as well. Leave the UK out at this stage as LC has yet confirmed completed favourable due diligence.

If MCPP did not exist what would the value be?

* even more