Member Info for NoEasy

Damo, Glad to see someone else grasps the absolute reality of the link between investment and green credentials as per your 14.48 post, 'I think this is interesting stuff. I've been reading about green energy over the past 12 months, and there will be trillions invested in this sector globally over the next decade or so.'

I mentioned yesterday this situation is upon us now, not in some distant time. It's good that TG has recognised this necessity. It gives us an enhanced opportunity to appeal to lenders.

A small snippet from today if it still isn't clear to some;
“BP, Shell, Total, ENI, Equinor, Repsol are all adopting carbon neutral targets that can only be met by increasing spending on renewables and letting their oil production decline.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/17/peak-oil-demand-coming-first-brace-almighty-supply-crunch/

There is now a clear 'right side' and 'wrong side' regarding what companies do that may affect the environment. This is a step to keep us on the right side of corporate investment strategies. The cleaner you are as a profitable business the greater interest will be, more so as the world goes forward. Now all we have to do is be .............profitable.

What comes first the investment or the environmentally friendly business?

Conspiracy theorists and Monday morning quarterbacks alike. Conspiracy theories borne upon the lack of information or misinformation provided of which there are many examples. It's not all a one way ticket Art.

Thanks Bob/Jiving. Been watching progress and you're right there has at last been some.

Yes this is a term sheet (non binding) and yes we have been here before (Trafigura/BoM) but with many significant differences. An expected completion date for the transaction for one, no known legal disputes to hold back progress is another, a jurisdiction that isn't mired in darkness and an already producing asset that has a large upside from current base. The latter upside reliant upon the asset being in the right hands and this is where Art is leveraging his and his teams skills. The speed of involvement with a lender indicates that both the asset and the COPL team are attractive.

We've been waiting many years for this highly paid but highly skilled team to show us how they are going to return value to shareholders, it seems more likely than not that we will find out soon.

Very good progress now being made here. Atomic will now dominate news which in many ways is a relief as it has near term realistic timescales in a jurisdiction that is not opaque. Well done to the team at COPL for seizing an opportunity that has significant potential for shareholders.

Spot on Jiving, no need to set unnecessary target dates. You would have thought he would have learned that it's not about whether the news is important or not but about his own reliability and the trust that we as shareholders want to have in him. He rarely mentions shareholders.

Given that the company has until the end of Sept to file but voluntarily chose instead to set an earlier date I think it is realistic to believe that they believe we will have our filings on or before Aug 31st.

Wishing you all the best Berta. Thanks for all your posts over the years mate.

NE

Good luck going forward SilverSoldier, you've been a welcome addition to this board.

You're putting out some really useful posts Skittish, thanks.

One of the things that stood out from your link was, 'Nigeria has been in dispute with Big Oil over the production sharing revenues from the fields the international oil majors operate in partnership with NNPC.'

With our contract the government (NNPC) have no right of back-in to OPL 226. This essentially means our contract, unlike many, does not allow them to acquire equity in OPL 226 once we confirm a commercial discovery. Governments use it in contracts so they don't carrying the risk of exploration, they just jump in when the oil's flowing and take a percentage stake. The only production revenues they will receive from OPL 226 are the royalty tax and petroleum profits tax.

That's quite a benefit to us given that when we were looking to drill Q4 2017 the company anticipated, under assumptions made using their economic model, that the early production system would contribute about $580M a month of positive cash flow by the end of 2018. So no right of back-in to that production for the NNPC.

Good research RespectForAll. Thanks.

Thanks Yacht. I thought it was your post.

MrNation you have a bad habit of using other people's posts as your own. Your 14.33hrs start's, 'Looking at my spreadsheets on oil flows.....' only they are not your spreadsheets are they. You're not daft so you know what you are doing. If you are going to repost someone else's work at least have the decency to credit the original poster at the beginning of the post. Everyone else does it on this and every other board.

I get confused MrN, is that your spreadsheet or are you re-posting someone's previous post? It would help immensely if you could let us know when re-posting that the author is someone other than you so that we can direct any questions on the post to the relevant person.

Thanks.

No probs Cdn, just the one proviso that the info I posted with a link to the thinking suggests that no approval is needed but I'm not saying that's definitely the case.

Might actually be worth you going to the AGM this year:-)

ATB

Cheers Yacht, you were on my list of names so thanks for your help.

Hi Cdn, We were told on many occasions through the back door we were getting or even maybe in one case that we had approval for the 80% acquisition of the EEPL shares. But I don't believe we did, we never reached the point of having those shares approved and registered by the government. If that is indeed the case then there is no change of control to be approved. Essar M had control of the OPL 226 shares, we got legal control of Essar Nigeria (two separate things) but not a sanctioned control of the shares and following the settlement Essar M still have control of the shares. The only thing I see as changing is that Essar M now have legal control of Essar Nigeria to compliment their control of the shares in the licence. Maybe other scan chip in here.

Cdn, I'm not sure that the government has to approve the share transfer from ShoreCan to Essar M because as far as I am aware ShoreCan never officially had the shares. They had legal control of OPL226 but I believe no shares registered by the government

Equally I am not sure (open to interpretation) that we need any DPR approval now as we don't hold a controlling share:

'It is noteworthy that in relation to share transactions, paragraph 3.1 of the Guidelines does not prescribe a threshold of shares but merely refers to “any part” of the shares of the relevant company. Ordinarily this would give rise to some further confusion especially in relation to publicly listed companies as it would suggest that the transfer of even a single share of a company which owns a licence or lease would require ministerial consent. However, we hold the opinion that the Guidelines should be read in conjunction with subsisting law and the Moni Pulo Case which clearly indicate that the relevant threshold for the trigger of obtaining ministerial consent is “controlling shares”.
https://www.banwo-ighodalo.com/assets/resources/fd208177f26253148eca17cad3030047.pdf

On the separate subject of the PSC extension based upon a past similar settlement of dispute involving an OPL I am expecting the licence extension as soon as Friday but with a real possibility of the next seven days.

May I also pass on my genuine thanks to all the people both in the UK and abroad who have helped me during my time on this board (some great new posters as well) with factual posts and reasoned opinions, arguments. I was going to name you but would feel bad if I missed someone out.

Also throwing my two pennies worth in on the view that fake info can be good for the companies exposure. I can't argue with that, it can, but where would it stop? Empowering such posters is a double edged sword and not in the spirit of what we have had here, let's not lose it for a few cheap headlines.

".. it is only great if he meets the deadlines he is giving.'

Oil_Beast are you saying companies should only give timelines if they can guarantee meeting those timelines?

In this case the companies involved first had to get agreement on the proposal for an extension and then secondly a date by which that extension ends. We really should be getting informed of such important information and I'm glad we are. Whether the timeline is met is immaterial, it doesn't wipe out the absolute fact that a crucial timeline was made on an equally crucial issue, settlement of the one thing that has been holding up this whole project. Delay is one of the risks, that it may occur shouldn't be used as a reason not to inform investors. Just let us know if there is a delay, the reason and the new timeframe. Just like the CEO has done here. Good on him, for once he has got the communication bang on.

CawCaw, I guess this timeline was set because he had to report the initial 35 days for completion as per the proposed settlement. When that wasn't achieved he did the right thing and gave an indication of timelines of when he hoped it to be achieved. Not to have done so would have left the doors wide open for claims of 'there's problems' and 'it's never going to happen'. Just imagine what this board would have been like if he hadn't given a timeline and we would now be a month further on without news. I think there would have been a more than reasonable drop in SP and this board would have been carnage to read. Also worth bearing in mind these are officially announced timelines not ones voiced spuriously on a podcast.
Additionally will you not wanting timelines on drilling?

He's been given so much stick (rightly) about leaving us to fill in the knowledge gaps due to poor communication from him I have to say I think it's great he's now giving us timelines and long may it continue for my mind.

Chukkers, ' if tony would think it's not gonna work don't think he would just milk us for money..'. Now that's one thing I am settled on. He is committed to this project and has shown his worth as one of those rare CEO's who adjusts his own recompense to the fortunes of the company. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine is that he is a very good CEO with a great resource but with geology that has worked against him in terms of timeframes. It happens.

Swinger, 'Remember the Botswana government pension invested n TLOU at around 11p' is a good point as they clearly saw early potential. However even famed investors of the highest echelon make decisions that don't pan out.

The big money here is with the gas. That's why I invested and nothing has changed my opinion on that. We cannot suddenly throw solar in as the big winner as that in itself throws into question why we didn't go for it from the outset (the weather hasn't changed in the last ten years) which in itself could throw into question TG's forward thinking.

The announcement laid it out in general, ' Increased sustained gas flow rates are anticipated to take some considerable time, based on the currently available data. However, it is anticipated that drilling of additional wells in the area will facilitate the dewatering process.' I would like to see him extrapolate the data he holds into a release to shareholders letting us know are we going to drill additional wells, when and how many and what effect we could see this having on timescales.

I say this because the above clearly illustrates sustained gas is sometime away but it could be addressed by more wells but then that's it. We are left blind. Do they actually intend drilling more wells? They have never committed to doing so. The first tranche of debt/equity funding is for transmission lines, is another tranche planned for further wells? If so which tranche. What comes first solar or more wells? Let us know the strategy TG.

Just to clarify, '...or any other sideshows such as the finance (for the 2MW).