Member Info for NoEasy

Berta & Brady you guys suffered longer than most how about getting back in the swing?

All we've done for threeeee years is go over history, the past week, the past month and the past year. It's going to be a little bit strange talking sincerely about the future and drilling. From what I have seen the news took us all so much by surprise we are still talking about the news and haven't actually turned our heads and started posting solely about what could reasonably materialise here. Plenty of knowledgeable posters, who's going to start the ball rolling.

Rift, your posts yesterday were needed to clear up some of those historical moments. They served a purpose mate. Cheers.

Looking forward to a run of good news.

(Did I really just say that?)

Agreed baserite. This was going nowhere with the commercial dispute ongoing. Clearly Essar Mauritius had a better hand than us all along. We have said in the past that we would have to give away some of our share to get this matter settled and that has happened. It's a considerable drop in ownership but compared to another two years of spending and getting nowhere I am over the moon that we can now start talking about the drilling.

'Any government with the interest of it's people at heart would have fast tracked everything to get power into the grid.'

!00% right DtE. That it hasn't happened probably comes back, in part, to your point on us not oiling the wheels. Its certainly something I didn't understand enough about when investing in Africa. I'll live and learn (hopefully).

You may be right DtE, things may move quicker if TLOU start paying out to oil the wheels. Personally I would take my money out if I felt that was going on. Were would it stop? Who suffers if the proper procedures aren't followed. One thing that would suffer if it became known and that is the Company and in a far worse way than having to wait another period of time before we get the commercial rates, finance etc. I'll stick with the present situation however long it takes.

'Once that's in place, the company are in a much stronger position to negotiate the current dispute and thereafter move towards actual drilling operations.'

This will only stand a chance of being multiples of its current price if and when the dispute with the billionaire Ruia brothers is resolved, and resolved to their liking not ours. We have had money before and Kola Karim our Shoreline partner certainly has multi-millions at his disposal but that has done nothing to move this dispute forward in the last two years. Our raise will have no effect whatsoever in resolving the dispute.

'But looking on the bright side - more dewatering usually leads to higher gas flows!'

Good to see that genuine positivity hasn't been lost here. You're spot on Brad and we should get there. My money's on it.

Cannot argue with three points you've made Whizzer. The progress hasn't been what we investors want, 'tantalisingly close' or anything similar shouldn't be repeated by Colm (or indeed anyone at the company) and there has been no value added to the SP, in fact it has been decimated.

Whether the progress and current SP is a matter that falls in the lap of the Board is something I cannot answer. It hinges on whether enough was done, if indeed anything could reasonably have been done, to identify the amount of dewatering that would be needed. If everything was done that could reasonably have been done then by investing in a mining company there has to be an understanding that the end result is never guaranteed no matter the work put in by the company. S$it happens.

On the issue of funding I have seen many, many companies secure funding without assurance they will ever be able to pay it back. If settled repayment was the criteria then I'm not sure how many companies would exist particularly when we look at AIM listed companies. On that basis I can see no reason why funding couldn't be secured now and tenderers being selected. Funding really should be 'tantalisingly close' now and I would be concerned if in the next 3 months we haven't had it confirmed (subject of course to the state of the nation in respect of the global pandemic).

I see no reason why we shouldn't ask hard questions of the board if we have been led to believe something is about to happen that subsequently hasn't, at least not yet anyway.

That said I whole heartedly believe we have a CEO that has always made decisions with the best interests of the shareholders in mind. He has cut his cloth, operationally and in respect of his renumeration, when it was most needed and that speaks volumes for me.

We have problems, but we also still have everything to play for. Progress now will come at a cost in terms of any future returns with extra funds needed if we are to succeed in generating sustained commercial flow rates. But progress on funding, dewatering, linking to the grid etc will still see very substantial gains here in my view.

'With a large and well-resourced partner, a neutralising Affimer therapy could potentially be developed more quickly than a vaccine and we believe that the likelihood of success would be high.'

That would be tremendous news in the fight against this pandemic.

That post says it all Rift. If we can't find a suitable acquisition in these times well I'll be flabbergasted.

'accidentally posted some adult material on the BB and got banned'

Yep totally accidental:-))

I needed a good laugh and that gave me one BTS. Hope you are keeping well. ATB :-00

Morning Jiving.

That is an interesting post. I think you are spot on with the likelihood of OPL226 being leveraged against debt. The RUIA's were in massive financial trouble and it would be more likely than not that they were using every asset they had to raise money. I think that we now have at least three realistic reasons as to why EM are battling progress. Two support the theory that this is all about delaying as long as possible and at least one is supporting the thinking that by securing the project finance it will bring an end to this legal action. There may be other reasons for the position we find ourselves in.

What I can reasonably be sure of is that our CEO would know the rational for the behaviour of its partner in this shareholder agreement. Perhaps he could tell us as shareholders!

I read it twice Ploppy so do I qualify for two stars:-))

Good post.

'I've still no idea why they can't stop squabbling and sit around a table until a resolution is found that suits all parties.'

The Shareholders Agreement provides for a process of good faith discussions between the respective executive officers prior to any formal proceedings being commenced. Yet EM have refused to enter into any such discussions. If you want something that can be brought about by discussion then you have that discussion. If you want something that will never be brought about by discussion then you don't have that discussion.

So what could EM want that that cannot be negotiated with its partners?

What could EM want that is best served by delay? Two years since first raising the dispute at a critical time, two years further doing nothing to resolve the dispute and now an opportune time to delay further by initiating court action with a further two years+ of delays realistically achievable with tactics.

I still believe many are not seeing what is before their eyes. EM are not wanting this dispute resolved any time soon.

He certainly getting paid but I am sure he would rather be milking an OML rather than OPL.

It also depends if you believe that we have a partner who is capable of stalling this going forward and if so whether Arthur can actually do anything about that stalling. If he can't there's not much use blaming him for our present situation of zero movement. Lack of meaningful communication to shareholders, yes he's an absolute shocker at that.

In the meantime the finance deal he has done, in a pretty hard environment for the industry, to keep the doors open here was an example of how he can work when allowed. He will be paying himself from that but that didn't stop the deal. Wasted money? Riverfort don't think so and I hope not.

'The dispute is the assertion that ShoreCan have not commenced project funding, but how could Essar present a case against ShoreCan if they were actively stopping the SPA happening? It doesn't make sense as it contradicts their case.'

Good argument Dunc. Crossed my mind too and without knowing the details can only follow the thread of my initial view that this is all about preventing finance rather than enabling it. I think the timing of EM's court action is very much in line with that theory. Using 'timing' of their action to maximum effect. to send a message. This is a company run by the RUIA's who have over $14bn turnover and 7000 employees in 25 countries and they have a pandemic on their hands. Yet they chose this time to initiate a court case that wasn't urgent (we've been in dispute for nearly two years). They chose a time when they knew the court system in London had already shut down. It's going to take an awful lot of time to clear up cases there were already before the court let alone new ones. They have sent their message to Shorecan and the financial community that this commercial dispute is not going to be over soon. I don't think it matters to them that their claim could eventually be defended against. They are clearly setting up their negotiating position, driving a hard bargain to either get more of a share in OPL226 from Shorecan or to run COPL into the ground or indeed both as the latter may well effect the former.

I may well be wrong here and as I have said I don't know enough to be sure of my thoughts on this but right from the go in 2018 when EM seemingly stopped the securing of financing, the overriding suspicion was that they wanted to delay as long as they could and that we were the weak link in the partnership who they could run down financially by delay's. My view is that if that is indeed their strategy then I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that it is a strategy that is working.

'I'm not convinced the dispute would prevent a service provider agreement. In fact, I see it as the best way in which to resolve the dispute.'

if that were to be the case then I have no answer for why EM raised the dispute the moment Art declared we were right on the very verge of SPA financing in 2018.

I've gone over again whether I still believed, as I did at the time, Art's comments to expect financing. Was he just pumping to get that placing away, a placing that happened at the very moment we should have secured financing. I don't think so. In fact I'm convinced he was being utterly truthful about imminent financing and that he was right to make that placement when he did as a result of EM's move.

Why do I think that? Well we have been told officially (not in a podcast) that the reason for the dispute is Essar Mauritius have asserted that ShoreCan has not commenced funding of the US$80 million agreed cumulative funding in Essar Nigeria.

Yet we were a couple of weeks away from landing such funding. If Art was being untruthful why not wait for the couple of weeks to pass and see whether finance was secured before raising a dispute? Why the sudden rush? Why raise a dispute that money had not been spent knowing that by raising the dispute you are stopping such money being secured and spent? They knew Art would have to declare this dispute and the effect it could have on raising the finance. I can only conclude EM didn't want the finance raised. It didn't suit their purpose and that purpose had to be money. They wanted to void the purchase agreement for OPL226. They had suffered better fortunes since giving away 80% of what is believed to be a highly prized asset. They want that asset back or at least more of it than they have now.

I don't think anything has changed as indicated by the recent move to a court case.

This isn't about Shorecan failing to raise the money....... it's about EM stopping Shorecan from raising the money.

Good post MM, thanks.

Cheers Brad/Numpty. There is clearly a solid reason for solar not being commercially viable on its own across the region and I'm with you on that reason being dependability. The opening paragraph of the half year report says this, 'The Company believes that gas is absolutely vital for a successful solar power generation project in Botswana..........'. The simplest explanation for that view is that gas is the 'battery' that gives the dependability as you point out. It would also explain why, in the absence of that gas, solar is not being utilised across the wider region.

I have to accept we aren't were we wanted to be at this point and that strategy has had to change in terms of key objectives. The downside is financing the installation of solar and likely dilution that brings with the upside being this measure should see us being connected to the grid, getting cash income flowing and the means thereby of having a more effective charge at dewatering our massive gas resource by expanding the number of wells available to do the job. We don't know if the seam will ever be dewatered sufficiently but if it is, and we know that it is not unusual for dewatering to take a number of years to be completed, then there is likely to be a direct correlation between huge amounts of dewatering and eventual gas being released.

In truth not the result I had hoped for at this stage but I know I would make the same decision to invest today given the same scenario and information I had at the time of my initial investment. One of the disadvantages of drilling into something you can't see but can only make a reasoned assessment of based upon professional guidance. I didn't know what the end result was going to be..........and I still don't.

'..... we have have been asking this week, why isn't solar established already? The answer to that is still true, though nobody on here knows yet what it is ?'

I'm pretty settled on why solar isn't established yet. It was the secondary objective. Consequently our focus and more importantly our money was almost entirely engaged on producing large (commercial) amounts of CBM. Simple as that. It was for me the right focus at the time the decisions were being made. Equally why dilute shareholders when the primary objective was expected to be reached. Running a two horse race with both CBM and solar on the go at the same time would have certainly have required additional finance.

The company clearly felt that the odds were in their favour of successfully extracting commercial quantities of CBM.