Member Info for NoEasy

Very much appreciate the heads up on Essar's rebuilding Jiving, that sort of info is precisely why it is worthwhile to come on this BB.

We have been told more than once that we are in dispute with Essar. But we have never officially been given information that Essar are vetoing progress. On the contrary AM has frequently commented on how close everything is to being finalised which in itself takes the eye away from the reality of the position we find ourselves in with Essar. It would be interesting to understand why AM took the decision not to disclose to shareholders that not only are we in dispute with Essar but that they are maintaining a veto. That really could and should have been released to shareholders without the need to touch on the details.

If that veto is indeed the reason for this long path we are walking then we are not in the hands of the government nor in the hands of Kola or the financiers, we are instead fully in the hands of Essar. It has been commented upon many times that Essar are in real financial trouble which is true, but equally we cannot be far off the same predicament. Posters have also commented upon Kola having an agenda or the need for us to buy out Essar. What if we are looking down the wrong end of the lens. What is to stop Essar exercising their veto long enough to drag us to the ground when they, using OPL226 as an asset or through a purpose built vehicle, secure funding to take us out.

Interesting thoughts Rift.

My best guess is that Syrian sanctions will not be lifted for many years. The information we have at the moment from the company indicates a 'near term' acquisition though we both know from other investments what 'near term' could mean.

Either way I have my stake in here and the market is happy to keep us around this SP treading water so I'm parked up until we get notified of the project we are taking on.

I wouldn't worry about deleting messages MK, your post raising the matter was necessary and served a purpose. It let us know to give AM some room at the moment and not email if possible. The responses from the BB have in the vast majority of cases been very supportive. The way I read it everyone has moved on.

'For the record, Art has emailed to apologise for his language'.

It was good of him to take the time to reply to you MK and also thanks for letting us know. It did matter to me.

It seems it was a slip at a torrid time. We don't know who the person was he was upset with or how many times he has contacted AM, what the contents are of that persons emails or whether he kept emailing despite being informed that a personal matter was being dealt with.

Good post Sub.

'This board is full of scaremongering recently.'

As always there are degrees either way. There is a justification for both degrees of pessimism and optimism dependant upon what question is asked.

Will this mine get built? Yes I believe it will.

Will it be built to the advantage of current shareholders? No I don't think it will be.

The reality for my mind is that we had a great opportunity, one with significant risks but also risks that seemed to be reducing drastically. I am both surprised and gutted but realistic enough to realise that I do not have the information that others carrying out due diligence are privy too. Both the government and the financiers both believe that this project does not warrant latter stage investment.

Cheers Jose.

In addition to Somaliland I reckon they must have just about completed their investigation into whatever project they are presently appraising.

Always interesting that announcements such as these from whatever company lets us know we are only paying out X amount when we could have been paying out four times as much but that there was never a case to answer. We should all feel good about only paying out $2.5m!

Looks to me that the company undoubtedly did make mistakes and not by engaging with Taurus but more the manner in which they engaged. That's down to management however it is being dressed up.

But management have also had some success.

The timing of getting this mine producing to expectations right at the moment we have a very strong surge in gold prices is pretty magnificent. Well done to all the team. A solid year of hitting targets is what I believe the market wants to see.

In fairness not much to say Bob. I read every post but we haven't moved for some time from where we where.

I'm with you on that Chukkers.

The key to this is the proving up of the resource in commercial amounts, connecting to the grid AND recognising that the best strategy for shareholder value rests in 'using' (and that is the correct word for me) the RFP as a vehicle to barely get us onto the grid. Thereafter our electricity needs to be exposed to the wider market conditions/prices and quickly as possible.

A heavy commitment to the 100MW could give us significant early stability but not necessarily the prospect of maximising our profits. I see which way the company want to play this.

Not sure what you are seeing Brad but Gabaake indicated 50% award back when he was standing in for TG when he had his medical issues in 2016 I think which would tie in with your '3 year ago'. We know that's since changed.

I had factored in real news by year end or thereabouts but given the length of time I have been here I can wait a wee while longer for what I expect to occur here. Everything heading in the right direction and has been for some time. Slow progress with the human necessities but that has no bearing on what is expected to force itself up from down below.

Satisfying interview from TG. Never been more comfortable with a CEO to be precise.

Very much agreed re arguing.

The question up in the air Brad is not that we are going to generate electricity from our gas but how much? I am not on the ground or involved with the Bots Gov so have no idea what we would realistically be allowed to develop and importantly at what speed once we have achieved the route into the SAPP transmission lines. Additionally I have no understanding of what financially the company intends to do once the lines are open. I can extrapolate from what we do know but leaving such calculations to my own devices is not the wisest thing to do given the above.

Hopefully TG will feel more comfortable in opening up on what the company believe is achievable over given timeframes once we have commercial flow rates, reserves updated, a PPA and finance by the end of this year.

If memory serves you were the one who stated that the strategy was simply to produce electricity! I don't recollect you managing to look beyond that Chukkers.

I guess the point I was making Brad was that if we are using terminology such as 'enormous gas asset' the bit that's missing is to signal what that actually means to investors.

Appreciate your comment Chukkers but if the strategy was simply to provide electricity then we already achieved that to power our own generators. Strategy completed what is there to discuss?

If a buyer came in for this company and asked some questions then 'enormous gas asset' and '$80bn of further demand by 2030' is a good start but wouldn't the prospective buyer be saying, 'well how much of that demand do we anticipate we could satisfy going forward'? The presentation leaves me asking that question and I wouldn't mind if prospective investors knew what strategically the company had in mind on that score.

'...so blows..'

The presentation frustrates me if I'm honest.

It highlights $80bn of new generation capacity by 2030 across the region to keep pace with demand and that the Botswana government itself has committed to spending $1.8m in the same timeframe on new capacity.

What it doesn't say is what we are strategically aiming to provide in relation to that demand based upon our enormous gas asset. The latter three words are used in the presentation to blows any reticence on your behalf TG. An asset is only an asset if it can be monetised. So put it out in the presentation, what do we hope to achieve from those assets?

Brady I have always and continue to respect your input.

However call me stupid ( easily done and I would generally agree) but how does a single poster on a board, a board I suspect not viewed by many, have an impact on a stock that garners its funds not from open offers for us mere mortals but through placements facilitated through brokers etc? Maybe keep the SP up to lessen dilution! But if we were dealing with a rogue company would the level of dilution really matter to them?

I have seen individual posters have a significant short term effect on prices (take Aberbeenman who must be minted bless him) but I'm struggling to see such an influence carrying on when there are continued drops in share price as we have seen here.

For my thinking there is not an aligned and concerted team working this. Yes individual investors might be heavily invested (Jiving recently mentioned one had a significant investment here) and it would be in their vested interest to talk the share up but what impact do they actually have in these circumstances? If this is a lost cause why do we have a multinational commodity trading company Trafigura, after due diligence, coming to an agreement for $30m-$50m of upstream funding, the NNPC rubber stamping a 24 month extension to the PSC and also encouraging an enhanced field development plan?

I have no doubt that organised posters influence price rises and drops for their own benefit through these boards, probably more than anyone can ever guess, but for my eyes the problem here isn't posters, the government or its agencies or indeed 'Africa time'. My view, and it is only my view, is that the finance has and continues to be the stumbling block here. Why do I think that? It is the only thing that has been promised many times but never delivered. We are also now entering a possible recession, the price of oil is in decline and the financial world is an uncertain place. Does that make it easier for Art and Kola the latter of whom I believe stated that the secret to business is not using your own money but other people's, to raise funds?

For me posters who go on about the CEO or individual posters are getting lost in the weeds. This is all about the risk of securing project funding, that risk should have increased here in view of the above and that is why I think we have seen a further placement despite a reduction in overheads.

Jay you owe nobody anything. Thanks for taking the time to pass on what you did. I guess we lose that now.

Honestly guys I get the '****ied off' bit but lets not let finger pointing take over this board. It's pretty normal for people who are invested in companies to contact management. This business about a certain few being in contact is a reflection not on them but on those of you who cannot be arsed to do the same. He may not always respond, he hasn't to me in the past but perhaps my questions were borderline in terms of the actual info he could release. No he's far away from being the CEO we would all like but it's plainly wrong to target a poster who has provided us with info, info that individuals can put their own assessment on.