Member Info for NoEasy

If the good news was due in the next 14 days I have to question whether Arthur would be doing this interview now rather than in two weeks.

He did qualify his couple of weeks with 'coming weeks' which in his language means he isn't really saying two weeks.

We know this seems to be following a pattern and these interviews are most certainly not directed at existing shareholders, for that purpose the other recent interviews would have sufficed. These interviews are used to pump up the exposure to reach prospective investors. They are however a necessary part of the machine to keep us financed.

Clearly the 'all approved' email from investor relations was patently not true as Arthur seems to confirm in this interview that the plans were submitted but require the bond to finalise things.

We have discussed many times any extra financial support or apparent lack of it that Kola was providing to this project given the leverage at his disposal. We can now see through his support of the bond that he is in fact using that leverage. That is really positive to see. That willingness to progress the bond as guarantor and to get this project approved would also tend to knock the suggestion they (Shoreline) would be happy to see COPL run into the ground so they can snap up its share of OPL226 on the cheap. Added to the fact that Kola could buy us out now with his spare change that conspiracy theory should be put to bed.

Still talking to one service provider and I would have thought that they would be the ones supplying the rig as Arthur has indeed underlined in a number of interviews although I don't know how the need for a letter of intent fits into a service provider agreement if one now exists. Would they need a LOI if they already have an agreement to provide services? Additionally the pricing in of the contractors as far as the NNPC are concerned would also be something I would associate with a known service provider as Jay has pointed out.

There is a real project sat here and I will just be glad when we can get rid of all the 'misunderstandings' that Arthur talks about and see a definitive announcement(s) with little need for second guessing. It will be a relief for us all.

I'll have to re-read it Jiving but my recollection is that the ruling is only on the separation of Counsel. Agamore have put a motion forward stating NNPC/DPR should not share the same Counsel as Shorecan. and the directors.

Loved the analogy re the pizza.

New prospecting licence - Done

Gas Flow Results - Imminent

RFP Result - Imminent

Downstream Einvironmental Approval - Application submitted. Result due Q2

Financing - Proceeding. Agreement due Q2

Thanks for that update Lekka. Just the start of a news rich Q2.

Absolutely Dunc. I am really reluctant to get into the 'we are so undervalued' dialogue as I have seen it said so often on other boards it is has been a matter of amusement. Perhaps I am now seeing that dialogue from a different position. But I do continually ask myself given that we are looking at an appraisal well not an exploration well and the potential not just of the 6100' sands but the 7000' and 8200' sands how we can be sat at our current Mcap. The answer is not all down to the companies communication although that really doesn't help but more the the time that it has taken to move forward in Nigeria on this resource. That time delay has resulted in a number of placings that should have taken place under different circumstances if that country wants to encourage investment and the oil price hadn't been as volatile at key moments.

Realised my use twice of 'give us it straight'. Seems I'm frustrated.

Hi Dunc, You are right there is a toxic sentiment and it as I posted earlier today the value of the project is being overlooked. I also posted earlier that the feeling I have at the moment is one of frustration given the scale of the project. It's regrettable that we are not being provided with suitable direction by the company. I get the uncomfortable feeling that a once removed contract with a drilling company for a rig (once removed appertaining to the fact the drilling company are the ones putting a new rig on line not us) is being used as a hook.

Cracking prospect but Arthur needs to leave the innuendo behind and just give us it straight.

Hi Jiving, The wording of the passage I put out is also quite elusive in its meaning. It almost reads like the field development plan has been submitted but then it talks not of a plan but a report and one than was 'on request'. So was it the plan that was submitted or a report? Such ambiguity plays not into the hands of us investors but into the hands of Arthur and the company. Why not simply say the plan was submitted? Let's not cloak every announcement in smoke and mirrors please just give us it straight.

Additionally given that they flagged up the PSC extension in the previous MD&A why not put in this MD&A that approval of the project was now in place.

'Essar Nigeria has prepared a work program for this initial campaign on OPL 226 in the form of a field development plan (“FDP”) for submission to the Concessionaire, NNPC. Upon request in late December 2018, the Company submitted a comprehensive report entitled “Oil Prospecting License 226, Offshore Nigeria – Exploration Period: Phase I and Phase II Work Program to the NNPC.'

Late December yet on 23rd January we know the Company were putting this out, 'Arthur believes the elections shouldn’t interfere with the project . It has already been approved, but due to elections the Company has been asked to keep quiet.'

So a comprehensive and very technical report delivered, read, understood, disseminated, any questions back and forth answered and then approved by the government all within 28 days. And that 28 days is immediately before a presidential election! That is not quite believable particularly for Nigeria.

Am I missing something?

Dunc I had a think about debt funding and I agree it could be the right time to do so here if we can be certain that we will be drilling end Q2/Q3. If there is the possibility that things will stall and we then need to go into another round of funding that's when things may become uncomfortable. I have seen many a company become beholden to a debt provider.

Opulentia, You are right we cannot rule anything out because we simply don't know the full picture. I stand with Jiving and others though on your point about the service provider buying us out 'hence the drop in SP'. I don't believe that to be the case. I see other companies bring in concrete good news and the SP falls as happened with one oiler today. I also see today's drop being more brutal because now we can see a placing happening anytime soon and the timeframe for news before placing is being squeezed right down to the wire. We knew timing was always going to be important around now.

Despite the sudden emergence of posters that we will not hear from again after this morning the one thing I agree with is that this is a picture painted by Arthur of what he 'hopes' will happen. Nothing further has yet been set in concrete.

We are again being left to fill in the blanks. How we do that is being orchestrated by glimpses of the future carefully supplied by Arthur and then supplemented by our own positive/negative interpretation.

For me the overriding feeling I have is frustration. We have a cracking resource potential but we are not being allowed to get fully behind the project due to the manner of communication adopted by the company.

$1.9m left as of year end 2018.

Agamore next up on 17th April for a motion on separating parties from the one legal presentation.

That made me laugh Bts.

Having given it some thought the answer has to be that 'very soon' is of course a longer time than 'very, very soon'.

Unless we are going to get a very, very, very soon from TG then at the very least I'm hoping his very, very soon is the African equivalent of 'within our lifetime'.

(Although I'm hoping it means within 6 weeks:-)).

Jiving, Just a thought but the new NSAI report isn't as in depth as the original one and this 'top up' may be required as part of due diligence to confirm to a prospective service provider that the original resource assessment remains extant.

Well at least we agree that the company are likely to get something.

Sekaname have just been through a compliance, technical and by now most likely a finance test. They were a smidgen off scoring as well as us going into the financial test.

Cannot see them being re-invited to tender if the government thought they were going to renege on a deal. Placing any restrictions onto one company rather than both also raises the spectre of legal action if they were kicked out.

Not long to wait, RFP result 'Very, very soon would be our best guess'.

There is little doubt in my mind that we will have a share of the tender with Seskaname.

The three stages of procurement having risen to 90% applies to both companies. The last test is the financials and TLOU are confident they will pass that test as they used the governments own power price as I am sure did Seskaname.

I believe the company know already that they have a share based upon their understanding of the process. They have also been clear after the result of the technical test in pointing out that the tender allows for more than one company to receive an award in relation to the 100MW project.

Chestermike your message is critical to understanding what we are about. A route to the grid is all that matters and that doesn't require a huge chunk of the 100MW. There will be only elation from me in sharing the tender with Seskaname.
We will have achieved that part of our objective and all the hard work to get us to that point will have paid off.

And I wish everybody the best.

There's really not many regular posters here but the level of posting is generally level headed with the more longer term posters providing the balance.

Be good to see all the regulars start to have a sentiment consensus. Over to you Art with the quarterly's.