Member Info for NoEasy

Jiving if I have been slow on the uptake regarding your point I apologise. I have no intention nor indeed inclination to distort your post and I am surprised you think that way rather than believing I am took your meaning one way when you meant it another. Your further detailed posts have helped but am still genuinely struggling.

You were not saying that the term sheet was artificial I now get that.

The bit I am now struggling with is the bit where you say that splitting finance into two parts and getting Trafigura to finance the rear end, is '..possibly not a normal necessary step in obtaining overall financing for the project but could potentially have been created & publicised in order to create a positive story for the imminent placing.'

If I am reading that right then effectively what you are saying is that Trafigura, Commercial Bank of Mauritius, Shoreline and COPL agreed to create an unnecessary step of funding and the purpose of that was to get a placing away for COPL.

Jiving your outlook is a valid one...... but for the sowing of doubt when there can be none.

'Not being in the oil industry myself I still wondered if that was a real divide or an artificial one so Arthur could burnish his term sheet & show some progress before the August placing.'

The term sheet financing for $30-$50M was made public through an official announcement to the Stock Exchange. That on its own would clearly indicate the veracity of the content. However should that not be enough then it has to be remembered that this is not COPL's term sheet its Shorecans's term sheet. It is a term sheet negotiated by the collaboration and unless Kola Karim/Tunde Karim and the other named parties Trafigura and Commercial Bank of Mauritius are all party to Arthur using their names falsely to allow him to get a placing away then its pretty evident the term sheet is genuine.

Secondly you ask why the service provider cannot provide everything, both downstream and upstream. Like you I am not an oil man and can only guess at the reasons for financing being set up in a particular way. Maybe it's down to risk being shared or particular service providers only being interested in downstream provision. Maybe the company would have to give up more if it just had the one company taking the risk. Another point is that if we take your view on board and had only one service provider doing top to bottom financing then at this moment in time we would never have seen any factual progress on financing at all. I am much happier knowing that a player the size of Trafigura has done its due diligence and wants to throw that amount of money at us.

If the question is whether the Trafigura term sheet really exists because we are sceptical of Arthur's word then the same must also be considered for the news of the PSC extension, the FDP submission and approvals.

Your point had an underlying effect although I don't believe it was intended in basically saying we should consider whether we actually do have any finance at this time. We in fact do and securing it was a major feather in the cap of this company together with Shoreline.

There's one or two posters who could put that up and I wouldn't bat an eyelid, but your considerations carry weight, at least they do for me hence my questioning of the point you posted.

Jiving you have to look at the entities involved and the role they play in the O&G industry. Trafigura is not a service provider they are a commodity seller.

The way the finance was configured was to say to the service providers 'you will get paid for your deferred payment services' because we have an off-take agreement for the oil you help produce with one of the largest international commodity traders in the world. I don't see anything particularly artificial about that arrangement. You seem to be looking for things that aren't there.

The RNS we hoped for we know is already written but has been embargoed for a couple of weeks. Good to see a realistic timeline for drilling.

The big takeaway for me was the following:

'As such ShoreCan has entered into discussions with three large oil service providers, with activities in West Coast Africa. The providers are not only offering the provision of services, but also financing.'

So we have another service provider joining the fray and the company isn't having to plead for investment they are all offering services AND finance. We've moved on from just the one company offering the $100m service provision on a deferred payment basis and that competition should see us securing the best deal possible.

Morning Berta:-)

Hi Jiving, Yes it was in the proactive investor interview in August or failing that the LSE interview around the same time. Basically he said it was approved by one department and the licence granted and then challenged by another governmental department. The company won and indeed one of our consortium is state owned with 10% of the block.

Bit of background to our neighbours in Mozambique and their quest for more gas from the area around our block.

"Sasol’s executive vice-president for upstream, Jon Harris, said on the sidelines of the Africa Oil Week conference, that the company was particularly excited about the block in southern Mozambique because it was adjacent to Sasol’s gas-producing Pande and Temane fields." (as we are).

“We know there is a hydrocarbon system in the vicinity of this block so we know there is a very good chance we might find some more gas.”

“But we would love to find more gas in southern Mozambique and not have to try and build another pipeline.” (they can have ours flow down their pipe).
https://clubofmozambique.com/news/sasol-goes-for-more-gas-in-mozambique/

No problem Mk, been away for a few days and was just catching up on the good posts others had put up.

I have mentioned this before but through another company I am invested in I have seen just how much the whole of the Southern African region, not just Sth Africa itself, is desperate for power. The need for gas for gas to power generation is overwhelming with even Sth Africa encountering power blackouts.

I know that Arthur is very excited about Mozambique and I can see some tremendous potential for us as shareholders there. That SASOil who have the two producing gas fields next to our block have access to a pipeline direct to Sth Africa only heightens the expectation and realisation of just how much infrastructure is on our doorstep.

Lets just get OPL 226 sorted first but also lets not put this too far to the back of our mind when looking at our current valuation.

Slight amendment to the order of the queue for sign-off Rktech, we are fourth in line, there is a private company after us.

Also worth noting on the financing side for Mozambique is that information exists that both the government and Shorecan will milk the COPL (Canadian) element for all it is worth. They have their eye on the Canadian governments export credit agency which has the potential to finance the export of machinery from Canada and also support training programmes.

So finance assistance may well be sourced from third party's and state aid.

Might well be on the cusp of having our contingent resources reclassified as reserves.

The reclassification was contingent upon an extension to the PSC (done), finalisation and approval of development plans (done), demonstration of economic viability of the project (that is a given so Arthur intimated in August), commitment of the operator to develop those resources (another given particularly if contract signed with Service Provider) and the last one we need to know 'has the Ministry of Petroleum Resources consented to our acquisition of EEPL's shares'.

We have an extraordinary asset here guys, it is grossly undervalued. The bureaucratic journey has been a nightmare. It looks very much like we have survived it though.

This should answer three questions:

1. The delay.
2. The expression(s) of interest re cash.
3. whether we are supported by the government.

"In May, Canadian Overseas said Mozambique’s government had told it that negotiations around the governance of PT5-B would take place in August. However, Millholland tells us the government has now advised ShoreCan that talks are now likely to be pushed back to December. Despite these delays, he says the prospective asset has already been attracting third-party interest:

‘Obviously, we are waiting for government negotiations and sign-off, and that has been delayed as we are lower on the list than the majors on the offshore blocks. However, we are highly encouraged by the fact that two groups have already approached us about the block – one with a letter of intent and another looking to participate with us for cash once the block is signed. I think the asset is attractive because it is well supported by the government, close to existing infrastructure, and significantly de-risked by nearby discoveries.’"
http://www.valuethemarkets.com/index.php/2018/10/11/canadian-overseas-petroleums-millholland-progress-nigeria-rough-patch-continues-copl/

Very helpful GK. Thanks.

The IPA issue all goes back to the companies public proclamation to the government that it would seek to obtain as much commercial funding outwith of the guarantee as it could. That seems to be what they are doing here and the result is we are simply seeing a decreasing IPA amount as we see the company increase its access to other funding. That is about right for me and if I am reading it correctly a sign of good strength in the investment case.

Just the opposite for me LosingLess. If the bots Gov. wanted to award the contract to someone else other than TLOU they had an excellent opportunity when the previous tender was submittedor. Similarly they didn't increase the number of companies invited to apply for the tender.

It's an open contest between us and Sekaname only we are three laps ahead on a two lap race.

Not least the last line, 'Administrative works on the renewal of oil leases should be dissociated from politics. This is the only way the alleged ongoing politics being played in getting oil leases renewed can be curtailed.'

Had a chuckle to myself when I recollected Art's reply to that email you sent a week or so ago, "What you and all the others on the bulletin boards think is the approvals of our program are political. If you think this way you are very wrong. First, why should they be, and what evidence do you have to say they are? We are with shoreline are the Contractor, we have had and have not ever received anything which would suggest differently."

Thanks again for all the research Dunc, helps keep my thought process honest.

Your article has some interesting points in it Dunc. Thanks.

Don't we all Bob.

'....... its the second time in January that a massive new Nigerian oil development project has been highlighted via a press release at exactly the same time COPL shareholders are told nothing can be discussed because of the election.'

Jiving that field is a joint venture between Total & NNPC, has been since 2016 and ALL the government approvals are in place and have been for some time. The only decision was for Total to declare they had taken the Final Investment Decision themselves to develop and they expect to do so in February. This is completely different to our circumstances where we are yet to get government approval.

SL, Perhaps its just that if someone doesn't want to do something then its their call no one else's!