Member Info for NoEasy

Brady, I could have a stab at why the wrong timings last year but none of the suggestions I could give would be positive.

The last four months however have had something that last year did not and that is evidence of progress outside of Arthurs interviews.

Can we be bushwhacked again, yes it's certainly possible and its something I've mentioned before. But the Trafigura term sheet and the due diligence that went into that and the PSC extension do point to us being on the brink of significant progress here.

I believe we will get our PSA and I am not worried at all about Ministerial consent for the “change of control” transaction.

The timing is my only concern. How quickly can the service provision and finance be agreed and signed given we have a new entrant? Personally I have no idea.

Brady, I may have read that post wrong, I agree they are inexperienced in that part of the world...as COPL but not as Shorecan. The ability to understand the landscape and execute against it must be bread and butter for our partner who is either the 2nd or 3rd largest, based upon what you read, indigenous oil producer in Nigeria. Shoreline do have the experience and understanding of what it takes to get things done. They are looking at 80,000-100,000 bopd this year and that's without their gas production. Add to the mix that Shoreline supply both the Chairman and CEO for our JV then the only way Arthur can be overpromising is either by design or alternatively by a breakdown in communication between the partners. The former may perhaps be true the latter I doubt. Inexperience or knowledge of the area and the bureaucracy in which they are now shouldn't really be a factor here.

'....and similar to the boy who cried wolf.'

Ouch! Hope Art is too busy to read that little jab in the ribs Dunc (Funnily enough I was going over some old material yesterday and came across that little snippet. Made me smile.)

Been some great posts over the last few days. A pleasure reading well informed and differing views/angles. Proper job.

There aren't two opposing sides here. The points being made about failure of past timelines is correct and the point about waiting for the next timeline to properly expire are both correct.

Best post of the day Indi. Made me chuckle.

'I start to get very suspicious when all the posts go so negative. Discouraging people from holding or buying. To me, COPL is a very interesting prospect. Yes it has been hit hard by the placing but the future is very bright.'

Then 12 hours later:

"This bullshit AIM company is like all the others, only existing to keep its directors well fed and watered.'

I must have missed some news overnight!

Ditto Dunc.

I'll give War & Peace a miss for a while.

Absolutely Rift. I also believe that it was the Sept 17 timeline that has negatively impacted belief in Arthur (Brady, Oilberta have earlier experiences). You have certainly not been alone in that.

What has altered my mindset may come as a surprise but firstly it was the failure to get the SPA on time and the subsequent placing at a greatly reduced price. That coupled with the tangible and crucial progress that has been made since July.

We had Trafigura, the world's second largest private oil trader, agree a $30m-$50m term sheet for all production related expenditures following the drilling and testing of the initial production well.

We were informed at the same time by the two podcasts that a $100m service provider agreement was imminent, within a month or so. There was absolutely no need to place this timescale if it was not true. It could have been to ramp up the SP before a placing. But if that was the case then that conversely means that the Essar Mauritius default notice really did take them by surprise. They had to rush out a placing on a falling SP. I realised along with other work I had done that what I was starting to piece together was that I believed Art's expectation of an imminent SPA was honestly held by him at the time it was conveyed to us. Yep I was starting to believe in Art through another failure! Funny how things work out.

So two crucial steps, one successful (Trafigura) one delayed (SPA). We had been told financing work was well advanced (on more than one occasion) and this time it was proved to have been the case.

Then we had notification that on the 2nd October the NNPC had agreed a 2 year extension to the PSC. We had earlier been getting informed that the NNPC was solidly behind us but again, for me, this was a message hindered in its acceptance by the Sept 17 fiasco. The first inkling that the NNPC really were onside was when they shared legal counsel with us in the Agamore issue. With the PSC extension, Art's stance on that issue has been shown to be true.

I remember the posts we all had about NNPC, loads of them and everyone including me questioning if they were with us or against us. Yet when we got confirmation that they were indeed with us we hardly talked about it at all. Almost as though we have been conditioned to only searching out for problems and not seeing what is positively unfolding before our eyes. We have now moved on from the NNPC to the SPA. But for me I believe things really are happening on that front because of some of the things I have discussed. The only question I have at this time is will it come before the end of the year. On that I am not as confident.

But massive strides made for me and I like the price action here at the moment. Sorry for the long reply.

We were completely hamstrung on that timeline Rift, as I think you and I both know, from the moment that Essar Mauritius (EM) served a default notice on us a weeks or so after that podcast. We know that delayed the SPA as has been communicated to members on this board who contacted the company by email and they in turn were good enough to share it with us. However as EM didn't exercise its option on or around the date they had given (9th October) then the talks resumed with the SPA. In the meantime the company have received an unsolicited approach from another service provider who it seems is wiling to lay on the $100m services plus finance. That has to work through its course.

So August is no longer relevant. We have moved on and await the successful conclusion to our new timetable for approvals which is by the end of the year. And as approvals have been linked with the SPA as a one and all announcement is should follow that the SPA is completed by year end.

Every bit helps and that is a well dug out bit of info, thanks Scott.

I have little doubt that we will soon be in partnership with the Govt.

The submission of the field development plan will I take it have been completed by now. That should have no problem being accepted given the amount of time the technicians have had to perfect it. Indeed they had the location of the first drill down to within a meter and had opened up discussions with contractors on the type of rig etc they required and that was over a year ago. COPl have a highly skilled workforce whose speciality is off-shore drilling. So that element carries low risk for me.

The SPA is an interesting one because we don't know if we were looking at straight debt, debt/equity or a service provider agreement when the Sept 17 financing went absent without leave. Whatever caused that misstep could in reality occur again. The financing still has to be high risk.

Due to the recent PSC extension granted by the NNPC I am firmly of the opinion that Ministerial approval for the acquisition of EEPL's shares is but a pen stroke away. That is low risk for me.

The Agamore dispute is low risk for number of reasons not least of which they have failed in every respect to uphold their JV obligations and were given the opportunity to respond to that failure two years ago without them having done so.

The dispute going through Essar Mauritius was initially, at least, high risk but this has significantly reduced following their reluctance to follow through on their August rhetoric. Furthermore once Shorecan secure the proposed financing for their portion of the development campaign then matters will most definitely get interesting. Unless EM agree a buy out fee and presuming they cannot, as now, contribute their percentage of the development costs then there will be an abject failure on their part to abide by the shareholder agreement. The shoe as they say will most surely then be on the other foot.

The price of oil as it stands is a low risk, we would still be economical at today's price. Do I see oil producers returning to a prolonged period of very low oil prices. The short answer is no and while no one has total control of where prices move the players involved are starting to balk at low prices. This topic does though fit into the discussion of how it might affect any SPA. I believe any agreement with a service provider will be on the basis that they will decrease/increase the percentage they get from a barrel as the price increases/decreases. In that way volatility is mitigated. For example they may get a set 10% at $40 a barrel but that percentage increases to 20% at $80 a barrel. Those are my example figures but Arthur has previously outlined such agreements with providers as being commonplace. As such I do not believe the oil price as it stands will impact the present SPA negotiations.

Overall I am still very much expecting a lot of good news here before the election in February and hopefully before year end.

Absolutely and one of the myths that should be put to bed is that the indigenous enterprise will receive favourable treatment. If the Bots Gov wanted to take our legs they had an excellent opportunity when the previous tender was submitted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-placate-trump-saudis-mull-clandestine-cuts-to-opec-production-1542994694

Essentially saying the oil price fluctuation is not in anyones interest. The Saudi's need a higher price, their own self interest is 'the higher the price the better'. The US will not greatly impact that and as the article points out 'subterfuge' will be employed if necessary to placate Trump.

Nothing common sense couldn't work out but reaffirms that sovereign state economics have a breaking point when trying to satisfy external powers.

'The way I perceived it is that they are paid a fixed day rate which will be quite high initially during drilling and then reducing during production as they down-man the rig etc.'

Yes, for example, as outlined in one of the companies presentations the jack-up rig would be on reduced day rate as operating cost came down.

Dunc, our posts crossed but we are on the same page it seems.

A converse way of looking at it though is that it is because of low oil prices the service providers are in discussion with us in the first place. They are not in as much demand with a sustained period of low oil price but still maintain much of their costs. Many still have rigs to keep hot (or rust) and specialist technical equipment on their inventory not earning money and that's without considering retained staff renumeration.

Deferred payment for service and finance provision is not everyone's idea of a great business proposal given the risks involved after signing a contract but its a necessity for providers at the moment. I don't see swings in price affecting that dynamic anytime soon.

Jay the message you received, 'I heard back from Cathy Tonight . She confirmed that en can no longer hold things up. I asked re spa and delays. She indicated that the dispute had delayed things. That as per Arthur comments it is all systems go. That all things have to come at the same time. Nnpc/ ministerial. So step one is spa.'

From the context of your questions and the answers given are you able to clarify what it is that EN can no longer hold up? Was it just the SPA or are we talking about other processes?

In a similar vein did Cathy state SPA needed to be completed before the NNPC/Ministerial permission was granted?

Thanks.

We differ there Brad. Give me a genuine performance rather than a polished one any day of the week. Too many who have the gift of the gab turn out to be shysters.

The short answer is nope aunty but I'm not on iii.