Member Info for NoEasy

I agree we have a tight timescale until next April. I can however see another raise quite properly taking place in April if we have the SPA and NNPC sign offs. Everything points to those being ready to go. However we are being restricted by two disputes. Jiving raises the right point in my view, 'how does the EM dispute in particular get solved'? No money either side unless Shoreline want to up their own share in OPL226. Other alternatives are EM agree to payment from future oil revenue although as Jiving points out they need their money now due to their parent companies financial situation or another player enters to purchase their share.

Nice to see the placing from those in the company being above the expected 100k and at 0.335p.

Apologies for grammatical errors, don't know what's going on with me today!

Thanks as always GK. I'm glad you didn't paint the scenario of say a DMC cable prob (SNAP!!) ending up in say a 2y delay.

'With TorPs it now seems very obvious they want this contracting for its own sake (strengthen the business), not just to satisfy MLAs.' My thoughts precisely as well as I touched on earlier. Given the LoM here then early commitments for up to ten years to embed the product in each continent isn't such a bad thing given the free cashflow from circa $150p/t. More so when potential growth is still evident and will come from any product mined above the initial 10mtpa which can then be introduced at market price. Also worth pointing out that one of the markers I have been waiting to see is reaction from competitors. If we have a stable and secured price for ten years then that surely takes the legs from under possible competitors in trying to negate our progress or share of market through a price war. Pretty astute stuff if I was asked.

Still prescient thinking SL whatever way you look at it. I like to look forward myself but I had the IPA assured debt and commercial debt all wrapped up without the need for anything else. I did say all wrapped up though (I'll wait for Scotty to come in here to rightly remind me its still a high risk).

She didn't tell me she was going out tonight!

Cheers PAA, thanks for answering despite my errant initial sums.

SL, did you really mention 'strategic partner' in the past:-)

Correction again I was seeing 3bn but for some reason was working to 2bn. The 0.4 to 0.6bn would be an uplift of 13% to 20% of extra debt. So why rule that out?

Correction, '20% to 30% increase in debt.'

Hi GK,

'With the MLAs Fraser made the point that there is no intention to go above $3bn. This says to me that he is now in a position to pick and choose from the offers - and though for now the market obviously remains fixated and frit on the potential of dilution, I expect that with this rapid evolution in this business in moving beyond the nearterm steppingstone of achieving full build finance, will also throw up a solution for the extra 0.4 to 0.6bn...'.

I am not sure about that GK. If he is in a position to pick and choose from the offers why not accept them all and include the 0.4 to 0.6bn uplift? Given the target to satisfy S2 lenders has been given as 6mtpa -7mtpa and we are well above that now and possibly looking at 10mtpa, so 60% or 40% above the requirement. Is there not scope for a 20% to 25% increase in debt to be taken on without instigating dilution? Why state you have no intention of going above $3bn when on the face of it there may well be an opportunity to do so? If its about no over extending the debt then why over extend the amounts required in TorP's?

A question I do have is why the size of the TorP? With Europe still to come(?) are we looking at our 10mtpa being committed without recourse to the open market and likely higher spot price. Perhaps we see the value in establishing a global market as being the priority in the first instance and this strategy does just that by contracting continents over a significant period of time. It of course not diminish the comfort of lenders to the S2 funding round either. Just curious.

That foothold is a welcome addition as you rightly point out Sheps. It is a really big market out there and Sirius can assist in driving its partners expansion through their shareholding. Not a bad strategy at all when we start looking to shift our incremental production above the 10mtpa.

Sub, Arthur didn't ask me not to share it but part of my email to him stated I wouldn't post it. I would like to keep my word on that.

It was my first and only correspondence with Arthur and was done to clarify MK and R-Dunc's posts on the same matter, you may remember the discussion around Mk's reply from Arthur, 'Thank you for your note. We believe the dispute was without merit and can be resolved. We are continuing working on the project financing, the completion of which is related to the resolution of the disagreements with Essar. Arthur.'

That was being read in different ways and I wanted to confirm I was reading it right.

Hence me replying to MK, ''It was easier for me Mk as I asked the question on the back of your and R-Dunc's helpful post's on whether the service provider agreement could be concluded without the Essar dispute being resolved and got a definitive answer.'

I did post around the same time, based upon me not wanting to go back on my word, for others to contact Arthur for clarification if they had any doubts.

Any reason for the heading title change Rift. Is it because you don't want people to follow the thread of the conversation over the last two days?

You seem to think being called the voice of reason is an insult Rift. Thankfully there are a good few posters on here that also have a voice of reason and some really well thought out views that help me in understanding things here.

You miss so many things in posts that I am stunned. Now I am a 'short'. Perhaps you missed my post on Friday declaring my additional purchases bought on the open market. I guess in your world that is what shorts do.

In relation to accusing you of market manipulation perhaps you missed my post saying, 'He can be genuine and it is pleasing to see when he is. Be good if we saw more of it like the email from Arthur which I believe is genuine.' Yes I said that I believed that the email you received from Arthur was genuine.

So perhaps you really did miss the purpose of me re-posting your very own words of 8 days ago. It was to see what you thought of them. You didn't realise they were your own words otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did about them, 'disgraceful' and that whoever wrote them had 'sunk to a new low'. Just in case you are not still not sure of my purpose in posting what I did it was to get you to condemn your own words by your own mouth. You certainly did that.

'Plus YOU didn’t say you had an email from Art last week.'

As always Rift, and you'll recollect that I've mentioned this a couple of times already, you read but don't understand.

I posted this last week:

'It was easier for me Mk as I asked the question on the back of your and R-Dunc's helpful post's on whether the service provider agreement could be concluded without the Essar dispute being resolved and got a definitive answer.'

Now who could be the only person I could ask that would be in a position to give me a definitive answer on whether the SPA could be concluded without the dispute being resolved?

'..to try and deflect'.

To clarify my posts last night seeing as Rift chose to they and deflect the point I was making by putting on the poor boy act in his 2202hrs post..

A week ago I had stated that the dispute with Essar M would have to be sorted before the Service Provider Agreement could be concluded. Much like Rift’s post yesterday I got my information in correspondence with Arthur. Rift chose to respond and to call me a liar. I used his response word for word in my 1858hrs post last night (its a direct lift from his post).

I chose not to respond to his post of a week ago because I felt it would be useless. However when the opportunity arose yesterday, with Rift getting a reply from Arthur much as I did , I thought I would find out what he thought of his post and chuck out my 1858hrs post. He obviously didn’t realise they were his words as he condemned them by his own mouth. He thought they were ‘disgraceful’ and the person who uttered them had ‘steeped to a new low’. Yep those were your own words and actions you were calling out Rift.

While on the subject and given your response to my post of a week ago I did suggest you contact Arthur yourself and ask him the question that I had in order to check I wasn’t lying in my post. I take it, given your obvious anger at my post of last week, that you did take the opportunity to ask that question in your recent correspondence with Arthur? I hope so and I hope you can share the answer with us.

Bob, thanks for challenging my post of last night. It thought it might shock as it is not my style. I would have been worried if someone didn't as that would mean people expect that from me. Rift needs to question, given I used his words, why no one challenged him when he used them. Perhaps it says a lot about what people expect from him.

'so you admit you have bought so past few weeks you deramped and scare mongered to get share price down and now it makes sense'.

Here's a link for you Shibs. http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=COPL&ArticleCode=47cu1kpl&ArticleHeadline=3_million_Common_Share_Offering

If you read it you will find there has been a placing at 0.335p.

Shibs, still waiting for the details.

'hope you make money on the back of people you caused to sell up'. How long do you think I have been in here Shibs?

'This WILL turn good. It’s ABOUT to , IMO'

I can't say it's about to Rift but I too think it will turn good at some time. Although if Arthur is true to his word then you will hopefully be right on both counts.

I really don't mind waiting Shibs.

While I'm waiting I'm only too happy for you to post my past posts where you say I have' manipulated certain facts when RNs actually states different'. I will happily concede if I have got it wrong.