Member Info for NoEasy

Again without the dribbling at the end of my 14.34 post apologies:

'I just can’t decide myself which way to read this situation!

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.

In addition to that the podcasts from Arthur were clearly before they (Shorecan) received the default notice from Essar. I base that upon the answer I got and also that it is extremely unlikely Arthur would be saying two different things openly (I include emails to investors as openly), one that the Service Provider Agreement was imminent and secondly that the Service Provider Agreement would not happen until the dispute was resolved.

So if the notice came after the podcasts, and that would also fit in with a 60 day notice to put things right (I have found various timescales fro 10 days to 60 days although others no doubt exist), then surely the Essar dispute could not be resolved simply by the securing of the finance. If that was true, and this is the key question that has to be answered if you view the reply from the company as you originally did, 'Why escalate to a default notice to get what Shorecan have just said they have got? Shorecan had just received and agreed to a project financing and offtake agreement in the sum of $30m-50m and had also literally just announced that a Service Provider Agreement for $100m was about to be signed within a few weeks? If the dispute was about securing the finance then as partners wouldn't they have simply waited for the four weeks to get what they wanted?

If anyone can answer that question in an alternative manner to how I have perceived it then I would be genuinely grateful.

It may also be worthy of note that the announcement for the term sheet agreed with Bank of Mauritius/Trafigura lacks one entity.

COPL...." is pleased to announced that its 50% owned joint venture company, Shoreline Canadian Overseas Petroleum Development Corporation ("ShoreCan"), has received and agreed to a project financing and offtake agreement term sheet (the "Term Sheet"), providing for a minimum US$30 million to a maximum of US$50 million Senior Secured Facility (the "Facility"), for investment by ShoreCan into its 80% owned affiliate Essar Exploration and Production Limited (Nigeria) ("Essar Nigeria") from The Mauritius Commercial Bank Limited ("MCB") and Trafigura PTE Ltd. (Trafigura").

Might just be how it is but I would have been happier had it read 'Essar Nigeria had agreed a term sheet'

'I just can’t decide myself which way to read this situation!

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.

In addition to that the podcasts from Arthur were clearly before they (Shorecan) received the default notice from Essar. I base that upon the answer I got and also that it is extremely unlikely Arthur would be saying two different things openly (I include emails to investors as openly), one that the Service Provider Agreement was imminent and secondly that the Service Provider Agreement would not happen until the dispute was resolved.

So if the notice came after the podcasts, and that would also fit in with a 60 day notice to put things right (I have found various timescales fro 10 days to 60 days although others no doubt exist), then surely the Essar dispute could not be resolved simply by the securing of the finance. If that was true, and this is the key question that has to be answered if you view the reply from the company as you originally did, 'Why escalate to a default notice to get what Shorecan have just said they have got? Shorecan had just received and agreed to a project financing and offtake agreement in the sum of $30m-50m and had also literally just announced that a Service Provider Agreement for $100m was about to be signed within a few weeks? If the dispute was about securing the finance then as partners wouldn't they have simply waited for the four weeks to get what they wanted?

If anyone can answer that question in an alternative manner to how I have perceived it then I would be genuinely grateful.



I took your reply from the company and viewed it exactly as you did but then asked myself whether that was the right way to view it.

- a default notice is disclosable to lenders as part of due diligence. Does that assist Shorecan achieve their funding or hamper it.

-

I knew we had been having some trouble with Essar from Arthurs comments about having to undo all the damage they did with the government agencies. Clearly that has carried forward and we are now at the stage of a default notice. The questions that best answered my this all entered on timing. Escalating to a default notice is all about agreed procedure under the Shareholder Agreement and as can be seen from the sked myself was if the issue with Essar was about the finance why wait until firstly the term sheet from Mauritius

Agreed BigBear.

Rift,

""No formal proceedings have been issued in respect of the disagreement " COPL 16 August Press Release.

How can you reconcile the above with your statement "why issue a default notice" '

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a simple question to answer. A default notice is issued to give a party time to rectify their alleged failure. It is not a notice of the instigation of formal (legal) proceedings. That may be the next step if the negotiations are not successful.
The company have said as much.

The Shareholder Agreement will have a set procedure and it has been alluded to by the company and that is negotiation, escalated negotiation and if that does not succeed then default. Additionally it will be down to our company to issue legal proceedings not Essar. They may simply inform the company that they believe a material breach has occurred, apply to the Ministry to have sole ownership and it is at that point that Shorecan will initiate proceedings to block that move.

What sort of notice has been issued then Rift? Given that there was Shareholder Agreement, that Essar have given us a notice saying we are in material breach (default) of that agreement and that they will have the right accordingly to terminate the agreement.

Again lack of research and understanding by you is causing you to lose sight of what is actually happening. I certainly don't lie and don't ever intend to do so. Please email Arthur and then we can all put your view to bed.

'But I do want to take this opportunity to warn shareholders about NoEasy and a couple of potentially short snakes here.

No Easy put a total untruth here at 08.34

"Its postponed until the disputes are sorted (or certainly the Essar dispute)."'

___________________________________________________________

Rift you don't surprise me. The words used in releases need to be read but more importantly understood. You are forgetting to do the last bit and that takes a little bit, sometimes a lot, of extra research. Try it.

Also be nice if you are the one to send an email to Arthur with the specific question asking if the Service Provider Agreement will be concluded whilst the EM dispute is unresolved.

Thanks Mk. I can see how some may interpret to read one way but they may wish to try reading it in more than one way. Which way is right? Well a quick email to Arthur will I am sure sort that out for those who care to take the time.

"Only the achievement of the finance can settle the "disagreement" with Essar Mauritius.' - If that was the case why issue a default notice just as Arthur has announced a Service Provider Agreement is imminent? Don't you think they would have waited four weeks or so before taking that step.

"The parties are in discussions to imminently resolve the disagreement amicably " IMMINENTLY doesnt mean a month!' - You mistake the context in which the word imminently is being used. It is not being used to say that an agreement will be reached imminently if indeed at all.

'Hold on a second. Who here has received a reply stating the Dispute with Essar needs to be sorted first, before Oil Field Services deal can be done??? This is nonsense and hasnt been relayed to shareholders.' - Neither was the dates for the Service Provider Agreement provided in an RNS.

Its not overdue Rift. Its postponed until the disputes are sorted (or certainly the Essar dispute).

Why do you persist in setting up dates that Arthur stated was a 'hopeful' date and portray it as fixed and then complain when that hopeful date is not met? I don't understand that at all. It just creates hassle when there is no need for hassle. Additionally you continue to ignore that events have actually overtaken the podcasts by Arthur. Its almost like there is a wall in your mind that you can't climb over.

As you are well aware other posters on here have received replies from the company indicating that the dispute with Essar will need to be sorted before the Service Provider Agreement can be finalised. Given you have continually been in contact with the company in the past why haven't you confirmed that to be the case with them?

Bob, the only bit of the situation that I can see that we are not aware of is the result of the Agamore court appearance. The reason for that court appearance has been defined by the company. As far as the Essar situation is concerned the company have informed us what is going on there as well. I don't see that there is much more they can put out.

You have to ask the question as to why the government would ask for an extension for something they haven't received though Zippy. It would seem emminently more reasonable that it is Sekaname again wanting an extension more so with them doing exactly the same last time around.

Its 28 days more, I have spent longer reading the paper on the toilet.

Hi Bob, Probably like a few on here I've tried to access a court site that may answer that question but no joy I'm afraid.

As always great research R-Dunc. Although I did read one case that went to court to appeal the arbitration based upon procedure not outcome with the desire to overturn the arbitration. All the fun of the fair. The appeal was not successful by the way.

I am also in at 23.50p. But don't go by my purchases...I added yesterday as well. I might have something disparaging about myself tattooed on my forehead.

I had the same thoughts for a good period of time re the NNPC Jiving but my view has changed. The way I'm leaning is that the NNPC cannot act until we show that we have the finance in hand to fund the drilling/production. So no matter the turmoil there we were never going to progress because of that.

I feel sure that had Essar not stuck their boot in we were at most 4-8 weeks away from having that finance sorted and that that would have allowed the NNPC to do their thing. We need to get back to that point and that is down to the disputes being sorted. Hopefully a positive update on yesterdays court case and a relatively short time then until the Essar ultimatum is updated. I get the feeling that the best way out of that is Shoreline picking up some initial slack for an extra percentage unless Essar do accept increased payment as compensation for Shorecan's failures from future revenues.

How we reached this stage is purely down to Shorecan's inability to secure the finance package in a timely manner. That rests squarely on the shoulders of Arthur Millholland and Kola Karim. We wouldn't have reached the position we are with Essar/securing NNPC sign off or the size of dilution to shareholder interests had we done what we signed up to do and drill one well by the end of 2017. We have to be honest about that.

Shorecan it seems entered into that agreement with Essar when oil prices had fallen hard and there was no promise of an early resurgence. Was it a bet on a quick improvement in future oil prices? If so it failed. Now however we are in better territory regarding oil price but the length of time it has taken us to get there has taken us into poor legal territory. So yes shareholders should rightly hold Arthur Millholland to account.

However, and using the well worn phrase, we are were we are. So order of the day is the two disputes out of the way, the service provider agreement concluded on the back of those issues and then the NNPC sign off. The NNPC need to see that Shorecan (not to be confused with Shoreline who are a separate entity) have sufficient funds to carry on the petroleum operations before sign off.

Disputes sorted toute de suite please Kola/Arthur. I say please because we as PI's, as you well know, are not strong enough to give you a proper kick up the arse.

Hi Patryk, I genuinely believe that the only anchor, given every producer is seeking to increase its bank in an ever decreasing world of successful exploration, is the political situation. A firm and settled result on that should, in my eyes, lift this to the front and centre of the window. I have witnessed from my time in investing how hard running a business is and how often just as you get the wind in your sails something happens to blow the wind the other way. Used to it now and used to waiting. The one thing that stands out is that this company has resilience when many have folded. That is a statement in itself.

Spot on Scotty. I was reading my book when I looked up and saw the share price. Forced up or forced down somewhere in there is true value. I added.

I managed a couple of buys during that time Andy.

It takes a lot for me to raise any enthusiasm whatsoever these days, I didn't even get excited when I was told by a beautiful woman that I was a miserable bast@rd.

But the company seem to be very excited about the road ahead and might just about be agreeing with them.

Good posts Tidd/Brad.