Member Info for ps200306

Anovas, I've no interest in any macho betting as I would be over the moon if you were correct. I've enough riding on Providence that if they ever get out of this quagmire it will be compensation enough. What I have said is that the signs are not good. You opined that the money would arrive, but then you also said last year the TO'R would obviously have done due diligence on APEC and their money. The fact of the matter is that they played him like a fiddle, first stalling for over six months and then promising the cheque was in the post for another four.

The only plausible hypothesis we have -- assuming nobody lied or committed actual fraud -- is that APEC's funders are unable to satisfy AML requirements. If they cannot do it in four months there cannot be any guarantee that they can do it ever. It's as simple as that. Anything further is pure guesswork.

For some very weird reason, Anovas still thinks the money is coming. I was re-reading this thread over on ii ... nearly 18 months later it's interesting to see whose gut feel was closer to the mark:

https://www.ii.co.uk/discussion/t/sapinda-of-the-east/1139282

Manyana: "How do you know it is not as a result of the riots? Fact or speculation?"

How do you know it hasn't been intercepted by leprechauns and stuffed in a butter churn at the end of a rainbow?

Answer: engage your brain.

Manyana, you are grade A clueless. You stated "For the last four months HSBC business has been disrupted by the riots in Hong Kong". Then you say you are "not saying this is what has happened de facto but saying it is a possibility". Get your story straight for god sake. And stop demanding counterevidence for something YOU claimed. Here are some articles on HSBC and the Hong Kong protests:

https://financefeeds.com/protests-disrupt-hong-kong-banks-operations/

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/22/business/hsbc-standard-chartered-hong-kong-protests/index.html

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Banking-Finance/Hong-Kong-old-guard-banks-shaken-by-protests-and-online-competitors

Sure, there are some branch closures in specific areas affected by the protests. There is not even a hint of a suggestion that HSBC cannot do an international funds transfer, and anyone with an ounce of cop-on would realise that a bank in that situation would not stay in business for long.

You also present a completely false dichotomy between the money either being in the system or somebody is lying. There are other possibilities which have already been discussed on here. Foremost among them is APEC's inability to satisfy money-laundering checks. But it is all speculation as apparently it is too bothersome for TO'R to keep shareholder's abreast of any actual details. We were told that there was a change to APEC's funding structure but that was before the money was allegedly "in the system".

The bottom line is that any suggestion that HSBC are unable to do an international funds transfer is arrant nonsense. Something else is the problem. Since the problem has been ongoing for somewhere between four months and a year, depending on how you count it, the a priori odds of it suddenly being resolved must be considered low.

StMary, only a minority of posts are *worth* seeing on here.

Jones1980, your wish is my command. You were teetering on the brink anyway. Bye.

LONGWAIT, you are one of a handful of posters I bother to read these boards for.

Off to the filter bin with chipandputt and mahatmajacket.

"ignores": [
"chipandputt",
"chrisma",
"crudehope",
"Gaspunter",
"JezTheFez",
"Jobbinscl",
"mahatmajacket",
"Mickeytentoes",
"n4aPound",
"Petroleonline",
"Pontcanna",
"redmouse2812",
"Shaungreen47",
"simonthezealot",
"Sounder",
"Tradesmakes",
"trellis35",
"wh0sthedaddy"
]

Of course TO'R was bullish about APEC. What else is he gonna do, fall on his sword the way he should have? Not a chance. Yesterday's raise will go toward paying off the ex-employees. The remainder pays his salary for as long as he has the neck to stick it out. He now personally represents 40% of the whole company's cash burn rate. And I've no doubt he has the neck to ask for more in February, by which stage there will be some sort of new story to string investors along. Nobody will ask him the hard questions, like why he didn't get the APEC money immediately upon finalising the deal. That's an absolutely basic no-brainer in any transaction, which Manyana -- for all his claimed company knowledge -- doesn't seem to get. Nope, something is rotten about TO'R and Providence. There's a limit to how much of its abject failure to develop its assets can be attributed to timing and bad luck. Why was it forced to rely on dodgy dealers and chancers like Sequa and APEC? Any why, at this juncture, would a reputable major suddenly be stepping in to fill the gap?

Manyana you have completely lost the plot. Where are all these enthusiastic buyers desperate to buy into Providence? In the last five years Providence has come up with two -- Sequa/Sapinda and APEC, both of whom have turned out to be utter chancers without a brass farthing (at least, not one they were prepared to toss in PVR's direction). And while Providence has been perennially left unravished at the wedding party, you have opined that they'd be better off out of the APEC deal because someone else is going to magically step in and make them a better offer. I can understand your Brexiteer leanings now -- you're suffering from the same grandiose delusions.

LOL. Two more added to my filter list ... Sounder, who seems to have just had an unflattering post removed and, I am afraid, crudehope who has just been off topic too many times to entertain any longer. And while I was on the site checking Sounder's deletion, yes I did read your post trellis ... I don't filter people for speculating -- I filter them for posting endlessly about spam fritters, wine labels, and such like, or for unrelenting bilious negativity. I've nothing against anyone, I'm just streamlining my own day by making it easier to spot the rare nugget of actual information. Thanks for understanding :)

LONGWAIT, for no particularly good reason I surmised, when BM mentioned "well before Oct 31", that the closing date for bids might be end of September. That means it might be a while yet before we know anything. While it is tempting to believe that no news is good news, that turned out to be a very wrong interpretation on TE-10 even though the usual wild speculation on here was that it heralded something momentous. I am more inclined to believe that if the company says no news is to be expected, then no news means nothing more or less than "there is no news".

Exploration posts about SOU and about the oil business. That on its own distinguishes him from the many trolls and time wasters that infest this board (thankfully most of whom I have filtered). All posters and posts should be considered on their merits, but at least he posts stuff for our consideration, not the spam, trolling, and narcissistic drivel that we get from other quarters.

It's an EGM. The clue is in the word *GENERAL*.

One thing I've learned on here is that when Partridge feels the Bollies tightening, news is DEFINITELY imminent. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow ... hmmm, actually maybe not this year ... maybe not ever. But as sure as Casablanca is in Morocco, those tight Bollies are ignored at your peril.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpoyshqB8-o

Anyway, back in the real world ... there are two working days left in September. The chances of the Chinese money randomly dropping now when it hasn't in the last four months are miniscule. I'd also say the chances of finding a similar deal -- with someone prepared to fund the whole thing from appraisal wells all the well through to production -- are small. Providence are caught between a rock and a hard place. They've already given away a 50% interest under the current deal, so that'll be the *starting* point for anyone else coming in. But a farminee will know that Providence is on the verge of running out of cash and losing the licenses, so they can turn the thumbscrews. On the other hand, farming in to Barryroe with Providence might be the only chance anyone will ever get. That's the only possible glimmer of hope. But no doubt TO'R will figure out some way to screw it up.

You have to be wilfully obtuse to believe there is no possibility that humans are contributing to climate change. As much as the alarmist side is whipping up hysteria, the denialist side is engaging in lunatic conspiracy theories about socialist plots to take over the world. Everyone needs to take a chill pill. The standard denialist statements are meaningless -- that the climate has warmed many times in the past, that CO2 is good for plants, and that humans are too puny to alter the climate. It's like a child's denials -- "it was like that already, anyway it's going to be better now, and anyway I didn't do it". In fact the climate is warming at an unprecedented rate, and more plant growth won't necessarily offset the negative effects of climate change. As for being too puny, the world is a big place but our atmosphere covers it very thinly. Two thirds of it is below a height equal to the width of Dublin city centre.

There is an absolutely plausible case to be made that we are contributing to global warming. It could be wrong, but that's unlikely. What is much less certain is how much warming is going to occur. That depends on the so-called climate sensitivity. Radiative forcing from CO2 on its own is not nearly enough to effect catastrophic change, and the CO2 impact maxes out on a logarithmic scale. It is the response of other feedback mechanisms that makes the difference, and we don't know how sensitive they are to within a factor of two.

As such, although a precautionary approach is advisable, one which literally shuts down the world economy by depriving it of its energy sources certainly has the potential to be much worse than the dangers it seeks to avert. The lack of balance shown by the alarmists is worrying.

The lunatics are definitely taking over the asylum. We have JTF who apparently believes that the sale price will be based on what shareholders need in order to make a profit (caveat: I'm going by secondhand reports as I have the lunatic filtered). And crudehope believes that he would be "protecting his investment" by buying again in a raise that would dilute existing shareholders out of existence. Uh, that's not protecting your investment, that's writing off your now worthless investment and spending good money to take a repeat punt on the same enterprise, with the same chance of success.

Look on the bright side -- the Tanned One has stated he'll be "considering his position" this time next week when the money hasn't arrived.

So it's out on the newswires that Ireland has announced the cessation of oil exploration at the UN climate summit. And Providence are taking it seriously enough to have issued and RNS to announce it'll be seeking clarification. If you were an APEC investor, would you be handing over $10m of your hard-earned before getting cast iron guarantees. I know I wouldn't. Going at "Providence speed" this whole thing has the potential to set things back by months -- time which Providence doesn't have due to its cash position.

From the Sunday Business Post: POWER SHORTAGES AS PREDICTED DEMAND SURGES.
The growing number of data centres and the closure of Moneypoint power station means Ireland is at risk of not having enough electricity to meet demand by 2026, according to a stark new report to be published by Eirgrid this week.

Big international climate protest day today. Time is running out for Providence to develop their assets. Barryroe has already had at least one extension to the license. I presume those are at the discretion of the minister, and they will be increasing politically fraught. I fear that if the Chinese money doesn't arrive it will be one more nail in the coffin for Providence in terms of ever getting any hydrocarbons out of the ground. And that will be both a tragic waste and monumentally incompetent.