Member Info for senseman

Littlened - thank you, via your 08.11am post, for acknowledging the factual accuracy & appropriateness of my earlier 11.54pm post. The forum looks forward to your improved posting content.

HANK - keyboard warriors do not, as I did, attend the High Court on 3 occasions fighting for PI's (including your) interests. By the way, what did you do? If you cannot accept others' 'fair comment' when you post. without throwing toys out of the pram & implying violence, don't post. I did not call you a village idiot, I called you a mannerless ignoramus. If you wish to pursue the implied violence I will, as I did with littlened, temporarily sink to your level & call you out. Post here an email address (5 min job to get a new google or yahoo one) & I will write via my backup email. We can agree a day & time to meet in a park near my home whereat I will repeat face to face the words I wrote. NB Before you begin it may help to read back & comprehend how much naked effort others inputted to coalesce a complex situation into literary simplicity for the express benefit of others to read - because of the impossibility of explaining it all from scratch to anyone.

littlened & HANK - the forum loves your new 'best friends' status - automatically recommending each other's posts - if you post when you set a wedding date we'll have a whip round for a nice prezzie......)

Littlened - i proof-read your history when & to ascertain why you refused to stop corrupting the forum with rogue argument that Prax Refinery going bust was irrelevant & Prax Upstream was ring-fenced from administrator powers - the answer being you were a big hitter psychologically unable to accept the loss to DCU payments. On 07.06.21 you posted 'I am 78.5'6/1/2, undefeated boxing champion of Barnsley Grammar School...'; on 02.06.21 'My 2,192,844 votes are in.'; on 04.10.21 'I have 1.3m shares'; on 03.01.23 'Voted 3,814,734 in favour'; on 21.03.23 'I am happy to wait and may even add to my 1.8m shares'. Knowing you'd continue I scribbled a few notes on my HUR notepad to save looking again if necessary but mangled reading those notes eg. I misread a 2 for a 5 and overlooked a final note on an overleaf page. Whilst apologising for those immaterial errors they don't alter the picture - namely you being in your 80s (you are 82 not 85) & having between 1.8 million - 3.8 million DCUs (since being a deep-pockets big hitter believing early doors Prax would deliver 12.5p, you would have added minimally a few hundred thousand to your 21.03.23 1.8 million).

Since you have been so classless and crude as to employ the 'look at me I have a big d ick' ploy with your Oxbridge & high IQ drivel, I will hold my nose in sinking to your level to show you how tiny your d ick really is so you can stick in back in your pants where it belongs & keep it there. Growing up in a council house where my primary school hadn't seen an 11+ pass in years, a few weeks after taking mine little green men from the education authority/MENSA came to the school for me to take a battery of tests. Not only from that humble background had I gotten the highest mark in the country, my 1Q score renders your 149/150 puny. Refusing later offers from Cambridge (UK) & Minnesota State (USA), I have 2 PhDs from other unis. Re sport - I was a schoolboy international in 3 different sports (1 as captain), and at senior level have world championship gold & silver medals. It beats being boxing champion of Barnsley Grammar.

The appointed administrator has complete control over all State Oil assets & subsidiaries. It can sell Prax Upstream tomorrow, irrespective of the views of Prax Upstream or Soosie (when he is found). In short, it is under administration. Kindly therefore cease posting nonsense eg. 'It is a fact that Prax Upstream is not in administration'. The only thing which may be said of Prax Upstream is that it is a solvent, profitable, going concern. That is a separate and distinct issue from whether it is under administration - which it is.

Good stuff in both Times articles

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/prax-lindsey-oil-refinery-had-only-203-when-glencore-pulled-plug-sm0rsgts9

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/energy/article/fugitive-energy-tycoon-prax-jobs-risk-3snzn5r8w

The diaologue between littlened & HANK is a tragi-comedy of morons.

littlened - 85 yrs old, owner of over 3 million DCUs, opiner of the HUR/Prax sale being good and now hopeful of Prax Upstream being sold rather than P6 being allowed to run till end 2026 - why do you still post that Prax Upstream is not part of the administration process when the administrator has announced it is seeking a buyer (unfound as yet) for Prax Upstream?

HANK - you have been previously called out for appearing after long absence, posting drivel and asking others to waste time bringing you up to speed because you can't be bothered to have a catch-up read. Why do you continue such behaviour?

Village idiots or mannerless ignoramuses? Sadly, the latter.

Https://www.gtreview.com/news/europe/collapsed-prax-has-large-hole-in-receivables-facility-administrators-say/

BIG PICTURE LATEST

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/company-behind-lindsey-oil-refinery-collapsed-owing-estimated-1-6bn-including-huge-sum-to-tax-office/ar-AA1LkjPS?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=2e05ef1c341d4b75976c6532a209aa30&ei=15

Dive - beautifully done. It was a pleasure to watch

littlened - the penny will not have dropped yet. but Dive has skilfully outed you as an empty vessel opining with neither logic nor reason. do you still not comprehend that if prax upstream is sold, each DCU will receive only 17.5% of the sale price divided by 2 billion?

Rodney

So toys are being thrown out of the pram & legalities threatened - because I won't kow-tow to your ego's need to have the last word you hoped would stand as pyrrhic victory & innocence-justification. A wise man would have just kept quiet a while. You are not wise. Your legal advisor's advice will be:-

START "Courts view public forums such as LSE as 'pub discussions & honest exchange of opinion'. You have not been accused of murder or rape. Your professional reputation has not been damaged - you kept your professional details secret. The audience was small. Crucially, you were not entitled to post on LSE, & broke numerous Terms & Conditions Of Use. I cite excerpts to illustrate (capitalization is for emphasis); eg:-

'CONDITIONS OF USE

You may print or download to disk the contents of an individual page of this website FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRIVATE & PERSONAL NON-COMMERCIAL USE. But you may not, except for that, copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, download, display, post or transmit the contents in any form or by any means without our prior express written permission.

PRIVATE INVESTOR

BY USING THIS WEBSITE YOU ARE AGREEING THAT AT ALL TIMES YOU WILL BE ACTING AS A PRIVATE INVESTOR, AND THAT ALL PAID 'PREMIUM SERVICES ARE USED IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY.

FOUMS

You agree that you will:

* ONLY PUBLISH CONTENT THAT IS YOUR ORIGINAL WORK & will not infringe the copyright or other rights of any third party.

* NOT DISGUISE THE ORIGIN OF ANY CONTENT & not impersonate any person or entity or misrepresent any connection with any person or entity'

It is clear that, heading a professional investment group heavily invested in the forum-topic share/DCU, you had no right to post on LSE. Turning to issues of fact - 'picsmaister', a long term forum member & share/DCU holder, verified 'senseman's account of various matters. Lastly, it is clear that 'senseman''s unwritten message was i) ensure you do not in future go too far & again insult the forum's collective intelligence ii) cease pleading 'no-fault innocence', for similar reason. You ignored that message and, in lay terms, persisted in 'upping the ante'. My view is that a judge will consider the issuing of proceedings against 'senseman' as the act of a malicious charlatan impelled by hubris & ego. I cannot see that you have been slandered and see no circumstances whereby such a claim will succeed. My advice is that you place hubris & ego in the freezer for 6 months; reflect & grow up." END

I have no intrinsic desire for you to cease posting, Nor, I am sure, does any member. Provided that you cease considering yourself immune from adhering to basic sensibilities & rules. That is for you to decide. I would appreciate cessation of legal threats which you should know by now do not impress me and I find boring.

Really, Ned the Gobby? You weren't calling me obsessive in 2021 whilst drowning underwater at high prices and my 'obsessive' efforts helped save your bacon - from where you bought a million+ more shares for peanuts to see you average down into the profit you are now and from whence you opined the HUR sale was good and Soosai Prax gods! You've never posted a constructive thought - a phial of poison would be of more use to the forum than you...

Rodney - if the head of an investment group receiving fees and/or profit share from said group elects to pony up £1K for an easier life rather than level with clients that a small £10K or £20K fundraise is needed to protect and possibly save a substantial already in profit 20 mill share/DCU investment, that is his decision and changes nothing. At the time I could not elicit from you an answer to a a straight question - ie: had a small fundraise been discussed with your group? If you without just cause felt or still feel noble re your £1K payment - consider the huge unpaid man hours dflynch, picsmaister and I inputted - worth minimally £5K apiece - then having to wake up on the day to discover we had to attend court armed with our document in one hand and our d icks in the other - without your promised legal front man - to face batteries of top-notch legal teams.

I did not state you sanctioned profit at the expense of PI's. I stated that you and your group benefitted hugely from PI's labour then failed to do what was minimally right and proper when unfortunately for PIs (& your group) the need arose. I did not slander. I write precisely. Do not mis-cite me.

Below are my express 24 July thanks & praise for your posting of the 23 July long Note. I remain nonplussed as to why you did not simply reply..."A legally trained friend/acquaintance was the author.":-

"Rodney - the quality & scope of the Opinion suggests the author is a well-instructed insolvency specialist Counsel. Is this correct?

I have been unable to find any relevant flaw. It erudites a far cruder lay summary I was for several days working up the juice to post to pull all the threads together but thankfully now don't have to attempt. It has pulled all threads together"

I am reminded of a comment I offered you after a couple of phone conversations with you, ie: that whereas checking the road-crossing light is green before crossing, waiting for a blind man with his dog to cross before crossing was mr teflon x 2. That is you. But it is a complete no-no to post on a forum and refuse to generically identify a source. It is called having both cake & trifle, and the luxury to eat in peace - a common mistake of those wearing 2 hats believing they can ignore basic principles. This matter would have laid dormant till my promised 2027 post-DCU comment when it would have been only one amongst numerous. But your ego impelled you to cross a line.

Littlened - having another pop at me would carry more credibility if you did so cold, rather than await someone else doing so and pitch in on the back of anothers' coat tails like the ignorant coward you are

Rodney - see below (17 Aug) wherein I stated your group paid the £1000 cost. Engage eyes and brain before posting:-

"Undeterred I approached the other most reputable corporate chambers in the field & secured a £1000 2 hour conference quote. Pro-bono was out as it required a 3 month application process. After arm-twisting Rodney agreed his investment group meeting the cost & also offered the attendance of a solicitor member (‘the solicitor’) of his investment group."

I stand by all my comments. You are not a PI and should not even be posting now. You lied and rode the coat-tails of this forum's expertese for commercial profit & prestige, letting all PIs down badly when a moment of need arose whereat you could & should have returned a modicum of quid pro quo but failed miserably.

Given RodneyT continues his innocent Vestal Virgin dancing on the head of a pin act, I'll call it as it likely is.

Having announced to investment clients months ago a further £800K (4p per DCU more) was likely from the group's 20 million DCUs, given imminent Total deal start due 2025 Q1, recent State Oil/Prax/Soosai/Total shocks caused Rodney a communication/credibility problem. One can't just email clients & say 'Sorry, you ain't gonna see 4p more per DCU. - maybe just 1p & bits.'. Clients require fulsome explanation enabling emotional adjustment & diminution of desire to lynch the investment manager. Hence the 23 July long Note.

Note was not written by Rodney - neither his literary style, nor within his compass. Were he author, he would have just said so. Likely author was group's solicitor client-member. Rodney fed him core document + forum wise-men (who did grunt work) comment - proof being that Note contained verbatum copy & paste of crucial forum comment. Note contained nothing original - was merely precis/summary/distillation of prior erudite forum comment. Ditto Update 21 August - save for 3 crucial omissions already in public domain rightly cited by Corry, Dive & Laser - which correctly remove the Update's sugar coating. Were these omission carelessness, incompetence, or deliberate to sugar-coat reality for agitated client-investors?

Crucial understanding being that both 23 July Note & 21 Aug Update were written for provision to Rodney investment group client consumption (ie.not us). Forum publication being a by-product for forum brownie points.

I agree with Corry Dive Laser the likelihood is any offer to buy Prax Upstream will be fire sale cheap, get us 17.5% of peanuts and best avoided. If Rodney wishes to exhibit a modicum of 'mea culpa' apology for past misrepresentation, cowardice and ethical dereliction, he should suborn and support his group's solicitor-client to write directly to both administrator & Prax Upstream setting out the commercial case and duty of care for Prax Upstream to continue producing, and the regulator to OK the currently dead Total/Laggan deal - and forum-post those efforts. Now that would require serious time consuming grunt work - so lay your bets! What should cease is the innocent Vestal Virgin 'I am trying to help you all' act which amounts to nothing more than further extracting the urine

Laser - thanks for keeping on top of Soosi info and posting link I encourage all to open if not done already. So Soosi's done a runner, it's been uncovered he's been fiddling the books & hiding it from the stooge directors, and the administrator has filed a civil claim on behalf of State Oil (Prax parent co) against Soosi personally in order to be able to freeze all Soosi assets incl the £5 mill house and any hidden bank accounts that can be found. Ye Gods....how much worse can it get...

Littlened is ignorant, & nasty with it. Ego exceeds brain power. Whenever he posts, others must clean up the mess. Underwater in 2021 with 2.2 mill shares, he voted against HUR/bondholders. After 2021 low price heavy buying averaged him down, likely below 12.5p, on 03.01.23 he owned 3.8 mill shares. On 23.03.23 he posted re proposed HUR/Prax sale .... 'I am at a loss why most posters think this a rotten deal....', on 24.04.23 posted... 'Why do most of you think the full 12.5p will not happen ?', & on 25.04.23.... '... nothing is a given either way but I think the safest bet is via Prax & I am abstaining in the vote'. On 09.07.25 he tried to shut down my updates re Prax Refinery....'Why are you obsessed with those Prax companies in administration ?...' and on 17.07.25 discussion of the 5 July Sunday Times 'doom & gloom' article & it's implication....' The outcome of other Prax companies is irrelevant to Prax Upstream. ...'. On 02.09.25 Laser posted the State Oil + Others v Soosis High Court breach of fiduciary duty claim. In short, despite wiser heads explaining both matters & now being proven right, littlened got it completely wrong both re HUR/Prax sale, and today's developing impact.

Below is full copy of a self explanatory 28.03.25 post wherein I promised, post-DCUs in 2027, information & explanation of crucial events generally unknown to the forum but which I considered would be appreciated, should the forum express interest. 24 ticked 'recommend' - overwhelmingly affirmative. My recent 4 part post was the start of my fulfilling that obligation. It just happened that as RodneyT had again overstepped the mark & needed stopping, it seemed opportune to kill 2 birds with one stone since it was one of the topics I intended covering in 2027. Rodney & his investment group just got unlucky earlier than planned. Picsmaister - dflynch, you & I lived it in 2023 - you are a mild mannered retired foreign office dude not given to hyperbole or being influenced - leaving aside my phone conversations with Rodney & counsels' chambers you naturally did not witness, if minded could you express a 1-2 sentence view as to whether my account is balanced & fair, or otherwise? If not minded, I won't be offended.

"senseman

RE: DCU payment 28 Mar 2025 10:28

Machin - thanks for kind sentiment 26.03. Sadly, remain on financial death row facing execution, hugely stressful makes life daily grey. Am minded March 27 post final DCU payment, when certain ethical loyalties cease & can't be accused of forum-hogging, to post warts & all series titled 'senseman's memoirs', likely 3 instalments titled i) 'How & why PIs failed to easily stop HUR/Prax sale & threw away 20p/30p/40p sunny uplands, ii) 'Heroes & Betrayers', iii) 'Human Nature'. Will be riveting read. Rhetorical question - do you think will be appreciated? Readers generally - give the recommend a tick if you would like me post such in March 27.

Reply Recommend (24)"

PART 4

My irritations with Rodney are several. It is arrogant & insults other posters to hide behind secrecy refusing to acknowledge even the generic nature of a source. Next - he should have posted, minimally, cards on table – ‘If PIs in future need legal representation my group owns 1% of all DCUs, equivalent to 5% of all PI DCUs, ie: 20 million DCUs. Since the only way to collectively fund legal representation is a time consuming fundraise & instructing/running lawyers etc which none of my group wish to do as it detracts from money-making – if a forumite is altruistic or daft enough to undertake the endeavour my group will match pound for pound any sum raised by PIs. Alternatively contribute a lesser proportion but also pay the volunteer for his time expended so that my group’s total contribution matches pound for pound any sum raised by PIs. I acknowledge my group has, via my masquerading as a PI on a forum intended for PIs and not professional investors (see LSE guidelines), profited by riding the coat tails of PIs efforts & expertise without incurring certain fees a professional investment group would normally incur. I apologise for my duplicity.’ What he should NOT have done is dangle bait hoping a PI will step forward articulating the fund-raise need and offer to run it, unaware the largest beneficiary by far of that effort would be an undisclosed professional investment group seeking another free ride.

PART 3

Counsel was excellent & professionally interested given the 2021 benchmark ruling. He clarified given our limited time/resources our best tactic was the single point of attack 50% first hurdle option. The next day when I phoned to thank him he confirmed that incl preparation his expended time had been 6hrs - a normal £3600 cost. We paid £1000. Rod’s solicitor colleague was good – coalescing us 3 PIs’ massive information base into coherent main points & progressing the conference. It demonstrated the advantage of a having a legal, detached mind speaking.

dflynch wrote a superb document – a statistically robust, arduous labour of love. Nursed into ‘English’ by picsmaister. Imbued with appropriate ‘legalese’ by the solicitor. It was served on HUR/Prax & delivered into court exceptionally late, ie: day before Hearing, and we cobbled circa 20 late stage emails overnight from the group & other forumites, to the court. After conference with counsel, Rodney & solicitor had agreed (no arm twisting) the solicitor would represent us on the day, with dflynch, picsmaister and I attending to comment on specific issues when required. Rodney, head of 20 million shares, declined to attend.

On the morning of the hearing (am start) the solicitor informed us via email he would not attend as ‘something had arisen’. dflynch, pics and I were disgusted at both action & timing. Talk about desertion!. Post the hearing Rodney & solicitor avoided phone contact with us. Hence after a while I emailed my view (copied to all small PI group members) the solicitor last minute cry off was planned and neither Rodney nor he attended in order to avoid any possible costs consequences (though I could not see any) if we failed, or for other inexplicable secrecy reasons. I opined it was a case of 2 Mr Teflons. Also that for an investment group to hold 20 million shares & profit so much from PI’s 2021 effort, to contribute a paltry late-stage £1K rather than an early-stage £10K or £20K towards the 2023 effort was pitiful - £10K up front early doors would have boosted success chances immeasurably. Even the solicitor or solicitor + Rodney attendance at court may have tipped the balance.

The judge should have ordered a vote recount applying the 1 man 1 vote natural justice principal. But my concerns about the silence/secrecy of the group’s plan were born out a) HUR/Prax had prepared for a late surprise fight – a KC, QC, 2 batteries of solicitors, huge legal bills b) both HUR/Prax & judge queried PIs silence at the HUR/Prax PI meeting, also lack of voluminous early PI protest and emails to the judge as per 2021 c) having written most of his nearly 1hr verbal judgement over prior days, based solely only on volumes of HUR/Prax submissions before him, the judge was clearly unimpressed at our document landing on his desk the day prior to hearing.

Plan. PART 2

About this time RodneyT, not one of the group but a regular poster contacted me via my backup email earlier posted. After email we spoke by phone but Rod’s initial queries eg what can we do? morphed into ideas/requests requiring my doing serious donkey work whilst he did not, despite my having made clear on the forum I had to limit involvement. I declined further discourse unless attempts to manipulate me ceased, also until he told me a little of his back story as he withheld his phone number, was secretive and clearly no average PI. He then provided the information cited above, also that his role meant he was often abroad with little time for donkey work. I expressed chagrin that he expected me to labour for his company’s possible very significant benefit, whilst he earned money. I offered to ask the small PI group if he could be included within round robin emails so he could benefit and contribute when possible as I did. They agreed.

The group struggled to decide the best tactical option for it’s document – either concentrate on a single attack point culminating in a request to the judge to order a recount of the crucial first hurdle votes whereby all PIs votes lodged with brokers would all count rather than each broker casting just one vote depending on which side the majority fell - which if so ordered would ensure HUR/Prax would fail to reach 50% and the sale be denied. Or a 2 pronged document which also attacked HUR/Prax production/financial/risk projections (since proven to be a fairy tale), similar to CA’s 2021 tactic. The group needed i) barrister opinion ii) representation at court (half to a whole day). The group would itself write the document. Since Rodney would not be writing the document I asked that his investment group contribute £10K for a bare bones job, ideally £20K for a good job. Rod declined. My involvement inexorably rising to a level I specifically wished to avoid, but loath to see PIs fail, I entered full senseman mode and phoned Andrew Thornton KC of Erskine Chambers to plead for 2 hours pro-bone conference advice & possible representation on the day. Mr Erskine declined conversation, citing conflict of interest. Immediately I knew HUR/Prax were so worried about the Hearing’s outcome that they had secured the services of the chambers CA had employed to (with our help) defeat HUR/bondholders in 2021. Undeterred I approached the other most reputable corporate chambers in the field & secured a £1000 2 hour conference quote. Pro-bono was out as it required a 3 month application process. After arm-twisting Rodney agreed his investment group meeting the cost & also offered the attendance of a solicitor member (‘the solicitor’) of his investment group. I scanned documents to Counsel. The solicitor, dflynch, picsmaister & I attended conference which lasted 3-4 hrs.

PART 1

RodneyT on 23 July posted a Note re DCU’s; & on 24 July thoughts including that we should discuss who should pay for legal representation if necessary. He did not offer to pay. Nor state and offer to conduct what he knows is the only option; ie: for someone to open & run a fundraise & source, instruct & run solicitors (ie a quasi full time job for someone). He did neither because he personally does not want to do either. On 30 July he confirmed, without good reason, refusal to answer a most innocuous question – was he the author of the Note or, eg, a legally trained friend/colleague? Since a basic precept of all investor forums is to acknowledge authorship or source, my ass twitched – invariably when such is avoided a poster is hiding something, or seeking to manipulate.

Rodney is the lead/investment manager/front (call it what you will) for a group of clients/investors previously owning circa 1% (20 million) HUR shares & now 1% (20 million) DCUs (a mini version of RB of CA, if you will). That is, 5% of all PI DCUs – save that they are not PIs. The full 4p per DCU remaining to reach 12.5p is worth £800K to the group, each further 1p from our current 8.5p £200K. At HUR/Prax 2023 sale time & receipt of the initial 6p, the group was already in profit via i) heavy purchasing at 1-2p on the back of our 2021 success; ii) profitable trading similar to CA’s tactics. The group was thus not ‘distressed’ by loss as were many PI’s, but in 2023 miffed at the imminent sale to Prax for peanuts rather than a possible eventual return to +20p & huge profit. How do I know all this?

In 2023 HUR/Prax upon announcing the proposed sale called a PI meeting for questions. Only circa 10 attended, 7 of whom (all forum posters, never met before, incl me) had a pre-start chat in which it was decided to keep silent about awareness of votes against the sale lodged with a broker eg Hargreaves counted as only 1 vote as the broker was the sole entry on the share register for all that broker’s HUR PIs. The plan being to work on a document to place before the court at a late stage and thus surprise HUR/Prax. The plan to be kept secret from the forum & thus HUR/Prax. I argued against the silence & secrecy aspect, citing a) given past PI success HUR/Prax would prepare for all eventualities whether forum silence or noise b) lack of mass forum-induced email representations in good time direct to judge would throw away PI’s proven greatest asset (recall effect on both 2021 Hearings) c) Judges dislike last minute defence ‘ambushes’. But I was outvoted & having made plain on the forum that financial broken wings (not my HUR investment) caused by my 2021 efforts precluded me from leading more ‘senseman’ campaigns, I had no right to hinder or betray a small group who effectively were those most prepared to input time & effort. I therefore kept quiet at the meeting (difficult), promised the group to assist if and as I could, and did not post it's pl

3rd Request

Rodney - With respect, you will recall from our 2023 phone conversations that I am immune from politician-type evasive answers which also seek to reverse blame onto a fair questioner. I fail to see the difficulty arising answering the innocuous & obvious question - You posted a long Note on 23 July -were you the author or, if not, is the author legally trained?. Please therefore could you answer that simple question.

Do note I won't trouble you asking again but if the question remains unanswered I will post my view of the issue. By the way - I haven't asked you for 'anything more'.

Rod - you've dodged my relevant question - did you write the opinion note? Or a legal practitioner? (be it paid or unpaid, it matters not, eg in 2023 you introduced a couple of us to a lawyer friend who opined). The question's relevance is self evident. If you prefer not to answer please state so in order I don't waste further time pressing. No one has time to dance around the heads of pins.

Recent events are disastrous even in best case scenario as Total/Laggan deal has gone so even if DCUs run till end 26 we'll get circa max 1.7p more, rather than 4p.

If I did not have broken wings, I would by now have spoken directly by phone with (and written to) the appropriate Teneo administrator highlighting the duty of care not to sell Prax upstream save at fair market value and suggesting the regulator be encouraged to still ok the Prax/Total deal to either (i) increase the benefit of Prax upstream being allowed to continue unmolested with increased profitability, or (ii) increase attractiveness & value for sale purposes. This is something various members have the skill set to do. All that is lacking is the willingness o do serious grunt work, and balls. On 12 July DiveCentre posted under 'Sage Advice' and I will respond under that heading with various thoughts.