Member Info for Setanta1

You've named the posters I was referring to. No doubt we'll have a response from them in due course. But you're quite sure that Adrian's response was alluding to the CER ? Because it certainly has not been posted on the INFA website. It certainly would be information of major importance. It would affect the stance taken by both contractors and possible investors In my opinion it would be price sensitive information. So where has it gone to?

It would appear from the lack of comment that nobody else at the GM heard anything about the CER. What is astonishing is that no one who posts here and who was at that meeting thought to ask about the report. All very odd!

If you are correct,jfk, that is very important. The CER would probably have had a significant effect on the share price. If it is positive it would have indicated that some of the storage capacity could be developed in the short term and at relative cost. The facility could then begin to be revenue earning which would pave the way for investment. In turn that would increase interest in the project and it would affect the share price positively. The CER report is crucial. Are you certain,jfk9,you got that right? It is of the utmost importance.

I've already posted my answer to the good mcadder. I can promise you that Adrian does read this BB, or at least the posts of the few larger private investors who contribute, from time to time. I don't want honeyed but meaningless words. What I want is some solid news which we should have had months ago. My problem with Adrian is that he has failed to deliver on anything he promised as a Requisitioner. crl 123, spud, I agree with your troll comments.

I prefer it this way. He reads this board. One to one he can't tell me anything that is not in the public domain and, in any case( rather sadly) I don't think I would trust the statement of the person who wrote the 6 June post I have already alluded to. What I want to see is an RNS with some positive information. That I will believe ! We all choose our own methods to proceed.

So what did Adrian tell you that you found so reassuring? It can't have been inside information.

You know that AP reads this board,and as I pointed out the other day posting here instead of talking to him gives him a wider perspective of shareholder feeling. Those who met him at the recent placement GM didn't get any satisfaction for their enquiries, just an excuse about"due diligence" being the reason for the news delay. Of course one can sell up at a loss but I don't think we invested here to take a loss. We invested on the back of a bill of goods we were sold. It is hardly "spouting" to demand answere to questions which should have been answered months ago.

I refer to the post by Adrian Pocock,(danawinner) on this board on 6 June when the rrquisitioners activity was in progress: "The project is a property deal.....The current BOD ( refers to the ousted BOD) cannot raise the initial �3M to get things going whereas we, (Pocock and Wale), can. Without this the company is a dead duck......... The new board will have a considerable percentage share of the company and be driven by the share price." And there's a lot more there too!. Just read it. So where is the �3M? And does the new NEDs .48% represent the "considerable percentage share" of the company? Here's what I'd like to know for the moment: 1.What is the strategy for INFA? 2. How much are we paying the NEDs? 3. How long will the placement funds last? 4. Where is the Concept Evaluation Report which has been available since May and which was rumoured to indicate the possibility to construcf a part of the Islandmagee facility in the short term in order to provide an income flow? 5. Where are the funds that the contractors had indicated a willingness to provide? 6. Where is the �2M that the requisitioners were so sure they could provide? None of this information should be witheld from the shareholders. To have provided no information whatsoever in the past six months is completely unsatisfactory. By the way crl123 being December shouldn't stop that newsflow.

Not alone stalled but ver badly stalled.Let's face it we were taken for a ride here by a couple of requisitoners who really didn't know that they were biting off more than they could chew. mcadder, I understand, and appreciate the posts by yourself and spud in which you have both tried to pitch an optimistic scenario, but the truth is that there is very little appetite by the government or those with "deep pockets" to invest hundreds of millions of pounds on the construction of gas storage in the immediate future while the price of the commodity is so volatile and while the UK is not in any pressing danger of a shortage of gas supply. In any case were construction to begin tomorrow the facilities wouldn't be completed for years so the supply position wouldn't improve in the short term.I don't think small investors put their money into small AIM companies with the intention of waiting years for a return. Realistically our only hope is that the company will be bought or that some one of the major gas companies will invest a couple of million pounds to fund construction over the short term while they review the situation in relation to gas storagein general. It would be a pittance to invest, yet we seem to have a problem eve with that relatively small sum I know four small investors who own approximately 12% of INFA,( me, spud,mcadder and crl123) and I also know that the lately appointed directors bought .48% between the three of them. Were these the "substantial holdings" that Adrian referred to when he was asking for our votes? Does it show commitment or confidence? I hardly think so! Five months, ( since the dismissal of the old BOD), is a long time to wait for some kind of positive news. The ultra low price of the placing shares tells one everything. The only way the funds could be raised to keep the company afloat was to sell shares at a rock bottom price. The placing wasn't even underwritten! That's how the financial institutions viewed it. One of the Requisitioners has already resigned from the Board and we haven't had any good news apart from the Bradshaws purchase which had nothing to do with the current management. Look, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to post like this. I'm losing dosh here. But one does need to face the truth rather than hope for apparently unlikely rapid turnaround.

It shows how bereft we are of any topics of real interest in relation to INFA when posters waste their time responding to nazareme. He's just a poorly informed,(in relation to INFA), poster who is entitled to his uneducated opinions. Leave him in peace.You're only encouraging his rather pointless diatribes.

I'll hold you to that 1p before xmas! ATB.

I found the reference you quoted mcadder but it was included in the placing RNS on 2 October,(not so recent), and it alluded to contractors,gas storage operators,and oil and gas focused lenders. The same people that were mentioned in the same context by the old BOD! So absolutely nothing recent or new there. The more one reads the recent RNSs, (apart from the good news one about the Bradshaws investment), the more one suspects a wordy but opaque tissue of smoke and mirrors. The information ref. the EU Funding renewal in the RNS had already been posted by Spud the day before the RNS. And the new directors RNSs bears closer reading. We'll see!

Some good posts today.mcadder your post was incisive as usual but there are three points I would like to raise: I know that Adrian reads this BB on a daily basis and I believe it is an effective place to address him because here he will have the benefit of the opinion of other posters upon the points I raise. I disagree with your point5. I am doubtful about the credentials of the three new NEDs for the tasks to be accomplished for INFA. And they are only NEDs. And one of them has eight current directorships,(remember Peter Wale stepped down because he felt he couldn't cope with the demands of two directorships simultaneously. Or so he indicated).I am also totally unimpressed by the number of shares bought by the new NEDs. Do you think that speaks of commitment or confidence? Not a lot of either ,in my view. I wonder how much we are paying them! Lastly,mcadder, could you please point me to the part in the "recent RNS" which states "the fact that a number of parties have expressed an interest in collaborating with INFA to progress the project". I can't find it .

You may well be right Catscan. Johan Claesson stepped down,one would think, at the behest of CBA. So now there is the potential to sell about 17% of the company to someone who may have more positive ideas about the future direction of the enterprise. Hawk is producing 1000+bopd and with the price of oil showing signs of strengthening rather than weakening it looks very interesting. My money is on Hawk to succeed. And what a price at which to buy in for more risk averse investors!

I haven't ,as yet, got my head around this share. But I will. I've just begun. I know that the debt is large but it will be manageable with a decent production increase and I doubt that CBA will want to let it go to the wall. That's where I am so far in my research. Not very far. But I make a comparison, (possibly incorrectly and no doubt I'll be informed) with(for example) CERP. An sp around the 6p mark, producing 350bopd against the 1200bopd of HAWK. And CERP hasn't even begun it's water flood project. All down to cofidence and sentiment? I think HAWK may well be ok!

Kromek is one of the seven Partner companies in in which the venture capital company Amphion is invested and their hand is often evident in their dealings. They own 3.75% of Kromek.