Member Info for Spikeyj

... & peeps wonder why it’s interesting
to watch this. never a dull moment...

RMR, i guess we’ll just to agree to differ on this one, eh?
if i were trying to sell something, i would want to be very
clear indeed that my agent/solicitor etc was working on
MY behalf, not the other party’s. thanks for the discussion, atb.

“having conversations with” is a good one though.

... covers everything from loose pillow talk to
trying to persuade a bailiff not to take the telly.

RMR, it says quite clearly that they
“... work on the Company’s behalf”.

if i am selling a property, the buyer’s
solicitor is not working on my behalf.

“... they continue to work on the Company’s behalf.”

but now zero mention of CITIC in latest RNS. perhaps
that cleansing statement RNS is coming out shortly?

beast, the RNS of 25/11 talks about CITIC working for EUA.
i am just querying how that would fit with the theory that
has been offered by alfe this morning that CITIC are *not*
working for EUA, but instead are working for the sell side.

either they are working for EUA, or they are not ... clarification...

RMR, if CITIC (&/or VTB) are working for a buy side, rather than
EUA, how does that fit with EUA’s RNS of 25/11/19, for instance?

crabby, if nothing was ever signed, it should have been pretty easy
to clarify long ago what EUA’s supposed relationship was with CITIC.

alfe, how would that fit with EUA’s own references
to CITIC and to VTB in their own previous RNSs?

hi RR, i’ll repost the guesses for s/price at cob first day’s post-
suspension trading later today, but if you want a “guess the
final sale price” competition you’ll have to set that up yourself.

? a bit more in the 200s, perhaps?

JLG results today give interesting data on the extent
of the hit from covid19 on renewable energy pricing.

but a few more now, thanks very much.

...interesting to see the extent of the hit from
covid19, particularly on those energy price.
other companies with renewable focus note...

WK...timing...

“... the group will benefit from 100% of mine
revenues expected to commence in June 2020.”

no mention of CITIC or VTB, so far as i could see?

“... legal and economic inconsistencies may arise”, lol.

16:25, funny!

... feb 2021 now, eh? i’ve adjusted my deckchair and
bought a bigger bag of popcorn. this may take a while...

... the bit you quote from says sufficient
to maintain the company’s *operations.*

but they do not say that they have enough for
the *non-operational* expenses, which are large.

(let alone pay for extra aje stake, new wells, etc!)

i think they choose that wording very carefully.

Early_Bird, not about me focusing on “historic accounts”.

it’s about how much cash they have left *NOW*.

they have said that they had £200K at 12th june
2020. but they have said nothing whatsoever about
reducing their administrative expenses cash burn.

... so means probably have only circa £100K left *now*.

they are producing some oil, but *none* of that money
from that is going to ADME, as all still goes to keep paying
off project level debt. therefore, no matter what exciting
longer term plans etc that ADME may or may not have,
they are *running out of cash next month*, unless they get
without an extra loan or a further raising through placing,
(or unless they stop paying the BoD renumeration in cash.)

aimho.

yes, i understand it very well. & you did not
say that in your post on 24th june, did you?

“before admin expenses” is a hugely important caveat with this
company, as they are getting a juicy livestyle out of the admin.

(not much use for ADME shareholders in AMDE if they have +ve
cash-flow operationally, but they still have to keep arranging
placements or expensive short-term loans, CLNS etc, and dilute!!)