Member Info for Stas20

Interesting that none of the discord crew ever come on here anymore to support the directors. Also, their voices are now absent in their protection of PB not buying shares - somthing he continually promised to do but didn't - yet not one of the syscophants could bring themselves to call him out for that.

Well purebond obviously has faith to put a lot more into TXP and they will not just be looking at the increased oil price, the hopefully increased output post CR3 cleanup and compressor install, but will be already looking towards the renogotiated gas prices which will no doubt be on the card pretty shortly.

Nice to see some good news for a change, starting to feel like PB is trying to show we might be in the turnaround year.

This is going to pickup imo

Is this the signal to let the brakes off. Someone thinks this is all the reward they need wonder why.

Thanks for your guidance frankyee, you're just so smart....afterwards

Frankyee, nee aligator, nee rossanan - you seem to have almost wet yourself with the number of posts since the decline in shareprice, you have such a caring nature, a truly good human we can tell. How's TEK doing btw.

That's a lot of director snouts in the trough, still might let the sp run now, greed greed greed

More funny how aligator nee frankyee come out to comment on a down day when they have no interest other than hating on TXP as previously stated when they were using their third alias - pretty disgusting behaviour but par for their course.

And a mkt cap now less than it paid for the central block

Well once again it's all eyes to the next set of results, next quarter will incorportate the middle east war premiums in oil and should have some good news (hopefully) on the compressor installation. PB knows how to push things down the road for sure.

"Regrettably, no." - and yet you still don't think an open letter is of value. You're just shouting in the forest and the only people getting hit are the shareholders you are trying to protect!

For my part, my concern has been exactly as stated: that public pressure should be constructive, clearly aimed at improving the outcome, and not simply add to fear among retail holders. If the pressure results in better disclosure, better terms, stronger shareholder protections, or a fairer deal overall, then I would welcome that. My only point throughout has been that the criticism needs to be matched by a clear remedy.

As for “skin in the game”, I do not think a shareholder has to publish their holding on a public bulletin board to ask a reasonable question. The point stands or falls on its merits. But yes, if it gives you any comfort, I am a shareholder. I do not generally comment on stocks where I have no position.

My agenda is straightforward: I want the best achievable outcome for all ordinary shareholders, and I do not want retail investors frightened into selling by a campaign that is strong on accusation but still unclear on remedy.

As for the aspects of the RAM deal investors are likely most concerned about, I would say they are fairly obvious:

the apparent transfer of majority project economics for what many see as inadequate consideration;

ZIOC potentially being reduced to a much smaller minority exposure to its only real asset;

the lack of full clarity around RAM / Greymont / GIS and associated interests;

whether shareholders are being given enough disclosure before any vote;

whether there should be independent valuation or stronger minority shareholder protection;

and whether the current structure is genuinely the best available route, or merely the one now being presented as inevitable.

So no, I do not think “resistance is futile”. Nor do I object to pressure being applied by legitimate means.

But I do think pressure should be tied to a clear, constructive objective. That could be fuller disclosure, independent valuation, revised terms, stronger retained economics, better shareholder protections, or some combination of those.

Your London analogy is interesting, but it misses the point. You have described the possible modes of travel. What shareholders still need to understand is the destination. Is “London” revised terms? More disclosure? Blocking the deal? Regulatory intervention? RAM stepping back? A white knight? Something else?

Saying “there are many routes” is fine. But unless the destination is clear, shareholders are being asked to support a journey without knowing where it is supposed to end.

I respect the “why”. I am still asking for clarity on the “what”.

My concern is not with shareholders applying pressure. My concern is with pressure that is highly effective at creating fear, but still vague on what success actually looks like.

If the RAM deal has damaged confidence, then an undefined campaign of further alarm risks reinforcing the very downward pressure it claims to oppose. That may not be the intention, but it is a fair concern when retail selling appears to be the visible result.

If the objective is to improve the outcome for minority shareholders, then surely the remedy needs to be at least as clear as the criticism.

Thanks, but that still does not really define the objective. “There are lots of ways this could play out” and “whatever permutation delivers the best outcome” may be true, but it still leaves ordinary shareholders with no clear idea what outcome you are actually working towards.

Nobody is asking you to disclose anything genuinely sensitive. The question is whether the public campaign has a defined remedy, or whether it is simply designed to keep pressure on the company and counterparties.

- If the objective is full disclosure before any vote, say that.

- If the objective is an independent valuation, say that.

- If the objective is a renegotiated RAM deal, say that.

- If the objective is to block the deal unless certain conditions are met, say that.

- If the objective is regulatory intervention, say that.

At the moment, shareholders are being given a long list of alleged issues, but no clear description of what a successful resolution looks like.

That matters, because the public effect of this campaign appears to be uncertainty, suspicion and retail selling. If there is a constructive endgame, it would help to define it in broad terms.

“Mushrooms seeking sunlight” is a nice phrase, but shareholders need more than metaphors. They need to know whether this is a campaign for transparency, a campaign for renegotiation, or a campaign to derail the current transaction altogether. Because if the objective is not clearly defined, then the public effect risks becoming more of the same FUD - more uncertainty, more suspicion, and more pressure on already nervous retail holders.

Let's fae it the original RAM deal may already be poor enough from a shareholder perspective. My conern is that an undefined campaign of constant negativity, without a clear remedy, could end up adding fuel to the fire rather than improving the outcome.

That does not really answer the question though, does it?

You have already disclosed a great deal publicly - repeatedly - including alleged irregularities, disclosure failures, obfuscation, conflicts, “RAM raid” language, possible regulatory angles, and the suggestion that shareholders are being materially disadvantaged. So I am not asking you to disclose anything genuinely sensitive. I am asking something much simpler: having made the case publicly, what outcome are you actually seeking?

Is it:

RAM removed from the transaction?

ZIOC retaining more than 12.5%?

A royalty?

Full disclosure of RAM / Greymont / GIS ownership before any vote?

An independent valuation?

A revised shareholder vote structure?

Regulatory intervention?

Or something else?

Because “a fairer outcome for all shareholders” sounds reasonable, but without detail it is just a slogan, and if the only public output is a rolling series of accusations and insinuations, while the share price weakens as retail holders lose confidence, then it is fair to ask whether the campaign is helping shareholders or simply feeding FUD.

You may call that an armchair criticism if you like. I would call it a reasonable shareholder question.

Ok so "We're pointing out publicly some - and to others in detail ...and more - of the inconsistencies, illogicalities and irregularities that we've identified in this deal and ZIOC's post-deal disclosures."

- once you have pointed out all these irregularities, how do you propose that achieves your goal, you state, "to achieve a fairer outcome for ALL shareholders from any deal that emerges."

- but you have not stated how? or what a fairer deal might look like - a 'fairer outome' is a bit wolly, how about a bit of detail, what do you expect, a renegotiation and an increase to the deal of the 12.5% or a larger royalty or a kick out of RAM - basically I've read a lot of words but nothing that says what you expect would be considered a good outcome. Like I think you said yourself recently, the devil is in the detail... because at the moment what we are seeing here, or certainly looks like is being received based on the shareprice is FUD ?

No need to wobble anyone's head, the question was somewhat rhetorical however, his actions seem to be leading directly down that route. Certainly do not see how they are supporting the shareprice when you look at the drip drip of stock being sold, this is not institutional, its PI's its retail - it's people be fed FUD.

Not reading this site so much these days but interested extrader what your objective is here, you obviously hate the RAM deal, and you continually bash the stock on this forum concerned enought to maintain negativity - but what is your ultimate goal, to ensure that neither RAM, the company or the shareholders ever get anything out of this, what are your actual goals, and bearing in mind, you, GGG (who seems to have lost a fortune) and many others are shareholders, how do any of your tasks seek to help shareholders?