Member Info for taximan57

Why should it take months to evaluate the reservoir?

Ssccss, did the company not say that they expected the figures to improve had they continued both flow tests?

Listing Rules 7.1 and 7.4

As summarised in Section 1.2 above, Listing Rule 7.1 limits the amount of equity securities that a listed company can issue without the approval of its shareholders over any 12 month period to 15% of the fully paid ordinary securities it had on issue at the start of that 12 month period. Under Listing Rule 7.1A, an eligible entity can seek approval from its members, by way of a special resolution passed at its annual general meeting, to increase this 15% limit by an extra 10% to 25%.

Posted above for the benefit of people like me who thought this was gospel, as you can see it is for without shareholder approval and therefor they can use additional dilution once ratified at AGM.

Thank you Older and Brombarb, it finally sunk in.

Older, I may not be as wise in this matter as you but having been a LTH I have seen this many times. It is a ratifying of what was previously promised/used to cover fees, leases etc. All within the confines of the % allowed. That link does not show anything out with the scope of using their allocated maximum which may or may not include the 10% added to the 15%. If it was as simple as you suggest why would they need to add the requested 10% every 3 yrs? Not being defensive ;

My understanding is they can 'spend/use/promise' an amount of shares but then have to get those ratified, everything up to the maximum % allowed which is 15% (+10%). Within the agenda I have often seen comments like - if this is not approved then this can't happen - obviously not verbatim.

Older, the limit is 15%, they had the extra 10% added 3 yrs ago but need it added again this year thus is part of the agenda for next month agm. If you look at the shares outstanding it is almost exactly 25% added per year the last 3 years. I can't see where they could have reset it by my calculations, certainly over the previous 3 years.

As usual Older, you put me in my place, I don't mind that when I make errors. However when Scot declares the gas as a saleable asset I just pointed out that even PANR thought it was a liability. Nothing more, then of course the figures are wrong according to Scot with my misrepresenting gas amounts. This was a genuine error due to my lack of oil knowledge but a straight admission of liability was all I was looking for.

As for being defensive Scot I wasn't aware that I was, I just thought to correct you regarding liability.

Munnie, you are aware that the maximum they can dilute is 15% of the total shares outstanding? And they will be asking for a further 10% to be allowed again at this years AGM. So maximum 25% share dilution permitted. So not quite 'the biggest AIM capital raise dilutions ever seen' you are trying to put out there.

Scot, at least you confirmed that they did call the gas a liability. "a liability can be turned into an asset". So regardless of who tells you it is now a saleable asset PANR were looking at re-injection gas at a cost until it was decided that it was better to call it a saleable asset. An asset that cannot be sold until it has been lifted and stored or connected to a yet non existent pipeline which I think was about 3-5 years away subject to the plant brigade allowing it. In my eyes that is still a liability as who knows what the price will be in 5 years, and after PANR spend $Ms to bring it on board.

Scot, did PANR not describe their 1.28bbo as a liability? How did you manage to change it to "saleable liquids'? Can you be more explicit please ;)

Ecuagold yet another shorter and chose his header for a reason.

'Their is plenty of money to be made each year; just have to get the timing right.

Above is a copy of Ecuagold post from earlier.

Can I just ask why you think a large capital raise is needed and why dilution would be terrible?

Why would dilution be terrible?

Massive over average volume and down 33% at this point. I guess even the homies can't decipher the RNS. Management say its great news for the shareholder but nobody else can see it.

I think we need a further release for clarity on certain points, ie 4 stk barrels, and the analysis of even the first reservoir as they must have that by now.

Scot, the company must think it is commercial else why release that statement? I agree that it's not a black and white point of view however 88E see this as a step in the right direction and seek solace in another to take it forward. There is no doubt in my mind, that is what will happen. Limited capital invested to get it to a target audience and take the best bid. I keep saying that Texas will cover Namibia with at least $3Mpa (300bopd) and by end of year at least $6.5Mpa (600bopd) and possibly much higher (assuming 75% and $40pb). If money needed on top they have 15% dilution available with a further 10% after agm. Not the 100B shares banded about today but maybe 31.25B by year end. I would hope for a deal before the full 25% was needed.

'Commercialisation options for Project Phoenix are to be advanced in parallel, including farm-out to

a strategic development partner and/or early, capital-lite production given proximate infrastructure

advantages'

So 88E think it is a commercial proposition imo.

Utter nonsense Gemstar, I know it's not you, but who the hell needs 2000 wells and 100 pads?

(j) page 6 Skippy

Sushi even with full allowance used the maximum shares would be 31.4B and that's without a calculator.

Sounds like sushi needs your shares

Sharebel, lets not forget that the flow was increasing as they stopped the test, so figures could actually be higher.

Scot still rambling on about the cost of a barrel, please let it go. Market decides value.