Member Info for Teacup64

Sandy - tHou forget to mention that shareholders, under the companies act 2006, have a legal right to invoke a meeting and following resolution to remove directors, if the 5% threshold is met. ....sometimes, shareholders become unhappy! But what are you trying to prove, and why are you continuing to disrupt the board?

MS - Go back to the start, I made very clear that I didnt want BP to proceed just yet, and that we should focus on PP, an asset that's producing well, and doesn't have a cut taken by AP. ...So yes, your either a little thick, or you were just saying anything you possible could to try and make it appear that I'm tripping over my own story. ....it's either of those two, so I'll let you choose which.

FAHP - I asked them for any evidence, or statements made from AP, which exceed the BP RRRS category that I mentioned....and I'm still waiting! As well as I'm waiting for SandyShore to confirm whether BPs data is hidden from the public, like he suggested, but failed to actually confirm.

Surprisingly, the few happy clappers are the ones that have spread this post title for days, lol. ...but I agree, there not the smartest chaps!

What can I say, several user on this board have boosted my name to new heights..

I'd like to have an opinion that isn't crushed by insults from the uneducated....is that not too much to ask? ....they could have chosen not to respond to my posts when I do, and if they didn't respond with silly remarks, can you imagine how few posts there would have been!

FAHP - I agree....get your BB cheerleaders to stop twisting the truth and there will be nothing from me....I said that before, and it still applies now.

Tell me about it, I have up yesterday, only to discover others just can't let it go!

I suggest everyone goes through my post history to discover my agenda....and I think you'll find its nothing as described by a few of the shady folks on this board, who will try anything to ensure there ramping prevails! Besides, I have even suggested that people ignore, or filter me.....but that seems incredibly difficult for some!

Villas - 18p.....when did I ever say that?.....I said 0.1825! ....your making stuff up as you go too!

Sandy - Get over your grudge, BP provides you nothing to support your argument....so give up!

MorningSun .....are you a bit thick? How much percent of BP does AP have....so how is my concern about BP not related to APs percentage?? I though you might of known that, but your clearly don't....or just trying to discredit me! ....I want BP put on hold, as I'd rather, currently, put money into PP, not BP which includes APs 10% + AP Groups other 10%!

Oh Sandy, just admit it, you haven't put me on filter because you fear anyone questioning the official line. And furthermore, I'm not rubbishing an official report, I'm simply asking you to confirm if BPs data is actually hidden, or whether permission has been granted....as you stated. That's all.

Stark - "I do the same on there too" ....sorry I don't meet your expectation that everyone should behave the same way.....besides, what are you trying to prove?

Sandy, More importantly, are you able to confirm if the government has granted permission or not? ....thats the important part.

ORT - You are correct, I have no personal interest, and neither do I have authority to act on my brothers behalf. As for the "what do I think for an alternative"... To begin, the acquisition/development agreement has already been made, so I do not take issue with APs share of the assets he brought along ...although, as per my post yesterday, I'd prefer the timing of BP, and thus APs share of it, to be delayed for the meantime whilst focusing on PP, an already well performing mine, until we are financially stable enough to put money into BP, without relying on debt, or a further equity cut. As a for incentive, he is paid a good salary to start with, and as I have maintained from the beginning, instead of options, a fixed cash incentive based on SP targets, and fixed bonuses for SP maintenance I think is enough for anyone. I understand that there is mixed opinions on the board and elsewhere regarding the options, but it's something that I, but more importantly my brother, disagrees with.

Pecten - "creating a victim complex"..."Can't accept my mistakes"?!?!....Wtf are you talking about? Anyway, if you also don't want to prove me wrong, then you might as well join the growing bandwagon of those in denial too!

Pecten - Really?....AP has clearly stated in an RNS that BP is measured against the RRRS, correct? Now, use your internet browser and research the categories under the RRRs and you will discover the same as I have.....Google's a wonderful tool you know!

I can only go on the info provided by AP....where is yours coming from?

Pecten - It is not a reserve right? ....then if it's not a reserve, under the RRRS, BP can only be a P1, P2, or P3 resource! Now, if I said that it was a P3 resource, you'd all be kicking and screaming, and further, I would also be lying too. Therefore, using all obtained data available, it must be P1, inline with the category description.