the complete idiot’s guide to the election., page-103

Buddy,

This is the last of your posts that I will respond to. You obviously have difficulty in understanding me and I'm sorry, but I have exhausted the time I am prepared to give you to explain anything more when all you appear to do is raise issues which demonstrate that you have either never read the most basic information which the company has released to the market or you deliberately attempt to confuse even the simplest issues.

Buddy said:
" And now for the part about RC that you have made an example to.

The big difference in this instance, is that CP was paying cash upfront, while RC will not have to fork up anything upfront and he will have all the time in the World to pay up for them, if and when it will suits him. And yes it will still be at the 9 cents even if it 5 years or more down the track."

Buddy,
I said no such thing in relation to Cottee ... you are confusing the capital raising with the options package. CP has never been issued options and CP would have had to pay cash upfront (in the capital raising process) where the Board chose to issue the shares to 3 other entities. That's the nature of any capital RAISING.

The RC example I used was in relation to a potential options package ... nothing to do with the capital raising that CP is challenging.

And its not about whether I am correct that Palmer wanted the 130 million shares at 8c, the Board has released that information in an ASX release. Go sue them if you think its a lie.

And Buddy said " BUT, don't you forget that they are also getting 65mill. oppies on the side."

No, they are not getting 65 million options Buddy (not yet anyway). ALL shareholders will get an opportunity to vote on the issuing of the attached options - and you know what Buddy, if the majority vote for it then who are you to say that its your position that should prevail rather than that of the majority of the shareholders - you are being given an opportunity to see a democratic process at work - if you don't want the company to issue the 65 million options, then vote no - failing which, why not just accept that the will of the majority will determine whether the options are awarded to the 3 entities who put up the $'s in the capital raising.

And as for your ramble on in another post about me only considering the Expenses and not the Revenues - please consider the fact that I focussed on cashflows (both positive and negative) - since it is the cashflows by which you measure the solvency (or insolvency) of an entity. Look at the Cashflow Statement (not the Balance Sheet) if you want to get a feel for the solvency of an entity.

So Buddy, set up a spreadsheet and map the cash flows. And remember there are 3 types of cashflows ... cashflow from Operating activities (of which CTP has NONE yet which are positive (so only outflows)); cashflow from Investing activities (they have a little positive cashflows here - the interest from bank accounts); and then Investment cash flows ... and here is where you account for the capital which they raised from the 3 entities in the latest capital raising and for the capital outflows like the capex of $700K on setting up the ETP (I presume that was to purchase the 'camp' rather than lease it).

So, $7.7M in the bank at 1 Jauary 2012; Operating expenses (negative cashflows) of ~$0.5M per month (overheads). ETP Operating expense (negative cashflows) of 220K/month Operating.

Add in the NET postive cashflow from the ETP oil (noting 150-200 bboe in first month and then maybe 380 in months 2-6) And note that its nett - so negative cashflows for payment of royalties, production and transport costs etc (royalties - maybe 10-15% or sale price; some $20 per barrel for transport costs to bring the oil to market). Try to account for all cashflows in the next 12 months ... including the $700K for the camp and the cost of the 3D seismic. AND DON'T FORGET THE BIGGIE - $15M+ to retain some of the existing acreage !!!! maybe you want to spread that over 12 months (Jan to Dec)

... and then tell me what you find - Here's a hint:

Even with our current capital raising ($12M), if we don't get a JV partner soon who who will inject $'s into CTP then either we will have to give up some of our valuable acreage to remain solvent - or we sail pretty close to being over the edge.

And then Buddy - and here's the icing on the cake - do another spreadsheet - this time, do it the John Heugh way - drill baby drill - another well at Surprise (factor in the cost of the drill and the RISK of success on another well and then factor in failure (a duster)) - Its an interesting situation .... (and don't forget the $15M to retain parts of the acreage in the next 12 months) ... I don;t want to scare you, but also look at the $50M to retain the acreage in the next 5 years. Its going to be tough going forward - even with the production from the existing well. Some big decisions are going to have to be made.

We need a good manager to navigate the way ahead and to take us forward - not a cowboy ... I think Cottee is that good manager - John had his chance.


And as for questioning my qualifications in your other post ... well Buddy, lets just say that my formal qualifications are sufficent, along with many years of experience, to allow me to have an opinion and to make informed decisions about stuff like this. USe what I put up here and improve upon it.

Don't take my opinion as advice - because I am not an investment advisor - you still need to do your own research - but be thorough before you shoot your mouth off.