Ann: Trading Halt , page-47

Sorry Pythagerous (and others), I'm going to have to disagree though I do like your optomism.

I can't see this as anything but a bad sign. The board themselves believed they would have partnership agreements in place well before now so the fact that they have not is a clear indication they're struggling to get a deal that is going to please shareholders.

If the board had felt they needed more defined resources to get the project funded they'd have done the drilling way before now. It's a clear indication to me that either prospective investors have sent them back to prove up increased deposits or they haven't found anyone willing to put forward a fair deal and the board have undertaken the new drilling in the hope of enticing better offers. Hopefully it's the former but neither one is inline with where the board thought they would be at this point. That makes me nervous. If it's all roses with others, that's up to their perceptions.

One of the battles being fought by the board is that of dilution. I think it's probably the principle reason for being unable to find what they feel is a fair deal. The Cameroon Govt will be taking a 25% slice of the project, we have 2.1 billion shares on issue plus however many are added with this raising AND whatever partners we get will want scrip so the slice of the pie for shareholders is not going to be that large.

The other dark cloud I see is the speculation of a second dip in this recovery. This of course is outside the control of the board but I was far happier with the situation where the board expected partnership deals would be announced by mid 2009. Now with the search for funding being put back till some time (hopefully) in 2010 and seemingly only after an extensive drilling campaign, the possibility of funding drying up during a second dip could potentially push things back even further.

I'm a holder of SDL and this is not an attempt to gain cheap shares on the resumption of trade because (a) I have all I want (especially now) (b) I'm not conceipted enough to believe my ramblings will have any effect on the SP, and (c) It looks like I may have to participate in a SPP to avoid dilution and that's more than I really want. All I'm doing is trying to balance out the views being expressed here with a dose of the Devils advocate.

When a board fails to deliver on their schedule and continues to hide behind confidentiality agreements (probably for the best because the truth could well spook holders to our own detriment) it's odd to watch people try and put a positive spin on it. That's the board's job. Ours is to hold them to account.

Illiquid