gem funding, page-33

Snowy, Nosy

AS you both are/were most in the know with regard to what was GEM financing and Novis (sic) I would think that many shareholders would still be most interested in what the IG put up as "...the business plan and the spreadsheets" to the funder.

I look at the website and nothing there.

I mean that's critical isn't it, as those are the estimates that needed to be "verified".

What was driving the original $30M plan and what further due diligence of GEM and IG concluded that $15M was sufficient.

With $15M "necessary" and 9.9% cap drawdown - which NB estimated at $1-$1.5M and the cost to D&C even a vertical well being circa $2M and Hz circa $6M - how was that going to work?

I want to distinguish that I am NOT labouring on about the facility but I would like to know how this course of action was going to implement the aforesaid IG business plan and deliver sufficient finance needed to bring about "...good cashflow from oil and gas. So the benefit to all was an improving shareprice and less of a need to further draw down.."

Now that the facility is "dead" what's the harm in putting that information out there for shareholder's and others to review and discuss?

Only sure thing (?) is SRH#5 getting fracked with the funds raised, but what of funding for the CDP provision to enable lease acreage retention post March?