Ann: Change in substantial holding, page-24

@hindmost,

Just to clarify, my assessment is only negative in relation to the performance of management – I believe we have the assets that could be successfully monetised (and in a timely manner) by a superior management team.

Attached below are the reserves (excluding Atlas – which was handed to us on a silver platter).

*3c should say 2c in table above

Excluding Atlas, 2P reserves were only up 4.8mmboe, and 2C were down 202.8mmboe. That is either a shambolic conversion (look at COE’s conversion of 2C to 2P this year).

In an environment where there is acquisition after acquisition (to grow and expand), SXY achieved no material next phase of drilling in WSGP – why?
Surely, there was no reason to wait 3 years to modify the GLNG agreement to be able to further progress WSGP. In fact, one might ask why this wasn’t structured like that in the first instance so that FID and drilling to achieve the 16TJ could already have been underway.
Imagine if we didn’t have Atlas handed to us on a silver platter – we would have waited patiently for 3 years, only to find that we are now only aiming for 16TJ initially from WSGP.

3 years ago, I chose SXY (over COE) because of its more advanced and more progressed stage – somehow COE is going into production June 2019!

I strongly believe that if SXY had a better placed management team, WSGP would and should be in a more advanced stage of production already. We should already be cash flow positive.

Anyways, EIG have 9.1% and it is ultimately up to Andy Zhmurovsky whether or not he agrees with me and wishes to hold management to account. The way I see it, is EIG and 3-year shareholders made the right decision in investing in SXY. We shouldn’t need to re-allocate our portfolio, the investment returns will come if we have a management team that will deliver something.

Instead, approaching end of first quarter, and no financial outlook – nothing by which they can he held to account. Disgraceful.

Cheers
tt2000