all very valid concerns raised here.  moneybag's summation of...

all very valid concerns raised here.  moneybag's summation of Greg's quotes is a painful reminder - i remember doing something similar for Maurice's quotes.  it genuinely borders on misrepresentation imo.

the commercialisation strategy employed by Maurice and now Greg and his executive has been shown to be a failure to execute strategy and manage risk - namely not to have a industrial equity partner to help with secure offtake.  every other upstream development has succeeded with this strategy.  we have stonepeak who have contributed nothing to getting BTA's done or working capital but get a negotiated return if this comes off.  we have a loooong history of potential deals, MOU's with would-be buyers which have gone nowhere.   

now we have IDG, who may connect some buyers but really yet to be seen if that will happen.  let's not forget we tried having a chinese player on the registry (we even adopted a red ant logo), who then sold out and we got no BTA's. maybe this time is different, and yes they have some downstream plays to connect up.

i also unfortunately reflect on the above diagram which now conspicuously doesn't appear in company presentation material now.  Calcasieu has its FERC Order and has commenced construction - some 2 years earlier than thought by our LNG Board.  And they have Plaquemines in the pipeline with FERC expected later this year.  and driftwood are now trumpeting MOU's - yes i know they are MOU's but more than what GV is trumpeting.  

The "Shovel Ready" advantage is gone.  The "Not If, but When" might be right, but it might be that LNG misses the next wave as there is a new crop of players ready to compete against us.

the next three months once Trump does his deal will be the final test for this company i reckon.  very sad, very frustrating.  

on a positive note... increase to 8.8mtpa helps economics and meeting the market on tolling fees.