jakeAttempting to provide an answer to one of your points has...

jake
Attempting to provide an answer to one of your points has raised the predictable storm of ditraction from rocket boy!s I have endeavoured to give you the facts and what I believe is the only valid conclusion to be drawn from them. I will take the time though to comment on a few other points you raise. Please excuse my editing- it isn't intended to detract at all from your points!

"- the T/O - you may well be right in that GOG got the better of DLS"

No argument there- I'm right

"- you are also right in that DLS seems to be totally focussed on its C/B assets. DLS will live or die on the success of its C/B plans."

Which is my whole point

"- your point wrt no certified reserves is quite valid - but that is not disputed"

Actually it is- rocket boy has once more been touting GOG's unconventional reserves! Of course there vare no reserves. You and I realise that but rocket boy does not.

"- your point wrt the quality of Independent Certifiers and their motivation is a totally seperate issue.... We can only assume that the IER is honest. But we can question the validity and assumptions which underpin the report. If s/h find glaring problems with said reports, S/H need to give the directors hell, and demand answers. I have found that it is really, really difficult to get basic info from a coys in order to question the IER findings. I have no idea about the DLS IER."

You raise an interesting point- I will certainly re-examine the IER although, as you say, the underlying assumptions are hardly stated in a glaringly obvious manner!

"- your concerns wrt to potential environmental issues is also valid. particularly fraccing fluids and water extraction."

And repeatedly ignored by the thoughtless three! I wonder why that is?
"- comments wrt technical and operational issues are also valid ... the point re calorific issues is pretty much a non-issue, because that was raised wrt Qld CSG, and a Japanese customer commented they saw no problems."

Again, if one relied only on rocket boy and others spruiking the Lingo Line you would believe there are no such issues! I have raised concerns repeatedly and the unthinking three have ignored those concerns. No arguements have been put just abuse and misinformation. C'est la vie.

"- CO2 - yep could be a big issue- do we have any info wrt C02 composition in our permits?"

A huge isssue and one which rocket boy has spent a chunk of his evening trying to distract us from. I'll refer you to the points I raised earlier and the conclusion I drew. rocket boy has kindly directed us to a web page which confirms the facts as I stated them. The conclusion is of course mine and I'm happy to discuss it intelligently.

"TR, - it seems to me that DLS is going to flog-off (or farm-out (but pretty much same thing)), most of the non-CB assets. DLS will then be a C/B E&P investment."

Glad someone realises the meaning of "farm-out" here! As I have pointed out BL has stated that his intention is to dispose of ALL non Lingo's Folly assets. These include CER, although no explanation of how the LF assets are to be extracted is given. "Our Canadian subsidiaries and operations in Papua New Guinea are likely to be dealt with in that rationalization." ( http://www.businessreviewaustralia.com/Drillsearch-Energy-Broad-Focus_31887 ) Of course, the majority of permits in the Qld section of LF are held by CER!

"- so if we move on from the t/over issue, I think your real beef is to do with the actual quality of the DLS permits in the C/B, plus that B/L has not provided sufficient information to enable s/h to determine the quality of said permits?"

Correct

"I think the biggest issue which will face DLS in the short/medium term is to find the cash to develop these permits. because it will take a lot of cash to prove-up these potential resources. Relying upon cash flow from mature oil and from sale of non-core assets, will take a long time, and will not be sufficent to make a dent in the short term."

And this is the elephant in the room. You are labouring under the misapprehension that there will be on-going cash flow. BL has repeatedly stated that the DLS Cooper assets are to be disposed of (although that seems to have changed very recently and in a bizarre way- more in a moment.)
So, all DLS assets are disposed of, GOG has a lump of cash and no significant income- the cash is steadily decreasing, bills are mounting, expensive drilling programmes are proposed which extend ten years into the future. What is the result of this scenario? I would suggest a plummetting SP and the need for $$$. So we have two options and the answer can only lie in both- a series of major capital raisings and the disposal of equity in the project. The first is denied by rocket boy as being even possible, the second goees against the oft stated rationale that GOG holds 100% of these assets, controls its own destiny etc etc. Quite a quandry really!

And then the even larger animal in the room- that pile of reeking flesh in the corner is the remains of a whale! I will refer you to BLs latest statement ( http://www.brr.com.au/event/66467/stocks-to-watch ). He's as flash as a rat with a gold tooth and half as trustworthy IMHO, but that IS only an opinion. This talk contains a fascinating diversion from the Lingo Line as we have come to know it. As you mention jake, LF is a huge cash drain. I have suggested that share issues, the sale of equity etc are essential to start to develop it! To fund this, BL has, until now, proposed the disposal of all DLS assets. The talk last week however alludes to purchasing the Santos equity in Tintaburra. Now, given that he doesn't have the $$ to fund his grandiose scheme elsewhere in the Cooper, where are the massive $$$ to fund that purchase coming from??? and how is that consistent with his oft-stated "strategy"?

cheers
TR