Lack Of Transparency: The Right Of First Refusal Of Senegal On Its Oil And Gas!, page-80

Morning All,
I think we can all agree ( if not, we really should) that FAR's ability to PE has become critical event... at least from a SP appreciation and value adding perspective. If FAR fails it going to be a very long, hard, grinding process with very little bluesky in the short and medium term. I say this because, after having discovered so much oil, 6 successes, informal DOC, etc etc, we are still below Pre-Fan drill level. Successful PE and subsequent redistribution of stakeholding through further dealings has, IMO, has become "A MUST" ... can't see anything else moving the SP to acceptable levels... And after all, we are all here to see appreciation ("significant appreciation" for those who have been in this stock for years) in our investment.

DB, not sure where you get the 90days from.. I haven't seen a copy of the dispute resolution clauses.. 90 days it may be, but I'd think that SEN Gov want to see this resolved quick time. Already it's been some 7 weeks since announcement of the sale.

Now onto Petrosen(PS) exercising PE ( referring to Cosmo's post and further comments by 34232 in the above post). It may well be a case of PS also PE but it raises a lot of issues.
On the assumption that CNE is precluded from re-entering the race after "welcoming" WPL into the fold, I did some numbers:
Again, as starting point I remind that if a party decide to PE, it must PE for the entire 35%. Thus, PS, Like FAR, would have to have U$430mil in the ready. If both are capable to PE for full 35%, then they are entitled to PE relative to their respective holdings. That means PS can PE for 14% of the 35% and FAR can PE for 21% of the 35%. If this is indeed the situation, I'd think that there will be some agreement between them to pick up different proportions. Reason for this follows.

If PS does PE, that portion of the 35% it takes up WILL NOT be free carried. It would have to contribute to the exploration and appraisal costs just like all other stakeholders. In addition, and to the extent that COP carried a certain % cost to free carry PS's existing 10% stake, that proportional contribution will also be reduced. So in short, if PS PE, there will be a big financial outlay (US$172mil for 14%) to increase stake and there will be ongoing costs.
A further question then arises: How does, say TOTAL, then get to enter the room? Could it then be a case that FAR and PS PE and then on-sell to Total and, in the process allow PS (ala GOV) to increase it's free-carry stake by say 5% (moving up to 15%... this could be a possibility and can't see why they won't do it), passing off remaining 9% of the 14% to TOTAL. Likewise, FAR take up, say 10% of the 21% ( taking them up to 25%) with 11% to pass off to TOTAL? TOTAL thus ending up with 20%, Far25% PS15% and CNE40%.. ... but further undertakings by FAR and PS that, if CNE decide to sell down, TOTAL can PE for that full portion which CNE wishes to sell down...
Well there is a thousand ways to skin a cat.. we simply do not know.. point I'm trying to make is that, for PS to also PE, there will be immediate and ongoing costs involved for PS unless they pull "TOTAL" in to pick up the tab.

In final analysis, the significance whether FAR will be able to PE or not can no longer be denied. They are at a fork in the road.. the one leading to exponential appreciation of shareholder value, the other... well, I don't want to dwell on that...