post from ws questions to pl and his reply

Here's Pete's responses. Not got time to look at properly myself but here you go,

Pete - see below - David - you sent me exactly the same ones - hence why the email

Sent from my iPad

On 27/04/2013, at 5:13 AM, "Pete Bottomley" wrote:

Dear Peter
Thanks for your response. Unfortunately the Q&A didn't really answer many of the question. It appears to have just been a rehash of the original RNS into a Q&A type format. Let me make it easy and pose some of the questions that I believe the majority of investors would like answered

1) In July and August you advised we were producing 1000 bopd and keep telling us all new wells are exceeding expectations. Considering you also told us there are circa 300 people working on T&T perhaps you could explain how we are now producing 200 bopd less than in July/August last year.

We fully update trin operations in our qtly but combination of rig breakdowns, petrotrin change in risk assessment, rig approval and well / perf sign off procedures, lack of spare parts getting into trin etc - a complete overhaul and maintenance program has been developed with independent advisors

2) Us longer term holders were diluted so you could raise funds to fast track the drilling of two herreras before the end of 2012. Please advise what happened to those funds.


There have been big equipment issues with rig 8 which meant the herreras are delayed until after 248 (update next week) - as was always the plan on when they would be drilled - with the rbl in place the herreras will be drilled as scheduled (yes i know what you are going to say but by that i mean with rig 8 and after 248) hence why funds would have gone to other trin operations, guat, Georgia, Colombia, puntland etc - you have plans and budgets and circumstances change - if the rbl wasn't there - would probably have had to let go of other stuff

3) In today's RNS you blamed your failure on rigs and lack of capital. When I was sat just two rows in front of you at the July presentation the guy next to me asked you about slow progress and you blamed the rigs but said that they had all been refurbished and those problems were behind us.Grateful if you can now explain how you can now use that excuse again some 8 months later.

Clearly we haven't said that in our quarterlies and bit unfair to ask me to remember the conversation - its not just refurb, its spare parts, its maintenance, its accidents (eg roll over) , its petrotrin procedures and sign offs etc no one is saying its acceptable


4) If the inept performance was due to a lack of capital as you state in the RNS, how was it in Range shareholders benefit to lend Continental Coal $2m that was desperately needed in Trinidad.

Please - loan was 2 years ago and when we acquired trin we weren't aware of the need for a significant overhaul, parts and maintenance program - no problem with your questions but retrospect and hindsight are pretty easy as opposed to rationales at the time - do I pay option fees to keep trin alive 2 years ago , did we have the potential for a significant CBM play with conti ground that we didn't pursue (look at kinetico (asx) for the type of play) - there are 20 factors at play when you make business decisions - what if puntland came in, Georgia, rig 8 didn't break down - all the questions on business judgement gets asked when things aren't going well

5) What is the current position vis a vis the Continental Coal loan.

Repaid as per our half yearly

6) Have you loaned any other funds to anyone else and if so what is the current status of those loans.

We actually fund guat and Georgia as loan funds to protect our position - most plays woud be straight capital - again dont let that get in the way of trying to suggest wrong doing

7) If the lack of capital is holding back production in Trinidad how can you justify lending IOP $15m (especially as if the deal falls through we will be stuck with questionable assets in a difficult location)

Trin has the $35m rbl - the Q and a answered why on the iop play - there was no deal if we didn't structure it that way and like with many things - deals will always evolve and change but the business judgement is we want the exposure in a protected way that we can manage


8) On 24th Jan drill 248 was at 4000' going to 6500' as published in a T&T update. On 11 Feb we had another T&T RNS stating that there would be an update relating to MD 248 shortly. What does 'SHORTLY' mean? We are now ten weeks on and nothing has been heard. Do you agree 'shortly' has been and gone? When will we hear something?

Next week

9) In your 'Value Proposition' you used to describe Trinidad as the jewel in the crown but 248 didn't even get a mention n the Q&A which was supposed to be a PR exercise. Why?.

Results on 248 can only be made by way of official rns not q and a and didn't see its omission like you did

10) If offered shares in a failing oil company with assets in notoriously difficult and corrupt places such as Niger Kazakhstan and Russia (the last two where I have worked) believe the vast majority of investors would have politely declined.They certainly wouldn't have said 'yes please, can I pay a large premium to the market price too'. Please explain why you want to do that on our behalf.

Like those same investors would have said no to 90% of the deals we do and how we structure them but then happy when things are going well and momentum is with us - so those 3 places are vastly different to Georgia, Somalia, guat and Colombia and no oil majors or mid tiers work in those jurisdictions - really disagree with you're assessment on that one - on the premium - see the q and a as to rationale and the suggestion that they didn't have any other options

11) If the IOP assets are so good and just need a pipeline welding to start the liquid gold flowing why didnt the very rich Mr Timis lend the company a few $mil rather than let Range acquire it at a 'bargain price'?

With what liquidity on the Nsx and the major instos on his register get no liquidity - we saw it as win / win - clearly you don't

12) There has been a lot of speculation about a loan of $45m/$50m to Nkwe Platinum. Grateful if you could explain the full details of this transaction and why there has been no mention of this in any announcement/

There is no speculation - just bullshit made up on bulletin boards - there is no loan , there is no active agreement (was an option in the past) and both companies are audited by EY s

13) With your extensive track record over overpromising and under delivering and, in mine and no doubt many other cases a 75% value destruction of our investments, you must know that you have lost the confidence of probably 95% of investors. Why then are you surprised that the market sees this as a bad deal for anyone other than OKAP

Your assessment - you are entitled to it - on the second comment - let's go there - OKAP get zero on the deal , I repeat zero - much easier for us if we didn't pursue it - yet another easy post just to harness the aggrieved without any basis in fact whatsoever - range has a board and independent advisors and that is why the deal is being pursued - what do you think Okap gets out of the deal - zero - we act for range and we don't increase fees just because a deal is getting done

14) How can you expect investors to invest in Rangewhen neither you or any other director have purchased a share in the company for a long time and your last purchase was only a token gesture?

Be more than happy to purchase a truckload but you tell me when the board isn't in position of inside information with all that is going on in range - not that easy - guarantee you if we did and results came out I know exactly what people would say - I am a significant shareholder in range , I'm down on a multitude of my investments across the board and am relying on range to perform - to suggest I have a different agenda compared to pi s (ala Okap fees) is completely false - I would hope that the q and a outlined why we are pursuing the deal

15) One certain way to build some trust would be if yours and the other board members remuneration was linked to results. Will you agree to that?

We would all be happy to structure something - but I can tell you again - when range does start to kick goals it will be seen as contrived and orchestrated - will put something to the board at the next meeting

Thanks in advance

Pete