I disagree that the fees paid to EWI are opaque. The amounts and...

I disagree that the fees paid to EWI are opaque. The amounts and purpose are ALL disclosed in detail in the annual report. I would guess the cost is included in the management fee, and the consulting fees.

Do you mean you that the fees are opaque as to whether the work is needed or whether the fees are "market"? I would agree that it is difficult for a third party to assess, but that is not the same as saying the fees are opaque.

Please say if you think the contracts between EWC and EWI are padded or unnecessary and say which ones.

It is a matter of public record that EWI, as the main shareholder, led the refinancing and restructuring of EEC and buyout of El Paso ownership that has led to EWC. I guess this arrangement has simply continued whereby EWI drives the deals for EWC as its associate. Note the wording of this right allows EWC to step into the entire agreement on the original terms negotiated by EWI. Given the overlap between the directors of EWI and EWC and that the assets, and cashflow is owned by EWC, and EWC right to step into any EWI arrangement, it is inconceivable that EWI negotiates for anyone else than EWC. If EWC says no to a project, then EWI has the right to develop it using their own resources - but the incentives to do this are limited.

The arrangement has the added advantage that it gives EWI the ability to negotiate contracts/projects as a private company outside of the continuous disclosure mechanism.

I suspect the Philippines is an example of this arrangement at work. For example Eduardo Rodriguez in discussing the Philippines project in 2010 is identified as a EWI employee.

“For the terminal hub, initially we are building one worth $100 million...For the power plant, it is $150 million,” Eduardo T. Rodriguez, country manager of Energy World International Ltd. told reporters.

I also doubt there is any duplication of work. The arrangement is that EWI does the work, and EWC pays for it. The question for EWC is whether it can carry out this work cheaper by doing it in house or by utilising another firm? Can EWC replicate the EWI team? If EWC withdrew its custom, would EWI be forced to shed staff so that EWC can employ them? IF EWI is the best option for EWC, then why would EWC want to do that?

Which all leads us back to the related party contracts and disclosure. The numbers and scope of work are there for all to see. You would not even see this if the EWI team was rolled into EWC - you might just see a slight increment to the staff cost line.

So please, have a look at the disclosure, identify the contracts or work, or payment you think is inappropriate or opague and highlight it.

Remember that a well known "short" and his shill have accused EWI/Elliot of stripping EWC of its cash by way of these contracts - without providing any evidence that the work has not been carried out, or without demonstrating these prices are non "market".

Of course EWC could be a "promote", but the EWI team only can benefit by selling their shares (and EWI did sell some to Chandler), or by the fees. However it is a promote or fraud, whose door will the receivers/investigators be knocking on first?

So these contracts are the least of my worries. I fret about missed deadlines, that the modular LNG solution doesn't deliver, expropriation by the Indonesians (via tax, pricing or nationalisation), and reserve risk.