from ggp quarterly, page-12

Menaced,

Your post surprises me a little. Firstly because you take the time to spell our your original question, assuming that I somehow misunderstood it. Yet as is made very clear in the very first word of my post, I was actually responding to the comments and statement of supposed "facts" put forward by Moonshine. Facts that of course none of us could possibly know. Are you also Moonshine or am I missing your point, yet again?

Secondly, I'm not defending GGP and no longer have any financial interest in VIL and never have had one in GGP, so "luck", good or otherwise, won't really come into it. But thanks for your wishes anyway.

You seem very quick to judge the motives and behaviour of the board of another company declaring them "unprofessional and childish" and even describing the justification they offered to their own shareholders as "non beneficial/informative".

In order to make such comments you are presumably aware of the obligations that each JV participant has in relation to the project.

As you obviously know the land is not owned by the JV partners but rather leased from the land owners. When you read the lease provisions for land restoration and rehabilitation upon lease termination, do you remember seeing anything where the landower agreed to the JV partners just abandoning the site however it stood on termination date?

When you read VILs recent financial report did you notice the sizable non-current liabilities and the lack of cash to actually pay for them? Do you know what those liabilities are and how they intend to pay for them?

You are of course aware that nobody has been able to offload their stake in FP (other than too VIL) and that GGP is sort of stuck with obligations that it clearly no longer wants on a seemingly worthless asset. You express the thought that because they chose not to throw good money after bad that their suggestion as to how the JV partners best deal with their joint obligations are inappropriate and "non beneficial/informative". Their suggestion not only seems helpful but given that the true nature of the problem seems to allude some, its also very informative if you look at what they are actually saying.

So even if VIL does somehow manage to raise the required funds for a second tilt at FP, and they do actually commit those funds to redrilling it rather than a bet on some other SD style dog, what happens if the "commercial" success this time around is no greater than the 6 barrels or so that it produced when they last declared FP "commerical"?

Who is going to pay the JV obligations? Who is going to pay all of VILs liabilities? VIL owns the vast majority of the project and VIL is largely responsible for what happens. One partner wants to deal with the JV liabilities now while the equipment is still likely to have sufficient value to cover restoration costs and the other may just end up spending money that they don't currently have on an all or nothing bet and leaving everybody else to pick up the pieces if VIL doesn't magically achieve something that they have never managed before, ie to pick a winner.

GGP seem to know exactly why VIL management are still touting FP, as do most here I suspect. GGP being an oil exploration company actually knows a fair bit about the oil game and have more direct experience with FP than anybody. They were the operator afterall. VIL, who arn't even an oil company but rather an investment company have never operated an oil well. VILs very existance would appear to hinge solely on keeping FP alive. GGP on the other hand don't seem to want to waste a single dollar on further exploration of the FP target and there appears to be no other interested parties either. If FP is such a sure bet, why does nobody whatsoever seem to want anything to do with it ?

So forgive me if I find your judgements about who is childish, unprofessional and irresponsible a little misguided.

I really do wish all current VIL holder success and it would please me greatly to be wrong about all of this. Having followed VIL very closely for 3 years I believe I have good reason to be skeptical about the purported "facts" declared earlier in this thread.