Could be the plan (to include choke comments on the next I1 update). As for slow and steady, I (personally) am not counting on that with so many "material events" looming in the not-so-distant future. In particular the issue of VM179. Worthington and Montecito are fighting tooth and nail over that thing, which suggest to me 2 things:
a) They're not just fighting over scraps. Not an authority on the matter, so anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but interest in domestic/gulf assets has elevated since Volk entered into that agreement well over a year ago. Could be other suiters laying in wait at this point. The term "hot property" comes to mind.
b) Worthingtons persistence suggests that "we" (essentially) already have financing lined up. Can't imagine they'd fight so hard for something they can't remedy. T.Mason's already commented on having "options" (plural) to develop that lease.
This (again imo) points to volatility (which ain't necessarily a bad thing). Say we do win VM. That'll take $. What's the shape of that financing? Mason's mentioned a "non-dilutive" financing option in the last Q. Seems to me an event like that has the potential to create some serious SERIOUS "upward volatility." Conversely, there's equity financing. Short-term effect. Long-term effect.
I blather, but I should add into that "volatility theory" the possibiliity of eliminating convertible debt. Thorn in Mason's side no doubt. That'd be a biggie too.
