Atlantic Lithium CEO upgrades Ghana lithium project Scoping Study, payback in 1 year. Watch the full video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
"given the uncertain financial status of the parent company of FRAM"
Would this be ceg by any chance.
Quite a statement from one company about another companies financial status.
Wonder if this will be addressed in tomorrow's interim report, I think it should be.
I suspect I know what Heritage will do if Predator isn't repaid. This from the PRD RNS today
"It is expected that a negotiation will ensue with FRAM regarding recovery of the Loan. Until negotiations are concluded with either a positive or negative outcome and given the uncertain financial status of the parent company of FRAM, the Directors have made provisions in the Going Concern forecast that the Loan may never be recovered and no profits from enhanced oil production in Inniss-Trinity will be forthcoming. This provision was only reflected in the Going Concern forecast to ensure that the Company had sufficient resources to continue operating for the foreseeable future even on a worst-case scenario. It was decided by the Directors that the loan was not to be provided for until further discussions are held. In order to potentially recoup some of its investment in the Inniss-Trinity CO2 EOR Pilot Project, the Company has lodged an expression of interest with the licence holder Heritage to, at its sole discretion, take over the Inniss-Trinity IPSC should it become available."
I wonder if Predator are about to pull the trigger?
I don’t disagree with any of that.
But surely if any of the creditors were going to call in their chips, they’d have done so by now? Which leads me to believe discussions have taken place regarding remittance, that would be mutually agreeable. Just conjecture on my part.
At the end of the day all it takes is just one creditor (of many) to go to court to recover their debt and make ceg bankrupt, they obviously have far more debts than assets and still need an additional £15M to service those debts and future operational costs, so technically they are insolvent.
At some point soon those debts will need to be paid and until they are ceg really is on a financial cliff edge. They probably only have two options left, death spiral funding by a wonga lender (Darwin) or more likely massive dilution at a huge discount of the current sp, either way it's not going to be pretty.
All hypothetical until we know what payment terms our creditors have or will accept.
Good morning Bohemia
Apologies, I have just discovered that. I was looking for the RNS mentioning this and discovered through your link it is was as mentioned.
Either way, although no longer holding shares, my opinions have never changed towards S.Potter.
There is no point going back into that discussion.
My partner is still invested here so I have to be careful what I say as it does cause some heated debates.
just to be clear, Potter has resigned from the Columbus Energy subsidiary, not from the board of Challenger Energy.
Just to add to my comment about UK/IoM insolvency, while CEG is an IoM company, Columbus Energy Resources is a UK company and as far as we know still holds the T&T assets. It would be governed by UK insolvency law.
Interestingly CER is late filing its own 2020 accounts, and Potter & Proffitt have just resigned as directors leaving just Eytan standing. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05901339
So with all these praises your singing them willec how much have you made here? Or better yet how much have you supposedly lost ?
Because I know most are around the 96% down yet your swinging from roof tops how great this is ? Why is that ?
And a lot are open about there investments here yet you never have been which tells me you either have something to hide, or don’t want to trip up over your own lies as figures can be worked out and used against you, and your messeges have always been the same constant ramp even 97 percent down and still falling and ten to 1 consolidation and nearly back where they were before that and still constant ramp doesn’t make sense at all.
All in my own opinion but feel free to DYOR and look at his ever ramps comments every single one of them and also look at the sp tank while he does
“Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. But until either position becomes apparent we are still solvent.”
It’s Schrödinger's insolvency then?
Why wouldn’t it be apparent yet - the last of P1 bills were due 6 months after completion according to Eytan.
It is only the sad trollers who think we are insolvant as they haven't got a clue about the company. 1 failed well in P1 and all over - what a joke.
Perservance is bigger than 1 well.
Production in 5 fields in Trinidad + more to come brillant set up for a small oil company.
Do the directors believe we will become insolvent?
Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. But until either position becomes apparent we are still solvent.
Page of cups - do you mean to say the Red BMX stopped BPC finding billions of barrels and BHP farming in?! Lol.
"Generally, company directors owe legal duties to the company and are obliged to act in the best interests of the shareholders of the company as a whole. However, directors are under a continuing obligation to consider whether their company is insolvent or is likely to become insolvent with no prospect of recovery. If the directors believe this to be the case, their duties change in nature because they are then under an obligation to act in the best interests of the company’s creditors as a whole."
LLL, that UK position on trading while insolvent won’t touch CEG. CEG is an Isle of Man company where the rules are less clear cut. The company can apparently continue to trade if the directors have the get-out that they are acting in the interests of all creditors.
The very definition of insolvency is not being able to service debts at maturity.
As our debts aren’t matured as at yet, we are technically not insolvent.
Of course on paper we could ‘technically’ be insolvent, but practically we are still solvent.
Trading whilst insolvent is a legal term used to describe a business which continues trading despite being insolvent. It can lead to a breach of several provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 (including wrongful trading), therefore it is important to take care and know the risks if your business is struggling.
As a director you are protected from the consequence of a failed company by the veil of incorporation, PROVIDED that you acted reasonably, responsibly and within the law. Failure to do so could make directors personally liable for the company's debt.
It should be noted that due to the Coronavirus pandemic, emergency legislation had been enacted that allowed some relaxing in the rules surrounding wrongful trading. The idea was that directors could not be held personally liable if they continued to trade when the situation was so unclear going forward. As of June 2021 this is no longer the case and directors can be sanctioned.
Is CEG technically insolvent?
It means up to date on their bills in T&T (or able to pay them when due).
It’s one thing owing international firms money, but owing money to the local providers who they may rely on for day-to-day services would be more problematic.
Bohemian & Druid what is meant by " Not current in T&T."
CEG weren’t current in T&T at the end of last month as part of the $15m shortfall in the accounts was listed as S2.
As for not demanding payment, my guess is that there is no money to take. CEG could have made the argument that they had no money, could only raise $10m, and could only raise money if shareholders had something buy into: I.e. the raise funded S2 as well and the creditors only got part of the $10m to repay their debts.
That may be the story going forward: the creditors may allow CEG to stay alive if it can bit by bit raise some money and pay them back.
I'm just surmising Stena are the bulk of costs. It would be unusual if Schlumburger and Baker Hughes costs were $7m for sitting around. The most people sitting around would have been Stena employees. There are disputed costs, so can't see anyone disputing other than Stena. I presume Schlumberger and Baker Hughes get paid for however long they were needed, which is far enough. Not so sure about Stena ****ing up, which I presume is where the dispute is.
I am more concerned that we are current in Trinidad.
S2 overran a GOOD bit, and if we don't pay local bills, it could have knock on consequences....Are we current at least in Trinidad?
Are we allowed to know?
How do you know Stena are the bulk of the costs, or even $1 of the costs?
Make of this what you will.
Over and above the pre-drill estimated well cost, the Company firstly incurred an estimated $3 million of additional expenditure on enhanced Covid-19 related processes beyond those which had been planned for prior to commencement of drilling. These processes were put in place to prevent virus infection at the installation, which could have resulted in premature termination of drilling. Strict adherence to these Company processes, including pre-deployment screening and protocols resulted in the detection of 14 Covid-positive personnel who were denied access to the facility. Enhanced protocols involved chartering planes and additional helicopter transit flights to the budget projections, along with significantly increased accommodation and staffing costs as staff remained quarantined or retained on the drilling vessel for considerably longer than planned.
Secondly, a considerable amount of non-productive time (and hence additional cost of approx. $7 million) was added to the overall drilling program as a result of mechanical debris in the hole lost from the Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) system requiring side-tracking.
In aggregate, these additional unbudgeted items have added up to an estimated further approx. $10 million of cost to the overall program cost. Whilst the majority of Perseverance #1 costs were incurred and paid prior to and during the course of drilling, work is ongoing to agree the final amounts remaining to be paid with contractors and suppliers arising from the additional unbudgeted costs (including some disputed amounts and some refunds owing), and to finalise a schedule for those payments over the coming months.