Seplat Energy's CEO Roger Brown hosts London Capital Markets Day and focuses the strategy. 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.
hasiba and others - I've seen (and been burned) by too many 'restructurings' over the years to feel that this is 'unjust'. Bondholders hold shareholders to ransom all the time and the BoD are usually either complicit or powerless.
The statement on the shareholder meeting RNS was pretty clear ... if the court doesn't sanction then we will almost certainly file for bankrupcy. It is possible to day trade that period and maybe double your money within a week on spurious optimism but generally at this point the long term shareholders are out of luck.
I'm not a deramper (I bought this on a punt just a few months ago hoping the refinancing would occur). The BoD have demonstrated they haven't been able to accomplish that - I therefore took my losses (sold lower than current price) and chalked it down to experience. For those who are still holding please recognise that the sp after this meeting is as likely to be 0.1p as it is 2p ... if you can tolerate that risk then good luck, if you can't then cut your losses now
Eevryone talking about the BOD being corrupt etc - havent they all only been in place for 12 months or so? WOuld have thought they would make it work if they could. Only new factor now is the price of oil.
Sorry about the typos. Fat fingers on small phone! But ypu get the gist im sure. GLA.
hasiba, completely agree. AIM is already risky, and if the court alloqs this, AIM will become uninvestable in for PI's. Will also be completely unjust so faith in our justice sysyem will take a beating. Hopefully the judge will see the ramifications. ATB
I would be astonished if the court allow the BoD to sanction the restructuring plans.
It’s just illogical and unjust and will set a bad precedent for all small companies not to be trusted by investors and the market in general if they have on their books CB holders sharks allowed to manipulate the BoD and steal the company from the shareholders…..
''actual technical data can be manipulated like crazy by the company itself.'' Yes that is very important and fully agree. All creative manipulation to achieve this restructuring.
"There is no urgency for restructuring except the Bod and Bondholders painting all doom and gloom. This is an important factor in the whole scheme of things. If the judge delays the restructuring by 6 months and suggests he wants to see data after 6 months, this can change the entire picture."
In principle, I agree with what you say. But in practice, things are more difficult. I very much doubt that the honorable judge will be looking closely at any technical data coming from Lancaster, nor the pros and cons of the Lincoln P&A, nor anything like that. Not his mandate, and also he has no doubt plenty of other fish to fry. Instead (I think) he will be looking at the legality and justification for this 'restructuring', its timing, and also that the company has spent (wasted) 17 million in setting it up while claiming they're broke (if that figure is true), and the total lack of discussion with shareholders. Up until now, when we're getting bombarded with stupid trivia via RNS about an ESP going offline for five days, and stuff like that.
What I DO hope the judge will appreciate (in the hope he's dealt with other 'O&G' cases) is that actual technical data can be manipulated like crazy by the company itself. In either direction. Remember that bit in the RNS about 'restricted' production from well 6 of 11,000 bopd now the ESP is running again? Hey, they can 'restrict' it down to 6000. Just takes a push of a button and the adjustment of a few valves, and some phone-calls with BP to discuss how often tanker offload frequency seems to be 'right'. And drinks in the pub afterwards.
And there's absolutely nothing we can do about such shenennigans.
maqsood7....."New cpr" Which company would take this on now and do a CPR that argued the water being produced from 6 and 7 is from an incorrect OWC assumption and in fact it is much deeper? Only a company hellbent on destroying its reputation. The RPS CPR was based on available data at the time and it was interpreted as per industry practices. That doesn't mean it was right, or wrong. The key now is ongoing production from the Early Production System of which the sole purpose was to test the reservoir characteristics. They have and the results are a much shallower OWC and a reciprocal downgrade in reserves and forward production estimates. Changing the BoD doesn't alter these facts and HUR can't drill any new wells to access any other parts of the reservoir without the restructure or it will instead be wound down. An awful outcome, but them's the realities.
This is what expected to happen.
Delay in judgement for a month.
Get rid of cr*** bod on 5th of july.
Forward statement for 2021-22 mentioning expected profit with higher oil prices and future cash balances.
Negotiations with bond holders for payments.
OR ARRANGE A NEW CREDIT FACILITY!!!!
thanks for providing the link to all docs... interesting reads
reading this made me smile... especially the personal Emails submitted at the end...
....Witness Statement of Richard Philip Bernstein and Exhibit RPB1
There are many issues to be considered.
One is that of CV 19 legislation being used, when the problems resulting from HMG action on dealing with the CV19 pandemic have no bearing on the saga.
Clearly, without CV19 the normal course of events in dealing with the maturity of the CB’s would only have come into focus for the final months prior to maturity. Hence the valid claim that time is not of the essence in determining the result.
Furthermore, it is not unusual for CB’s to be “rolled-over” or refinanced prior to maturity, but this has been prevented on the pretext that covenants prevent it. Should shareholders, as well as the bondholders, have had sight of these before making their investment decisions?
The judgement will be interesting and possibly career making for participants! It will be surely analysed in depth by the legal profession – given the circumstances.
thanks british - best of luck to you this week!
slift - as per usual with hur it is red or black. if CA et al lose the case then i agree with you - towards 0.1/2 p . if on the other hand there is a delay then i think we will be looking towards 2p.
mirasol - my argument with CPRs is that the company wants repeat business. there will be a pressure intangible or not to give the customer what he wants. there are enough disclaimers that they can absolve themselves of any real responsibility. i always think of it like an mot or gas safety cert. on the surface they are impartial..but.....
the other thing is that they are only working on the data supplied - they don't turn up on site and do their own tests. i wonder how often they disagree with the company supplying the data?
i am not saying hur have faked data - but from reading the statements there is clearly an issue over what data to use even before the interpretation
< 0.5p by end of this week.
CaptainS, Your arguments are very sound and do not take an extreme stand. Welcome back. It is Sunday evening and I am eager for the hearing tomorrow. All the best to folks who have fought hard here. Please do keep voting. That is important as well.
Please do vote ''AGAINST'' all proposals for AGM on June 30.
Please do vote ''FOR'' all proposals for EGM on July 5.
yes, it is a difficult one for judge. He will be wary of setting a wrong example. Also, he will like his judgement to sound fair and set a benchmark. There is no urgency for restructuring except the Bod and Bondholders painting all doom and gloom. This is an important factor in the whole scheme of things. If the judge delays the restructuring by 6 months and suggests he wants to see data after 6 months, this can change the entire picture. I will like to see a judgement that is fair and upholds the belief of people in the UK judicial system.
"As i have long stated theses CPRs are seemingly flawed - you get what you pay for."
They're supposed to be independent but I've been told a BoD can bring a lot of pressure to the party and try and insist on a more favourable look . Apparently the top group - eg. NSA, D&M (both in the USA) and Gaffney Cline in the UK are almost impossible to pressure, second level such as ERCE, Ryder Scott , Sproule, RPS fight their corner hard - but the further you go down the food chain the more influence the Client has.
very very interesting reading - and backs up much of my questioning over the last few months
we were told that the 2017 cpr was proved wrong from acquired data - can accept this.
however we were then expected to believe the ERCE cpr was bulletproof - personally my spidey senses were tingling with halifax going to zero. seems that another CPR could well give a different opinion - if follwing Law's modelling.
As i have long stated theses CPRs are seemingly flawed - you get what you pay for. 2017 they needed a good one to get the project off the ground and got it ....2021 the bod seemingly needed a poor one to support of their low estimation and giveaway and got it.
an interesting question is - if the giveaway happens would a new "better" cpr then be available? once the company was practically "private"
will be very interesting this week and a headache for the judge. i would like to think there is enough doubt to justify a delay. if so bod changes - flotsam ditched. and game on..
wonder if they will now suspend shares? should have been done on first hearing imo.
It's worth reading
Two well known Oil & Gas experts from separate respected companies - and the different interpretations they have made of the data
anybody know how to get CA skeleton argument pdf?