Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the 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. 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.
The piece of metal that fell down the P1 well, did we ever find out what it was? A spanner, a crowbar, a chain? What could have been lying around that would be close to a drill hole that could fit down that diameter pipe and some how get below the drill head after a week or more of drilling?
I would Genuinely like to know.
Hi Glide,
I have telephoned and written to Stena. They have refused to speak or answer my email.
if you would like to write or phone, then contact Eirik.Reinertsen@Stena.com and Anthony.Rhodes@Stena.com
The phone number is: +44 (0) 1224 401180
i hope more people will try and find out the truth of this 'accident'.
Parpaing. Thanks for the Info. I Will do that.
This matter is in legal arbitration and you guys are contacting the people responsible to ask them to admit what happened & are expecting a reply admitting liability?
Parpaing. Thanks for the Info. I Will do that.
Yes I am gonna ask them. Why not, it has a personal impact.
Best of luck with that :)
Stena just called to confirm it was a red BMX stunt bike.
I heard it was caused by the BOD trying to dispose of all the copies of Nathan’s disasterous recordings for the Proactive “interview”…
This is very simple. The icemax crew was drilling, not BPC. If the icemax couldn't drill to TD because a piece of metal accidently fell into the hole, then it is 100% Stena's fault. To maintain their reputation, Stena should have continued to drill at their expense, either in another area or at an angle in the first well.
Does make you wonder why Stena are not demanding that the money be paid right now. It's as if CEG have an IOU that will only be paid when we feel like it and if we can, but if we can't then tough.
Poc
Are you know they aren't demanding their money?
Can only think Stena don't want to. It's a lot of money and no one get's a free pass, unless you want to do more business, or aren't confident in getting paid due to a negligence claim, which if so, would look bad for Stena.
Put it this way, I doubt it says in the drilling contract that CEG will cover Stena for any of it's **** ups.
Here we go again. Eytan explained in one of his Q&As that the Icemax was zero rated during the halt. The extra costs are the costs of having various other contractors sitting around while the drilling was paused.
Stena wouldn’t be liable to CEG for the consequential losses of a drilling incident. Firstly they wouldn’t be forced into taking that liability by a minnow like CEG. More importantly CEG have openly stated that these are their costs to settle, and never given any suggestion that they have a related claim against Stena to offset them.
Bohemia, all that may be true, but we are discussing why Stena have not demanded payment. Not who owes what or who's liable. It may be that any drill days lost and contractors other contractors sitting around while Stena sorted out their mishap have been paid by CEG. But as far as we know it's Stena who are the bulk of the costs rather than any other contractors sitting around for a few days. There were extra Covid costs, but not to the tune of $15m. As for CEG being a minnow. It doesn't make any difference. A drilling contract is the same whether it's for a major or an independent.
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.
How do you know Stena are the bulk of the costs, or even $1 of the costs?
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?
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.
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.
Bohemian & Druid what is meant by " Not current in T&T."
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.
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.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/options-when-a-company-is-insolvent/options-when-a-company-is-insolvent
Is CEG technically insolvent?
LLL
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.
Cheers
Patoir