The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
will do nothing and benefit nobody - if you want to make your feelings felt put in a vote of no confidence in the BOD at the EGM. Makes me laugh diddnt see many of the current posters turning up at the last meeting to vote down the BOD. This is all Huff and Puff about legal moves and voting No if you want to do something there has to be a company in place with an asset to fight in the first place otherwise a liquidation with lots of moaning will achieve nothing - FACT !!
Quite agree. Sure it will be pumped xel has proven same, at this rate possibly not in our lifetimes however.
talking shop the pbb needs to show the strength of rejection on this from pi's, plus some form of legal action plan, possibly along the lines of attacking the bod's competence and conflict of interest, fiduciary duties and the like. Also they do need to canvass the likes of socius and cavendish to determine their views.
Trouble is, highlandsbull, none of that will benifit XEL holders now. They may end up with a few Statoil shares and be able to sell for a drink . Long term , Statoil could be the big winner IF the very heavy oil is ever pumped.
Xcite Energy holds and operates 100% of the Bentley field located in Block 9/3b (Licence P1078) Xcite Energy holds 1.5% of the Bentley field located in Block 9/3b (Licence P1078) Don't look right to me, VOTE NO
After all at the expense of xel a perfectly workable plan is in place, at half the cost of mariner.
Exactly, they wiil probably bring in cnooc after that to spread the risk, so cosl may yet also still get a rig in there on the back of that.
From the xel pi's point of view he may have to wait a long time..
He'a not left, just hiding in the background waiting for the call from those who think him a genius.
I suspect Statoil are comfortable waiting and letting XEL fall into their lap. Malcy pointed out there used to be TWO players big enough and interested in making huge heavy oil projects work; Statoil and SHELL. Shell have walked away leaving Statoil as the only possible game in town; holding all the ACES. I suspect that after a "yes" vote things could move relatively fast. Talks with Statoil and an agreed price requiring a haircut from the BH's who practically own all of XEL. We know from the companies rns that, after expert advice, its "unlikely" shareholders would get anything if enforcement action is taken. Rough calculations means they would expect 0.5p maximum per diluted share. I suspect Statoil will want to pay less than that.
Exactly, it puts an end to both the bondholders ease of action for offering a pittance, and this bod's attempts to secure their own futures at the expense of their shareholders who have been led down the garden path as to their competence and integrity.
SK said £12 per share which is a loss of -99.875%. Wonder why he left.
Imo just as the one year bond was wrong they completely miscalculated the time they would need to stitch a deal in their favour together. Of course in the interim the poo did not help. It all comes back to 2011 imo and their failure then to have decc on side after the 6 well, and the failure of the draft fsp/ssp plan. Then latterly after ewt and funding in place, to go with this hugely expensive big boy plan w/o first having any funding in place for same. Such a crass omission, though not without precedent for these people when they went for share sale in advance if funding. The ceo(s) must have been in lala land, or were duped, surely it can't have been stupidity.
Jonjo,I honestly don't think we will ever be able to bring the BOD to account after the event. That takes lots of time, effort and money and fighting most probably a multimillion pound oil company. At least at this juncture we have some power and can make the BOD pay in some way for their sheer incompetence.As far as losing all the assets in liquidation,the PI loses them if this gets voted through so what the hell!
"According to FT, The 2 analysts offering 12 month price targets for XCITE ENERGY LIMITED have a median target of 32.50, with a high estimate of 46.00 and a low estimate of 19.00. The median estimate represents a 2,017.26% increase from the last price of 1.54." Gotta love it
Very true but if the bondholders do become the new owners whatever they are left with they will want to sell on, to whoever wants it. And if the price then is $50m so be it. Doubt that sto wd want to let it get to that stage though, possibly invite competition. Imo it wd be more a peregrino type arrgt. And of course oga won't give a stuff, all they want is someone to develop the field, for which compliments of xer they can provide them full data! In the meantime our expert, who has not been employable elsewhere in six years steps back out if the shadows to assist. Hard to make this story up.
Paddy - brilliant strategy - NOT let's all just throw in the towel and vote NO and then see the company in liquidation and lose all the assets in the process - or you could vote yes and then hold the BOD to account after the restructure along with the BH for manipulating the deal - or you could just berate people for poor spelling and try to be a smart 4rse
I do have to wonder, given that they already alluded to the financing market being very tough in 2014 why they didn't go for contingency and ask for a 3 or even 4 year bond. Was a 2 year bond all they could get?
I would suggest your reply is idiotic as is your spelling. The vast majority of shareholders will in my opinion be voting NO as they now have very little to lose. So voting NO may get us a better D4E and if not liquidation screws up Cole and his $10M spending.What does voting YES give us...F.... all and and Conman Cole still gets paid. money.
" in a liquidation the licence falls and we have no asset. " Interesting point jonjo which raises questions about when the license could be taken away. The companies rns made it clear that the BH's threatened enforcement action if the restructure is voted down. Now ,surely that can only mean administrator being brought in. If it was clear cut that the license would be lost immediately it strikes me the BH's would be cutting off their noses to spite their face. Usually administrators take over and keep the running whilst trying to find a buyer for the business as a going concern. If that fails , liquidation follows.
Hi CC I find it incredible the lack of knowledge or research here by some posters and whilst I understand the reasons why anything inviting any form of insolvency action simply means that the asset will disappear due to the terms of the licence. Any insolvency that is placed such as liquidation, administration, CVA automatically invokes con elation of the licence. Why do you think that the BH are putting in 10m it is not because they have so much faith in the company but simply because without working capital the company is insolvent - end of !
One would think with the volume of shares traded there should have been buyers come over the disclosure threshold, especially the likes of the bondholders who deliberately split to keep themselves just below before. So perhaps more parties in concert, why expect this bod to care or advise of same if it is happening, they have made their position clear, the next owners if their rec is followd through will be their future employers.
Impossible to know. Some are suggesting the bondholders are buying, but given that they're going to get the company anyway, why bother? I wouldn't touch this right now, but there's always the possibility a no vote, or a threat of it, will persuade the bondholders to renegotiate. I'm not convinced, but we'll see.
Know one would want to force a liquidation and it is idiotic to suggest that as a strategy - in a liquidation the licence falls and we have no asset. The only point to voting no is to force the hand of the BH to make a better offer on dilution Basically an idiotic comment and strategy
Totally agree with paddy1964. Vote NO