Member Info for aligator

Investor81, As far as I can deduce these are standard corporate options - 3 year vesting period, 10 year exercise period and 12.75p purchase price but subject to certain performance targets being met, including sanction of phase 1 of the southern north sea development project. So, basically, the recipients can only trigger the options if the company achieves such performance milestones. not sure if this was the basis of your question.

600t, I will be extremely angry and concerned if the BoD is withholding such information from the shareholders and will contact AH/JC to get an update/explanation. I will share any response in due course.
Troajan, 3 trades of 62 million is 186 million shares. That is ca 55% of the issued share capital! Surely that can't be right? Isn't the company liable to inform shareholders of such a volume of trading? That does not really make any sense to me.

t35, Fair point. That said, the BoD would have had to bring all the other II's inside for the same purpose so I am presuming that this was just assumed to be part of the process. Or have I missed the point?
On the positive side, Burggaben and the other II's were allowed to trawl through the company's papers and inside info and have invested over £16m as a result. That gives me some degree of comfort that what they saw led them to believe that the company has better than good prospects of succeeding in its core project and beyond.
To my mind, Harvey is first plate (excuse the baseball pun) in all this with, hopefully, FDP/FID in short order after.

Considerable selling over the last two days but the share price still holding above 12.5p. Has there been a leak of positive news? Anybody got a view?

t35, I was at the meeting and asked why Bacton was taking so much time, given that on the conference call we were told that all commercial points had been agreed and all that remained was legal documentation to be completed. The answer was that, as I interpreted it, the land on which Bacton stands was never registered at the Land Registry and that resolving this incredible oversight is all that is holding up the closing. I am just gobsmacked that Bacton can have operated for so long without due title to the land on which it stands. Just shows you that lawyers can make mistakes too.......

Hi 600T, I have been thinking more about Burgrabben's status as an insider. I can only presume that it was taken inside because of its presumed links with II's or for some other related reason (perhaps it introduced Azvalor?). Given the size of its shareholding, the BoD were probably keen to see it remain as one of the largest investors and hence opened up its books, etc.
The fact is that, having had the benefit of inside knowledge (notwithstanding the sale of some shares - in March I believe), Burggraben not only retained its investment but also took up the offer of new shares, more than doubling its stake to over 15%. From my perspective, this is a very solid indicator that what Burggraben saw on becoming an insider was more than sufficient to persuade it to not only remain invested in IOG but to more than double its stake.
Trust your health continues to improve. As you and others comment, this growing older process is a challenge!

600T, I had been in contact with Burggraben (since May last year) and was advised by my contact there that it was now an insider (I believe 19 March - last month) and could not enter into further dialogue with me.

Not exactly names I was hoping/expecting to read but, at the end of the day, their money is as good as anyone's.
Trellis, I note your comments about Lombard Odier - can you expand further on your negativity?
Will be interesting to see who else is in the mix.

I am with interactive investor and have my new shares in my accounts.

While appreciating that most, if not all, shareholders/investors are unhappy with the current state of play - including myself - I sincerely hope that this meeting is undertaken in a constructive, professional and sensible manner. I think we now know that, with the benefit of hindsight, the choice of LOG as a funding partner was not a good decision by the BoD and that the strong-arm, bullying tactics adopted by LOG's nominees to the board not only constrained progress but resulted in at least one officer of the company (Peter Young - who just happened to be the founder) resigning. However, I have some sympathy for the BoD in this regard, who would never have voted for such a tie-up if they had any semblance of knowledge of what was going to befall LOG and LCF.
It is my hope that this meeting will be an intellectual forum for information exchange and for tabling suggestions, etc and will not descend into a "who is to blame/why are we in this situation" farce - as has been reflected within this posting board over the last 6 months.
I support the view that the BoD has, in all probability, worked hard throughout in an effort to procure a funding solution and will be focused on this - together with completing the Harvey well - in the next few months.
Let's face it, we are, as they say, where we are and the best way forward now is to face the future with a unified approach. Negative, destructive, if not hostile comments/approach will not resolve anything.
Of course, I have no problem reminding the BoD of our expectations of them in this regard and will be putting my oar in on this matter at some stage.
Good luck to all, particularly those of us who have been invested in IOG for years!

Apart from those who intend to vote down the proposed placing and offer, those of us who feel that raising capital at this stage is the only logical route to take must now sit back and hope that the effective trust we have put in the Board of IOG was correct and that they are able to deliver on a multitude of tasks, starting with finalising a farm-in agreement with a large, solvent, industry partner. Simply put, if this fails then we are at the mercy of further bids for the debt - which will essentially wipe our equity out - or a firesale of the company. Beyond that is anyone's guess.
God knows how we have ended up in this situation from that which prevailed 9-12 months ago, when we were all expressing views on what multiples the share price might achieve in the relatively short term. To my mind the game changer was the BoD's decision not to press ahead with a fund raising in the last quarter of 2018: whether there were serious potential partners I guess we will never know but things have certainly turned sour since then.
RRE's phantom bid was frankly outrageous since it was merely a ruse to launch an attempt to buy the debt. Thank goodness this never happened has Andrew Austin would surely have ensured that our equity was wiped out had he succeeded.
Looking positively to the future, we have the full support of the Administrator of LOG/LCF, the Board is investing a sizeable chunk of equity at this time and the Harvey well should be funded. I believe the chance of success on this well is 63%, here's hoping that it proves up and more.
I will be at the meeting next week and look forward to meeting/talking to fellow posters and shareholders.
Best wishes to all.

Happysparrow, you make logical comments but surely, if the placing etc are not voted through, the market will perceive much less value in the company and the administrator will demand the loan repayment due in June which would render the company insolvent. Indeed, would such action not once again expose the shareholders to a third party acquiring the debt and wiping out shareholder value? either way, the prospect of sale at a "decent" price will surely be severely challenged.
I will take up the offer and vote yes to the placing as I feel this is the only sensible option available at this time. Yes, like every PI, I am very disappointed with the situation - not least the 10p price - and know that we will still not be out of the woods, but I do get some comfort from the BoD £325k equity investment and existing large shareholders expressing their ongoing support.
The game changer here is the farm-in agreement and whether the company can sign this up in the near future.
As with us all, I have hard earned money at risk here but I will risk a little more by taking up the offer.
Best of luck to you and our fellow investors.

This appears to be a very binary situation. You either believe in the future of this company or you don't. What makes it even more black and white is that the placing and agreement with the administrator are subject to the shareholders voting for such. Therefore, unless the shareholders vote yes, it seems to me that the company has little if any alternatives to move forward on a solvent basis and would become exposed again to an attempt to buy the debt and render the company's equity valueless or to selling itself in a firesale scenario, where there is a risk that the offer price might not even reach today's share price - indeed could be substantially less.
In summary, it would appear to me that there is no real other option than to vote this through. However, no doubt others will have their own views.
All in my own, honest opinion.

rxdav, Firstly, thank you for all your efforts in bringing the questions together. A thankless task but I admire your tenacity in the face of considerable adversity.
Would it be possible to copy the email you sent to the company on this board?

It is precisely this question - "what did the [BoD and] Administrator know which allowed it to decline the 20p RRE offer in place of the 10p offer" - which the, now long suffering shareholders, of this company have every right to expect an answer, either in the offer circular or at the general meeting. Something just does not sit well with me on all this and, in parallel, my trust and confidence in FM and AH, plus the other directors, is currently at an extremely low ebb.
We have waited long enough on this whole issue of funding. It is time for the BoD to come clean on exactly what they are pursuing, with whom and at what stage of the process they are - i.e. do they have a chance of pulling this all together by end of june. The shareholders of this company have been too patient and too trusting for too long.
The BoD must surely comprehend that they must come clean with their shareholders now.

600T, I would like to agree with you about the sp but, at this moment in time, there are many aspects of the current situation which simply do not add up. Probably the most pertinent for me is that the RRE offer was summarily rejected based, it would appear, on little, if any progress on the farm-in/funding process. Indeed, the announcement now suggests that this will not be resolved until the end of June - "This will allow it to continue to progress its ongoing farm-out discussions, enabling it to decide by the end of the first half of 2019 between industrial or capital markets funding to FID, which will ensure the development of its SNS portfolio." In essence, this would suggest that the BoD had no clear evidence of a farm-in or funding arrangement when it rebuffed the 20p offer. If that was the case then it has some explaining to do in my opinion because here we are now languishing at around 14p - a paper loss of 30% in a couple of weeks!
I have to admit that I am now very dubious about anything coming from the BoD and feel that, if anything, shareholders have been somewhat misled. In terms of performance, I can only conclude that FM has been a proverbial waste of space and that AH has many questions to answer on 23 April. Perhaps it is time for a change of personnel in these roles? What is the process of commencing such a change?

Trellis, I am aware that Burgrabben is now an insider insofar as IOG is concerned. I think this has been for at least a couple months, if not longer. This would tie with your comment about them trading "early on" but no trading since.
I have no information as to why just this investor has been taken inside but assumption/logic would suggest that it has brought something substantive to the table.
As an aside, perhaps it introduced Esa Ikhaheimonen etc etc?

Excellent post Trellis35 although, if I have read your penultimate paragraph correctly, I remain of the view that, if the company can pull the proverbial rabbit out of a hat in terms of a farm-in and/or funding (which the BoD commented on positively in the last RNS), then it should be able to proceed to first gas under its own steam rather than as a subsidiary of another entity. That would certainly realise the value which has been debated considerably over the past year.
That said, I have previously commented that a pre-gas production approach from a large/midcap o&g producer was always a possibility. However, RRE's offer was simply both opportunistic and derisory and I think any further offers/bids, should they emerge, will, given recent announcements by the BoD, need to be multiples of the 20p tabled.
And, of course, should the Harvey well prove previous positive predictions, then we could be talking quite a different ball game entirely. Hence, why I feel the BoD is focused on the funding of this well.

Could it be that, because of the delay in securing the funding for the core project etc, IOG negotiated a deal with Ensco to allow for interim work by the rig prior to, as GG points out, spudding the Harvey well mid-year. This would certainly not be unusual in the industry - at the end of there day Ensco want to maximise the rigs operational days, without downtime gaps. Hence the journey to Teesside. Just a thought.

Amazing how a positive statement, albeit limited, from the BoD can see an almost complete transformation in the atmosphere on this board. For those of us LTH who have retained full faith in the asset base, our patience appears about to pay off. In my opinion, the BoD has made sufficient positive noises about funding, reinforced by their swift rejection of the RRE offer, to effectively confirm that this is not "if" but "when".
Who knows where the share price is heading at this stage. Of course, RRE could come back with an improved offer but I somehow think that it's objective here was to seize the assets at a derisory cost, aided by trolls and derampers seeking to make profit from an element of confusion and panic among short term holders.
For me the last few months have been an abject lesson in sticking to one's guns in the face of board postings which frankly bordered on the ridiculous.