Member Info for aligator

Peakview, This is precisely what I was expecting when I commented that an announcement from the BoD would be helpful at this stage. Indeed it is even more positive than I had considered would be put to paper.
The further confirmation of progress on the farm-in and financing fronts also endorses my view that the BoD could only have declined the RRE offer so swiftly if it was confident of securing funding in due course. As we all know, the BoD have a fiduciary duty to consider such an offer if it felt that there was not a reasonable chance of establishing funding in the near future. By declining so swiftly, my post suggested that this could only be because the BoD had reasonable confidence in its funding. I agree that the offer price was derisory and would always have been rejected but this could only happen if the BoD had this level of confidence.

from the BoD. Would be helpful to have some form of update. So much has occurred dover the past week or so, RRE offer, recruitment of EI, rig movement, etc, one has to presume that whatever solution is being pursued, farm-in, debt funding, contractor funding, equity raise etc, must be very close to fruition, otherwise on what basis did the BoD decline the RRE offer so swiftly?

Hi dinsalas, The only RJM Energy Ltd I can find is a small consulting firm registered in Harrow Middlesex, with two directors (presumably related). To my knowledge it is not a listed company and I am therefore unable to find any "holding disclosure". Are you suggesting there is a link between this company and IOG? I just cannot fathom why this would be the case. Am I misreading something in your post?

Hi Sailor, To my knowledge nothing has happened. Clearly, with the appointment of the Senior NED at such a specific time, the onus is on the BOD to provide some further clarity on the current status within the company. I am of the view that all options remain feasible - i.e. the Company is advanced/close to finalising a farm-in agreement, independent funding (bond or bank debt) or some form of corporate investment. Either way, the situation looks more positive now than it did earlier this week.
Perhaps the course of today will see a further announcement.

I would assume that any bank looking to provide debt to IOG on either a recourse (corporate) or non-recourse (project) basis will want to see either parallel equity/risk investment by the company or some form of guarantee/underwrite from a third party. Banks don't lend just based on security, they lend based on a sound business proposition, supported by relevant data and cashflows. Security is the cream on the cake, so as to speak. In IOG's case, the security is there, it is the equity aspect which is the challenge. Has this now been sourced? What dilution would this create?
Bond finance is different as the funders are investors - institutional or private - and normally willing to take higher risk. Could it be that the BOD has made a breakthrough on this front, aided by contacts/input from FM and EI.
Or have the farm-in efforts proved successful?
I have a feeling the next 48 hours will be very interesting.

I stand educated. Thank you BUTD.

Perroverde's and others' thoughts are also very relevant - why sign up to the BOD of a company with seemingly negative outlook, funding challenges, etc? And specifically at this time?
He certainly could be a contact of FM but what is interesting is that the SP is moving swiftly up on this news. Of course, we all hope that positive inside information remains inside but, yet again, could this be leaking. I am not a market expert so difficult for me to gauge if this rise is due to MM's having shorted the stock and now seeking to cover their positions.
Interesting times!

I am very intrigued by this RNS.
First, the appointment of a "Senior Non-Executive Director" at this specific point in time. Clearly, EI has background experience in many companies (Shell, Transocean, Vantage, Ahlstrom, Lamar and Genel) but these were all operational during his time there - that is, he was not involved in the development phase, or the funding thereof, for any of them. So what does EI bring to the table for IOG? Arguably, albeit he has held financial roles, he has had no hands-on experience in the procurement of development funding for any of these companies. So why appoint him now? Could it be that, despite his background, he has somehow introduced a farm-in partner, a funder or a potential buyer of the company?
Second, FM's comments are interesting in the choice of words used. She states "...will be invaluable to the company as WE EXECUTE the funding of our high-value gas hubs..." No use of words such as "...as we SEEK to execute the funding ..." or "as we PROGRESS the funding..." WE EXECUTE (my capitals) could imply that execution is imminent - wishful thinking perhaps but invariably the wording of such announcements are very carefully crafted by the company and NOMAD.
Third, I refer to my previous post wherein I stated that, in rejecting the RRE bid immediately, the BOD had to be very confident that the status of a farm-in or funding solution for the company was advanced enough to provide them with the ability to issue such rejection so swiftly. If this was not the case then the BOD is clearly at risk of breaching its fiduciary duties, a situation which could be very damaging for the company and would be very serious for the individuals involved.
In summary, a seemingly normal announcement about the appointment of an NED but could it actually herald positive developments? As always, my own thoughts and happy to get reaction/views/feedback - albeit it would be nice to see this board return to its constructive past and not drill new depths of accusations and hostility.

The BOD rejected the approach from RRE swiftly. They did so with the apparent support of the LCF administrator. One can only presume that the rejection was based, inter alia, on the BOD's view of the status of discussions with i) potential farm-in partners, ii) potential funders and, possibly, iii) other interested buyers. The BOD cannot have made this decision if, in fact, they had little chance of of securing one or more of the above - that would be fraud and could expose them to criminal charges. Thus, if one considers the situation logically, one can perceive (not conclude I would stress) that there is existing traction with one of the 3 solutions. Thus, I posted earlier, is it currently a case of no news is good news?

Some excellent posts regarding the legal situation but, one can only presume, none of us are aware of what's actually happening behind closed doors at IOG. We can speculate all we like on this board but the reality is that, at this time, no one outside of the company (we hope!) knows.
I am currently in a "no news is good news" frame of mind simply because IOG has valuable licence assets of ca 500bcf of reserves, owns 100% of a functional pipeline and has pre-existing agreements with the likes of BP.
I have a low average cost and will make a good profit at 20p if RRE's offer becomes the only game in town. However, I would far rather see the company sold for a price much more relative to its asset value and prospects.

Fast_Ted, you are correct Kirk was joint CEO with MR at CH4 Energy and that contact/friendship will no doubt have continued since the company was acquired by Venture in 2006. Furthermore, if I understand from previous RNS' that MR holds around 8m shares and other options. He may not be on the BOD anymore but he is unlikely to be just sitting in a chair doing nothing right now.
Like you and others, I suspect that the RRE offer has stimulated the interests of a variety of companies towards IOG, more probably from an acquisition than farm-in perspective. However, unless someone has an inside track to IOG, the reality is that we have no clue what is going on in their offices at the moment, albeit we probably can assume that there are many late nights being worked.

So many new posters here trying to undermine the collective views of the many LTH's in IOG. As Peakview says, all we are seeing is yet another wave of doubt and doom from those with very short term agendas.

butd, Can Finncap, IOG's Nomad, purchase shares on behalf of a predator? Seems to me that this creates a massive conflict of interest - what do the rules say? Further, even if they can, why such relatively small purchases?

And now Cantor enter the picture. As viticoltore comments, presumably more to come?

Interesting responses. Surely Finncap cannot short stock if it is advising the company. As somebody said, this would be a huge conflict of interest and totally unlawful. Could there be another reason......?

Interesting purchase by Finncap. I cannot believe that it has invested just £80,000 in order to make ca £6,500 if RRE's offer was actually accepted. Or is there another angle here - the prediction/belief by Finncap that this situation will develop further with either further bids from RRE, another bidder(s) entering the fray or IOG announcing that it has secured a farm out deal? Either way, £80,000 for a firm like Finncap is peanuts as would be the prospective gain of £6,500 - the cost of a West End lunch for its BOD..... Unless it believes that fair the market value for IOG is considerably north of 20p.
Any thoughts/views by anyone?

In the region 500 bcf of reserves for less than £25m (based on 20p share offer)? I don't think so. RRE's challenge here is to completely understand the vested interests and mindset of the board and personnel and the very high % of long term shareholders.
IOG's board rebuffed this offer immediately, which suggests to me that they are advanced in their farm-out negotiations and/or have been approached by other companies.
I am not savvy enough to start predicting what the share price needs to be to get the BOD's support but, from comments on this and IOG's boards, 30-40p seems to be a focus. That said, if other bidders enter the room, then 40p could well be the lowest point.
Interesting times.

Referencing Peakview's and GGITS' comments, I have shared my own thoughts on this board from a financier/risk perspective. I am not an investment specialist/professional and have made that very clear in the past. However, I am willing to risk some of my hard earned money on companies that I believe I know a lot about and to share my thoughts on matters corporate, industrial and financial.
I too am conscious that what has, in the past, been a relatively a constructive posting environment - interspersed with some robust interchange on differing views, etc - has become a sounding board for those with short term agenda or other objectives. Of course, everyone is entitled to their views but, for me, I no longer feel that this board reflects what I seek by way of reasoned investment dialogue and for that reason I see no point in remaining as a poster.
Good luck to all those who remain.

Referencing Peakview's and GGITS' comments, I have shared my own thoughts on this board from a financier/risk perspective. I am not an investment specialist/professional and have made that very clear in the past. However, I am willing to risk some of my hard earned money on companies that I believe I know a lot about and to share my thoughts on matters corporate, industrial and financial.
I too am conscious that what has, in the past, been a relatively a constructive posting environment - interspersed with some robust interchange on differing views, etc - has become a sounding board for those with short term agenda or other objectives. Of course, everyone is entitled to their views but, for me, I no longer feel that this board reflects what I seek by way of reasoned investment dialogue and for that reason I see no point in remaining as a poster.
Good luck to all those who remain.

Got to say that my misconceived tag is catching.
I am intrigued by BUTD's opening statement states that share price is based on supply and demand, earnings, future prospects, macro and micro economics. Aside from the supply and demand factor, which I will come back to, this is precisely what I was saying in my post. The fact that BUTD later states that IOG's "value is based of (sic) perceived future value of the company" leaves me scratching my head as, again, this was the point I was making in my post.
As to supply and demand, happy sparrow hit the nail on the head with his comment that it is the manipulation of supply and demand with no real interjection of facts or logic, which many would regard as less than ethical behaviour. It seems to me that this is accepted conduct on AIM. Of course, there are rogue companies and rogue boards/directors but, invariably, they get caught. IOG is none of this yet has had to watch its sp decline due to the independent actions of others.