Member Info for barnaby67

Or maybe not!!!

I would be VERY surprised if there isn’t an RNS next week (Wed or Thurs most likely)

I do not think for one second that MQ will be paid by shares being issued to them. If that is the purpose of the fund raise, BPC would have received the subscription proceeds and paid (or more like earmarked) the proceeds to MQ.

Just get the sense of a bout of negativity here at the moment, perhaps sensing a period when the price will drift down as we may see a month or two pass with little news.

I think it would be nigh on impossible BPC raising “tens of $ millions” at anywhere near current price (and I don’t mean fractions of current SP). It would have to be in the context of a significantly developed prospect (ie big deal done with major and at a much increased SP). Others will know if MQ provide specialist advisory in the O&G sector, but generally I have come across them in the corporate advisory space. They will provide corporate finance expertise that the management of BPC simply do not possess. I would not say that £1m is an excessive fee for a large advisory project - far from it.

If it is any help days in legal contracts should be taken to mean calendar days unless otherwise defined (eg working days or business days) so I would take that to be 1 calendar month from date clock started ticking!

Wow, bold prediction there. That would be quite some drift!

I agree with you totally. Appointment of MQ (or if it had been any other big name investment bank or advisory firm) as advisors in current process is highly significant and clear indication there is a deal to be done. If i were the advisors and were going to do a shed load of work then I would want certainty of being paid - they cannot be deal outcome dependent and equally the BPC board cannot hold their own Solvency to risk on the outcome with a big advisor bill to settle irrespective of whether deal is successful or not. Sensible financing planning for whatever the outcome of the negotiations.

Sorry second sentence should read - they won’t just bring advisors in to seal the deal!!! Involved earlier, but when serious about completing a deal.

I think the deal process has a little way to go yet hence we are just told about MQ. They will mostly just bring advisors in to seal the deal! All deals I have ever worked on (finance sector not O&G) you appoint your advisors at the start of the process (or at least when things get serious - you might well operate only with own staff early on as you weigh up likelihood of a deal being possible). Advisors are expensive, they will not have engaged MQ unless they have a serious view of an appropriately attractive deal being viable. Entirely possible MQ, being dispassionate about outcome, wanted paying an agreed fee upfront (no way MQ would have decided this halfway through because they thought there was increased likelihood of deal falling through - it would be in the engagement letter). Clearly BPC didn’t have the cash in bank to spend £1m or so of existing shareholder r sources so a fund raise was only option. They would have embarked on this a few weeks ago and so 2.5p was an entirely plausible raise price at that time. On balance my thought that the funds were to pay MQ (pity RNS didn’t actually say that) is a significant positive.

Macquarie have a lot of experience on the asset backed lending / project finance side. They have been cost cutting and laying staff off in London (as my mate there was recently let go). What they are like in terms of concluding farm-in’s in the O&G sector and where they sit in the advisors pecking order in that world I wouldn’t know.

Oilbell, yes exactly, clarification needed. I certainly had kittens when I saw the RNS about 7.15 and didn’t even take in the Macquarie bit then. I believe the fund raise was to provide certainty of funds to their advisors just in case the negotiations aren’t successfully concluded - I think it is entirely reasonable Macquarie were paid the instant the proceeds hit BPC’s account. Maybe cautious wording for the RNS not to give too much away, but we could have got a bit more explanation from BPC without giving any stuff that needs to be maintained secret away.

Total nonsense. That is not how advisory firms are paid - they do not require money ahead of signing in the ordinary course of events. I suspect they wanted some guarantee of funds being there to be paid in case deal doesn’t complete and BPC don’t have anything other than a pot to **** in to settle up. Let’s leave it that Macquarie’s involvement as corporate advisors is very good news - but if a deal is immenent or a little down the road but certain Macquarie would not require any surety - they would be paid out of the cash the major pays BPC. All this tells me is there is NO certainty of a deal with the major they are talking to, but we all knew that anyway. It certainly does not tell me talks with the major are about to fall through - they are very much ongoing. GLA

Well that excitement of some future for BPC was short lived. I really wasn’t expecting that to say the least. Sorry to say that RNS will totally trash the SP as people conclude the talks with the major may not lead to anything this year or maybe ever. I cannot see this being less than 50% down today. No logic at all to raise a paltry £1m if there was a likely deal - they really needed to reassure on this matter but sadly no.

Trying to maintain a balanced perspective whilst realising the stellar prospects here. Have to remind myself that it is a calculated gamble on the major and BPC announcing a deal. Not good if that isn’t the outcome but through the roof if it is - all the evidence suggests a good outcome so the odds for a mega punt are highly attractive (bit like the 1/2 on Dubai Millenium to beat 3 vastly inferior opponents circa 20 years ago in the QEII stakes at Ascot when I had him at 1/25 in my book). A mega punting opportunity in my opinion! Good location luck to all those all in (new investors and LTH’s alike)!

Yes, only time will tell if this was a brilliant piece of business but helium selling pretty much half their holding at 8p. They still hold a fair few so key for me is whether they sell more. We don’t know their reasons for selling but it is always a major concern when a large holder that has been in for some time and are sitting on a loss (my guess there withough checking what price they bought in at) is running for the exit (ok a brisk walk here)!!

Have to admit it is not great seeing a significant II reducing stake so materially given they have hardly done well to date. Does make you wonder as to their reasons with supposedly so much good stuff around the corner. Smacks of them being very opposed to some of the stuff that has gone on here and so they have cut and run on a fair proportion of their holding (although clearly better than them selling up and being totally out)!

Feels like the litigation and discussions still on going with Illumina / appeal due in Jan 2019 are going to continue being the drag on these for the second half of 2018. Was hoping there would be a much clearer resolution on the albatross around Prem’s neck. As Brainspark said the 4.5p share issue would have been priced some weeks ago - in many respects the fall yesterday makes sense now. I can’t see a positive reaction today - shame as the growth and revenue breakeven are bothe great results.

Yes share the same view. We have shedloads of positive stuff to tell you but we need a bit more time before we are able to tell you even more positive stuff that is even more important!

Hello TSC. Must be contagious because i bought another batch a little while back. Need the price to roughly treble from here to get my overall result on GKP to zero. I’m not sure whether that sounds great or horrific. I do have some optimism but the overall story of greed and incompetence to come out here will be staggering and we PI’s will be seen as mere dumb asses in that tall (but ultimately true) tale.