George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Morning all,
I am a long term holder and will remain so as I believe there is a small potential upturn for the cerp assets.
My limited previous posts have been done with confidence to assist with P1 and the legal issues in the Bahamas.
I’m surprised of late that this board is now migrating into the fact that P1 was a success.I have read and re read every RNS relating to P1. Can someone please help me and direct me to a paragraph where it states “ We never intended to find oil but simply to establish a working hydrocarbons system for future analysis and further exploration in the Bahamas via a farm in “
That would be a success in my opinion, that said didn’t we have 10 million pounds worth of 3D technical data to confirm a working system without the drill? Where is the RNS confirming any positive outcome on P1 in line with the boards objectives based on previous RNS ?
Furthermore,
I was particularly disappointed this morning to read Starchilds post. A poster I have held in very high regard. However, to imply a 30 min conversation with a board director and Star himself to decide that was confidential, is a concern and may leave some posters to believe not an independent and impartial poster.
P1 was a 65% against risk.I a LTH walked into that eyes wide open.No commercial oil was found.
I lost , no tears no tantrums.That ship/rig has now sailed.
The drop in Sp was an overreaction and an opportunity @ .5 so I took advantage as did others.
At .5 am I at risk with the possibility of investment in the remaining BPC assets I don’t think so.
Explorations and projects of this type take a substantial amount of investment/ capital raising and if I remember rightly ( it ain’t growing on trees ) you have to take what is available at that time on the terms available to allow your project to commence.
Some great posts on here both for and against but gentlemen deliver it in way which is respected.
Morning,
We can’t have it both ways,
Respect for keeping this a tight hole then frustrated at the board for no updates or news.
The decision for the contingency,deeper drill into the Jurassic, couldn’t be made until we were in situ and in my opinion based on technical data at a certain date of the drill.At this point ter was insufficient time to call on share holders to make the raise ( remember how long that took ) against days cost of the ice max overheads.
It was a call that had to be made at that split second and agreed it’s been an expensive call but there will be good reason why it was made.
Great idea £333.333 I’m innnnnn.
Morning star child,
I’m glad to see we’re on the same page Re timings.
As reference to in my previous posts.The following timings dovetail perfectly.
1. Timing of BPC joining the JR to assist BG ... CONFIDENCE
2. Timing of BPC requesting bond... CONFIDENCE
3. Timing of the raise from OL to enter into the Jurassic in situ ... CONFIDENCE
with regards to your observations on potential Litigation, I’m struggling to see where or how this can happen from the current information presently available ( a discussion for another time perhaps )
One thing for sure is, should this be a duster there will be very little appetite for litigation ( more costs ) given the 32+ million project against a party who has zero realisable assets.
Great to see some LTH back in the saddle
My apologies, thank you for correcting
Ok,
In line with my previous posts on this subject.
“Sometimes the things you look for most are on the end of your nose......you just can’t see it”
Here’s my take for the final time. Why I think we’ve been successful not finding oil ( everyone knows there is oil there , that’s not in dispute) but finding commercial quantity to make the Bahamas an oil rich nation.
BACKGROUND
Bpc and the BG can control this tight hole at their own pace on whatever issue connected to the drill only.
What they cannot control is the Court proceedings. The directions and timings are matters for the court and decided by the court not BPC.This has forced BPC hand to make decisions and speak up.
I have advised previously on the issue of “security of costs” in my previous posts. The BG presumably after Re reading my comments decided to abandon their application for a bond and rightly so.BPC have chosen not too ( not the best move imho) and as of Day 41 insist on Security!
This stance by BPC is Key, Thank you for doing so SP.
If this drill is a duster and BPC know by now if it is, Mr Potter has placed himself in a position attempting to prevent the EG from telling the world and the BG that they were right all along ! a waste of time, pollution, a huge hole in their coral sea beds all for nothing.a Death Star ship polluting the air and sea with helicopters burning fuel for 45/60 days.it’s suicidal behaviour.
Let’s say they are to be correct ( which I suspect not ) SP would never be trusted again for his actions,by not only BPC share holders in any further exploration of ex Cerps asserts/ investment raising or indeed the exploration business world,demonstrating that he tried hiding the truth through force of an iron fist by use of a bond.
But he’s an Aussie , we know what they are like when they loose at sport or even taking criticism!!!
He knows he’s right, he knows his environmental licence,insurance is water tight but he just shot from the hip at that moment and in doing so gave the game away imho.
As princess Anne once said “ never complain never explain”
He should of allowed their public standing at no cost especially given our case is unquestionable.
His PR team need to sharpen up.
Q. Why didn’t they cancel it ? ..... and what message would that of sent out ?
They played it perfectly , lawyers watching in the wings waiting like panthers in the reeds for one slip up, giving nothing away,that isn’t already known to all.No banana skins tonight in that regards.
Q.”so what are we going to do SP with everyone watching us? .....we need a smoke screen”. let’s get Mr Dull,from Dull house off Dull lane,Dullitch to do the presentation.We can even practice and rehearse him being Dull.Everyone will scratch their head,huff and puff and nothing will change.
Q. If this was a 30 min opportunity to sell your business to the investing world ? It would of purred like a Bently mark 1 engine......where ones ears and eyes were transfixed, salivating etc etc
I just don’t think they are too interested in selling anything at the present moment .......they are too focused on retaining their standing and protecting their licences,environmental status in the Bahamas.....Why ???? Because they are hanging around for the next five years.......!!!
I wouldn’t like to scratch his ear. He’s an ex rugby playing forward,his right ear has taken a few hits in its time.
As mentioned , if I was CE there is absolutely no way I would be placing myself on centre stage 2/3 the way through a project ,where the company has said the results won’t be disclosed until completion of the drill.This webinar was never about results.
It’s pre recorded to prevent a barrage of one single question repeated for 30 mins.
These people are not as stupid as they are portrayed by some.
This Webnar was planed and scheduled some time ago,despite where we are at present.
SP is no fool, he is by no way shying away from this webinar . I agree he is to busy occupied with other important matters.if there is bad news ,knowing him as I do ( not personally only through research )he will be the first person to stand up and be accountable.
Those sensible people who contribute valuable ,well researched information to this forum/ board will see this as a positive ad nothing untoward.
Those involved in management/ senior business will know that “things never go in the straight line one expects”.There have been a great number of bumps,blows and testing moments in this drill but we’re still here and still drilling with our senior management too busy with something ?did the warrants,Koot affect the SP as you feared.
I think the best we can hope for on tonight’s presentations “the drill is still on course as per the time frame presented to shareholders earlier”
My apologies if my two earlier posts were unclear in summary format.
I will attempt to clear up any misquotes or try assist with my own interpretation of the proceedings.
1. It’s Barolo boy , not bara boy ! the clue being I’m a LTH in response to some chap who loved Amarone on here back in the day.
2. Firstly , the background.
An application is made by the applicant Environmental group (EG) to the Supreme Court (SC)on two limbs both extrinsically linked,the respondent is the Government (BG). Firstly to halt the drill ,the second limb to apply for leave to judicially review “the issue of licences decisions taken by the government when granting BPC Environmental authorisation “
The application to the SC was made in writing by way of paper applications.
At this point,whilst aware BPC are not a party to the application.
3. The application is considered by the H J P Hanna-Weekes and both the applications are refused.
Please Note, the application for leave to appeal the JR is refused.
judgement (Court reasons in writing ) to be handed down 6/1/2021
4. EG make a further application, for leave to appeal JR application,to be renewed by way of oral representation in open court. Perfectly entitled to do so . Granted by H J P H-W but ! Only on the basis of the renewed application “ is limited to only matters set out in the original paper applications “ ( please please read this ) an oral application on something the court has already ruled upon and refused !!!!!!
It therefore appears to me,to repeat myself, there is absolutely no merit in the applications to allow a judicial review of the governments decisions in allowing authorisation.
6. The oral hearing is set down for two days , 29/30/3/21, judgement to be handed down thereafter on a date to be fixed .
A. Not at any time have I’ve seen or read in the JR application does there appear to be a direct attack on BPC.
B. The costs of the respondent (BG ) are covered by the treasury department, it is a case of national importance so applying for the bond was not the most sensible move. I personally believe that to use an iron fist ( bond )to prevent your people being allowed to air their voice on an issue of such importance is not what the Bahamas people are about.Especially when BG know the case is water tight and the court have already dismissed the matter, why appear to be oppressive? Let’s be fully open and transparent would be my advice.
So Q. Are bpc doing the dirty work for the BG ? I don’t thinks so ,this is a joint venture, the BG are in the data room. I think this is most upsetting to SP after years of hard work in obtaining the due diligence for environmental authorisation. I believe the company want to be fully represented at the oral hearing to support the relationship with BG.
The issue of the recovery of costs is a matter which more likely be set aside after the hearing for a date to be fixed.
There is good reasons to be partnering the government in this action.
This is my second post and response to this morning RNS.
It would appear that SP must of read my maiden post and verbatim used the principal point to update shareholders.This is my area and has been for 30 plus years.
You must do your own research and stop chest beating.
We are now day 37 of a projected 40/60 day TD
There is a particularly good reason why BPC wish to be a named party in the JR proceedings ( if they ever take place ) and that is simply this.
Koot in his merger interview discussed the fold b structure ,was the optimum test drill site with multiple multiple fractures.
BPC interest in the JR is not to recover costs, it is to assist the government in this joint venture which they now know is and has been a viable venture to date.why else would they want to be interested in an application ( which is nothing to do with bpc but is the environmental party action and that of the government)on day 37 if this is a duster ??? ( we all know there is some information in the technical room at this juncture yet to be disclosed )
The best of lawyers still have a duty to their clients and why pursue an interest? wasting unnecessary legal fees in something that is totally irrelevant to BPC,who were granted a certificate and environmental certification via an independent third party audit ??? Unless ...... there is a reason for future work ,development in this area involving BPC and the government moving forward.
The raising by BPC from LO . Simply put the company needed an extra 6-7 million to go into the Jurassic .
Again in line with the recent announcements, sovereign fund,stance on the JR and the timings to date tend to suggest to me in my opinion, there have been positive samples with conclusive evidence to permit the raising to enter the Jurassic whilst in situ.
Try look at the data and stop chest beating.
I wouldn’t get too carried away with the JR .
News will be in the public domaine by the time this matter Re surfaces, which clearly will have a huge impact on any further applications.
Bpc were not party to the original proceedings, that was a matter between the government and the environmentalists.The drill kept turning , bpc will not be able to peruse a claim for damages as the intended drill was not affected in anyway ,nor was it ever to be derailed or halted by such a frivolous application with no merit whatsoever.
It didn’t need 1.5 million set aside in legal fees ( good use of terminology SP) to establish that advice on a simple issue clear to all BOD at the time of the late application.
Too many people here are missing the point with the legal proceedings and here’s why.
Try approaching the legal proceedings from this prospective.There is a a good reason why after day 17 of drilling ( I think I’m correct ) that the BOD wished to be added to the proceedings as an interested party once leave to appeal had been granted? It is simply to support ( with information/data etc) the government In their stance,that the awarding and approval of the licences was issued under correct due diligence time frame consultation.
If positive updates from the drill had been made by day 17 or there about ? One could understand the legal fees being set aside.If the news was disappointing at that stage ? Why would the need for fees to be in place one has to ask oneself.
Given the government announcement of the sovereign fund and upon successful news from the drill ,it wouldn’t come as a surprise if the application for JR is withdrawn.
I’m a LTH
I like Amarone but prefer Barolo
I have a dog
I’m ex services
I will be offering to buy a round in langhams
Thanks for the data and research star child