Member Info for BigBiteNow

Something else for investors to be aware of.

Logic says that if the variation to the application was issued on Friday 11th Oct, then there would have been an element of time required to update, check and issue the variation to the EIA and the chemical permit. How long this period was cannot be exactly determined.

However, logic says, you only change your paperwork once you have found something new out. So the drill is likely to have stopped at that point. Then the paperwork will have been processed, be it a short or long process, and then issued.

The variation, if indeed a mechanical sidetrack ( and re-spud if applicable, but I do not believe so), now also needs to be factored into the drill programme, be it we don't know how long it will be.

The problem is nobody now has any real clue what these time frames are. Therefore, any attempt to time the drill result is now well and truly out of the window, which I personally am delighted about. It is one less game that longer term, more supportive shareholders, will have to deal with.

Ok a follow up to my earlier post and some more clarity I would hope.

I entitled my first post this morning "Re-permit" but that was wrong, it is a variation to the original permit.

Under the BEIS Regs such a variation is to be conducted for 1 of 2 reasons only. These being either a "sidetrack to a new geological target" or "to undertake a mechanical sidetrack" due to problems being encountered during the drilling operation.

As pointed out to me by Alex/Alexios on Twitter, the current permit does amongst other things, contain consents for a re-spud and for a mechanical sidetrack.

However, the regulations do not recognise this as being sufficient to avoid a variation being issued. The way I read the consent is that it is given in order to avoid a brand new application being required. It does not avoid a variation to the EIA.

For those that wish to review this themselves, I would point you towards page 47 of the enclosed BEIS REgs document.

Whats more, the regulations clearly state that "planned or contingency sidetracks are included in the original applications" and that "if it is decided to re-enter an existing well to side-track to a new target, this is treated as a re-drill and new applications."

To be clear, what we have now is a variation to the original application, which is depicted by the use of a "/1" at the end of the SAT number on the energy portal.

So by a process of elimination, the variation is either for a "sidetrack to a new geological target" or a "mechanical sidetrack."

As of Fri 11th Oct the drill was 8 days maximum into its post spud programme. My own view of the total programme is that it is highly unlikely that they had drilled deep enough to establish that the geological target needed to be changed.

So this leads to the only other conclusion that the BEIS Regs are giving me, that it is a mechanical sidetrack variation.

To what extent this creates a programme duration problems, I do not know. What is clear though is the solution has been found on Friday, because the variation to the application would need to include it, as would the revised chemical permit.

So logic says its a case of getting the variation signed of and proceeding.

What I am not seeing to date is any evidence of a duster, any evidence of a delay that would undermine I3E financially, or a strong enough reasoning for the recent fall in the SP, demonstrating that a further problem exists above and beyond what I have just explained.

That can always change, but right now that is the position as I see it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/778899/OPRED_EIA_Guidance_2019_Revision_5_-_14Feb19.pdf

@Austin14 HUR never did it either on either Lancaster or LIncoln in 2016, or indeed Lincoln this year (I haven't bothered checking Warwick).

Lancaster in 2016 had 2 such permits, and better still applied to relocate the rig some 6 weeks after they had told the market they had spud.

It is defined as operations and they are drilling down into ground that can hold things that cannot be calculated prior to the event. There should be no expectation that I3E should update the market every time a technical event comes to pass.

The problem that investors have here, is that the pilot well result has led to a lot of negative noise being created by entities that have ulterior motives. What that does is create an environment where every detail is poured over and questioned. In doing so, investors get dragged into this world because there is a need to substantiate some of those claims, which are so easily created but take a lot more time to check, and don't those parties just know that too.

That is not normal. The situation is not normal. I3E is wrapped up in a substantial cloud of negative sentiment because there are enough negative voices out there right now to support it.

HUR have demonstrated that they have had many technical issues on all their successful drills and still hit their target, and have still gone on to produce a lot of oil. There is no reason why I3E cannot do the same and right now Serenity is alive, be it that it may take longer to drill than anticipated.

@Ophidian I cannot give you a factually supported answer. Looking at the Energy Portal once more, I can see that a good many of the updated permits also carried an updated oil discharge permit as well. As to why, I do not know at this time.

I should also point out that upon review of the OGA energy portal 2019, the vast majority of the re-permited EIAs, were answered within a few days.

Using HUR as an example once more, of their 2 additional applications, the first was completed the day after the application and the second was answered the same day.

As it is the same drill, the process is not the same as a brand new permit, which for I3E has been taking around two weeks to be completed.

It is important to understand the difference between the two.

Good morning everyone,

Further to the currently unsubstantiated opinions that I3E have likely penetrated the captain sands and perhaps the drop in price yesterday was associated with a duster, I would offer the following,

On Friday 11th Oct 2019, Petrofac issued a secondary EIA permit application for the Serenity drill.

To be clear the drill carries the same MAT and SAT reference numbers, except for the end number on the SAT reference. What this means is that a deviation to the original drill is required and not a new drill targeting a new geological location. If that were the case then a new permit application would be required.

What it absolutely does not mean is that I3E are drilling a 3rd drill at Serenity because of the 2nd drill being a duster.

Those that are interested can find the portal on the following link.

https://itportal.beis.gov.uk/eng/fox/beis/PETS_EXTERNAL_PUBLICATION/main

Upon review of the portal, readers will see that this process is not uncommon and is usually driven by obstructions being found in the original bore hole, which leads to the need to perform a sidetrack, although I cannot say for certain that this is the case here.

To place this in context, the recent successful Lincoln drill by HUR, also run by Petrofac, had 3 of these applications in place by the time they successfully reported the well result.

A thorough review of the many other available drills on the portal in 2019, will also demonstrate that this occurs more often than not on drills.

It is as far as I understand a technical issue but it is nevertheless an issue, be it immeasurable at this time.

There is of course the time question, which I cannot comment upon without further information. But more importantly neither can anyone else at this time. The fact that the new permit is already in, likely means that the issue is related to a technical issue, which needs an adjustment to the drill trajectory.

I am not saying that yesterday's drop is connected to this update. I am merely pointing out that both have occurred at around about the same time.

I3E have thus far not reported any change that could be deemed a price sensitive piece of information but again, to place this in context, HUR never updated the market on technical issues with the drill either. They merely reported the drill result when it was known.

What is absolutely clear though is that the drill cannot be a duster because they are re-permitting and so have not reached their target yet.

I have no doubt that certain parties will try to use this information in order to create unnecessary anxiety to shareholders. If so then shame on them because if they really know their stuff, then they will know that this is a technical issue, that happens on many drills, and can be rectified.

Lets see who comes out and what they say.

If you are an amateur investor who believes in this company and its assets, then you are facing arguably one of the biggest tests you will likely see in investing right here.

A combination of perfect storm esc conditions have carried I3E into a very poor sentiment climate, and in such climates, there is a race to find the problem. There is a race to establish what is bad about the company, and there is little or no tolerance for global related fundamentals, or indeed facts that demonstrate that things could actually be far better than that sentiment is allowing one to believe.

There are also entities that are aware of this and will employ such environments to their advantage, and with I3E the feeding waters are about as good as they get right now.

The problem that more bullish contributors have, and yes I clearly count myself as being firmly in that camp, is that said positivity has very little support in these phases. Even when clearly written company statements are presented, in their most simplest form, there is little room for tolerance or understanding, because the market sentiment does not want to hear it, or is not in a place where it is able or prepared to listen.

At times like that, it takes a lot of resolve to stand one's ground because there is so much noise trying to drown it out.

This is particular true with E&P plays because even unfounded levels of doubt can find support through the drill bit, because no matter how well prepared a company is, the geology can be unforgiving, and these entities know that only too well.

So if there are investors out there currently spinning in this out of control world that is I3E right now, then I would encourage them to try to disconnect from all the noise and fear mongering, find the time to read back on why they came here in the first place, check if anything has changed, and act accordingly based on their own opinion only.

There are many voices saying many things, mine included, so it is not easy to get clarity but without at least trying, investors risk being driven to make choices (holding or selling), that are not of their own making.

This is not financial advice. Its just my experience of knowing that there are likely a good many holders out there who don't have enough information or time at their finger tips, and are likely very worried about their investments. The only way to relieve that worry (to a degree at least), is to read, check and test the information at hand, across the board, over and over.
That takes time, but if one does not do it, then there will always be those holes into which uncertainty and fear can slide.

The good news, sentiment can change in a flash, and I trust that this will be the case here, be it that nobody can say that for sure.

@HeidHoncho With all due respect, where in what was a specific (granted very long) answer to a post published here, did I say I was not concerned "when the drill failed?"

What we do here is interpret the words we read to the best of our ability, but time and again contributors demonstrate that they do not read thoroughly, what is in front of them. I will readily admit, I can be guilty of this also. The problem with these BBs is the last post is often taken in splendid isolation and not back checked against the many other posts that individual may have presented. That's life unfortunately.

I cannot keep regurgitating the same lines over and over, simply because individuals do not have the time or inclination to search it out. I mean no offence by that, I am just stating fact.

I have never said that Serenity would be a rip roaring success. Nor have I said there is not risk associated with this next drill or indeed the last Liberator drill.

What I have attempted to do these last few weeks, sometimes successfully, sometimes clearly not, is to communicate how I see I3E as a company and an investment, in full.

The Serenity well forms part of that but it isn't in my view the company maker or breaker that I read about here and on social media. That is my opinion only and I have been very clear about that.

I truly don't mind who believes me or indeed who invests or sells and moves on. I share my views/theories on these BBs and I like nothing more than to be tested on them, because it makes me work harder and double check more possibilities, than I can think of on my own.

In the last few weeks, I have heard just about every theory going on I3E. I have researched just about every single one that I have come across, however bizarre, and either discounted it or taken it on board.

Right now I do not see what the general market is seeing or indeed the current SP is indicating. I may end up being wrong but what I won't do is accept a general opinion what the facts do not support, just because it is the general consensus.

I was deeply concerned when the pilot well failed. But what I did was get reading and checking, and not sit around to be bombarded by negative view points, which mainly came from sources that clearly hadn't read a damn thing about I3E.

The pilot well failed but when placed in the context of the greater picture here, in my opinion it has and is still being overplayed.

I am abundantly clear that Serenity carries a larger risk than the pilot well and I am very much aware that WH Ireland carry 56% COS. However, I trust this management team because what I have read, supports that position, and they very much like both the Serenity and Liberator assets, even after said failed drill.

(3 of 3)

An 80% COS drill can miss and I3E never told the market that it would not. They planned against the percentage chances, as did a number of company stakeholders, who all independently audited the data that I3E employed, and based their financial commitments on it. So if I3E are to be criticised then so are all of those experts.

From the interims ;

"This was an unexpected result that was not only disappointing for i3's technical team, a surprise to the myriad of independent technical reviewers, reserves auditors, and third-party consultants who have conducted due diligence on behalf of the Company's stakeholders."

"5) Permits not ready for the current drill - rig sat idle for a significant time burning a lot of much needed cash plus pushing the drilling program further into potentially bad weather. This seems like a massive dropped ball especially since they claimed to have foreseen the possibility of a duster. No explanation as to why this was the case."

We are back once more to those core items. In hindsight I would have liked to have seen I3E management plan for this eventuality. They did not and that was an error. However, they managed the situation well, both through their contingencies but also in the way the Serenity drill was quickly executed.

The market was informed of the change of plan on 20th Sept and the rig being "down-manned to minimise standby costs."

The Serenity programme then began start up on 28th Sept (day 1 of rig mobilisation). So 'just' 8 days were lost at a reduced cost. At that sort of level, I don't see that as being a core item. Nor am I or anyone able to say that in the global scheme of things, that this lost time is even significant, particularly when the total drill programme has yet to be executed.

Would I have liked the company to have avoided it. Yes of course? But that does not make it a key focus and it should be placed in the context of the bigger picture. Nor does any of the points you have raised point to a management team that does not have everything under control.

They have had an unexpected well result and they are managing their way through that in a very dignified manner.

I posted yesterday the wording employed by the company in their interim report.

Non of the above items or indeed past performances, give me reason to doubt those words or the people behind them, and those words are presenting a far stronger investment case than the vast majority of the market is understanding or believing right now.

So yes I am very positive about I3E prospects because I have very good reason to be.

(2 of 3)

You have focused in on the JV, the share raise, and briefly on the junior facility. In my view, the first 2 items are sidelined by the fact that the company was able to achieve a £22m junior facility, and the fact that the 3 well drilling campaign has been fully financed, and financed well, and the company has retained 100% of both Liberator and Serenity.

If successful, then on a fully diluted basis, I3E will be debt free and have just circa 150m shares in issue. That is a considerable achievement.

If successful, I3E will fund the vast majority if not all of their CAPEX to first oil and beyond, through debt and cash flows. At that point, oil prices allowing, the growth in the SP of this company will accelerate well beyond any highs that have been seen to date, thus rendering analysis of those previous share prices, pointless.

The most difficult thing for this company to achieve, was that debt. The JV was and is as far as I can see still alive, but it was run against the belief that I3E could/would not fund first oil and expansion on their own. The junior facility countered that belief and really should be being given far more credit than it has to date.

I3E convinced a set of investors to not only give them £22m but to accept a warrant payment system at an average of 48p. That valued an oil junior with no production or revenues, at circa £72m, when fully diluted.

Such a valuation counters strongly this perception that I3E do not have valid or highly prospective assets.

"4) They drilled a duster that was supposed to have a high chance of success. They claimed after the fact that they foresaw missing the channel - they did a poor job of explaining this in advance and seems like they took an unnecessary risk."

The only comment from the company that I can find is that the pilot drill had an 80% COS. 80% does not mean that the company guaranteed a success. That is a market related expectation that is being blamed on I3E management.

As I have already stated on Sunday, this management team does not spend its time holding its shareholders hands. Nor does it attempt to regurgitate its messages. It presents information to a market that it expects can understand it and no more, and those management teams are my favourite because in my view, they are the easiest to analyse because what they say is very factual and can normally be trusted. My view only.

(1 of 3)

Morning tonynorstrom1.

In response to your post of 13th Oct 6.24pm.

To date I have examined a considerable amount of I3E information, dating back to 2018. To say I have uncovered everything would be a lie but have certainly had a very good go at attempting to uncover any risks or skeletons in the I3E closet.

I am not new to investing and this is my full time job but that's not to say that I don't make mistakes with my investments and miss things. What I try to do is to be as thorough as I possibly can, limit the risk, and attempt to find opportunities that the market is, in my view, missing.

It should go without saying that part of that exercise is to thoroughly examine what the company has achieved.

I don't trade shares or dip in and out of them. I try to find good companies with solid assets, and trustworthy management teams that do not spend too much time, advertising what a great job they are doing, and then back them and stay with them.

I like this company. I like its assets and I like its management team because everything I have read to date, points to them being capable of delivering a very solid return on my investment.

In response to your list.

"1) Last announcement that exceeded expectations was the joint venture which they did not deliver. Many people including myself felt they did a poor job of explaining this to the detriment of the SP.

2) They placed at a disappointing SP which I feel was in part due to the poor handling of news flow.

3) They delivered on the Junior Loan note so good job."

In my view, a key component to choosing and sticking with a company, is not its ability to get everything right but to get the core items right. No company we ever invest in can get all things right all of the time. Very good senior managers can make very big mistakes but still do a very good job, so long as they are able to recover from them and maintain an acceptable trajectory.

It is the end result that really matters and the return that comes with it.

Have a listen to the 25th Feb 2019 interview regarding JV progress, then tell me it’s deadman’s they have failed. Have you considered that the reason it wouldn’t come to fruition is because I3E want to keep 100% of both assets because they can fund them themselves through a ‘robust’phase 1 development?

Add to that previous post the statement in the interims that says ;

"In regard to future funding, i3 continues to explore all options. We are preparing to fund Liberator Phase I on a 100% working interest basis through our progression of a US$100 million reserve-based lending facility."

So continuing with a robust phase 1 development through a $100m senior lending facility, having analysed the post drill analysis data, and seeing that Liberator is a material asset, and yet I am expected to sit here and be told that LIB phase 1 is dead in the water and its all or nothing on Serenity and LIB West.

But what if all of those statements delivered by oil and oil funding related professionals, with very solid reputations, are actually simply telling it like it is. No bells and whistles. No prolonged interviews around the various AIM circus media. They are simply delivering a report that says what they have found, what they believe, and how they intend moving forward.

Such that perhaps, just perhaps, the market has massively mis-read I3E because it expects to be sold the story far more strongly. What does that make Serenity and LIB West then? What does that make the 20m valuation then?

@Backwoodsman Good afternoon. I don't have much time this afternoon being that it is Sunday and family day but I just wanted to pick you up briefly on something you said earlier today ;

"my concern is that the information that BBN has based his work on is itself flawed. You already know why I think that. This isn’t fear-mongering. It’s reasoned and analytical thinking."

If it is indeed your desire to be reasoned and analytical, which I have no wish to attempt to undermine here, then with all due respect, why does yours, and a great deal many others I might add, current thinking choose to disregard what I3E are clearly telling the market and instead focus solely in on I3E's valuation being pinned against the successful drilling of Serenity and the Liberator West appraisal.

I posted the following on Friday ;

"The Company’s focus for the remainder of 2019 will be on 3 key areas:

1 The safe completion of its multi-well drilling campaign at Liberator and Serenity.
2 Continued advancement of a robust Liberator Phase I development plan while securing associated funding to bring the field to first oil.
3 On success at Serenity and Liberator West, progress development options for these assets."

In addition, the same interims contain the following quotes ;

"i3's preliminary integration and findings explain the unexpected 13/23c-9 well result and continue to support Management's view of Liberator's potential resources."

"Though we were disappointed to have missed the targeted upper Captain sands with our first well 13/23c-9, our post-drill analysis incorporating data from the well confirms our view that Liberator is a material asset and the Company remains excited about Serenity and Liberator West where the majority of our on-block resources are mapped."

"We look forward to updating our shareholders after we have completed our analysis of the 13/23c-9 well and revised mapping of Liberator and as we obtain results from our ongoing drilling campaign."

So in a nutshell, I3E has told the market not only that it will be "continuing advancement of a robust phase 1 development" but that the "post drill analysis incorporating data from the well""confirms our view that Liberator is a material asset" to the point that I3E are "looking forward to updating our shareholders after we have completed our analysis of the 13/23c-9 well and revised our mapping of Liberator."

They are looking forward to updating their shareholders on a drill that the market has effectively written off LIB phase 1 against. The assumption being that missing the target can only ever be a bad thing. They must be real sadists to be looking forward to disappointing the market mustn't they?

Even more so when a key area of focus continues to be a "robust" LIB phase 1 development plan.

That isn't interpretation of "information" that is "flawed," its simply reading what I have been told and understanding it for what it means.

In all honesty, on first glance i am actually rather surprised that given the drop in the share price, that the "outlook" section of the interims has not been included in the RNS.

Those of a negative disposition could very easily put this down to incompetence and/or a lack of sensitivity for shareholders (given they are sitting on a significant paper losses).

But i don't see it that way. My stance (which i will maintain until proven otherwise), having read all the RNSs, various reports and watch these guys in various interviews, is that they are not focused on the SP. That they are professionals focusing on the job at hand and long term shareholder value, which will protect the SP far better than soothing words or emphasis on supporting shareholders in need of it.

Now many may well challenge me on that, using the failure at L2, the current SP, and/or the lack of a CPR on Serenity, as very notable reasons to think the contrary or at the very least, make a negative conclusion on this.

What I see is a company delivering accurate reports and RNSs that continue to back the same plan, with the expectation that investors who choose to invest in this company, understand what they are investing in and are prepared to read all of what they have been given, and that it is trusted.

If one is prepared to judge the company on the merit of the words it has produced post the L2 result, then I simply cannot see how anyone can conclude that the plans are not continuing, in the manner they have been described.

From where I am sitting, I3E has been hit with a major dose of negative interpretation, based on a failed pilot drill, that itself has been interpreted very poorly. Now I do think that the company has some responsibility towards that because of the way the horizontal L2 development drill was updated to a vertical pilot well, and that process was communicated.

However, that confusion does not define the whole story, nor change the quality of the assets, and it certainly should not undermine statements made by the company since the L2 pilot well was completed.

But only a fool would fail to recognise that it clearly has. My point is that I believe I am able to see through this and judge this situation clearly, and in doing so I see a much stronger I3E than the one that the market currently wishes to see.

Of course we won't know just how strong until those 3 key focuses are allowed to play out in their entirety.

Full report for those that wish to read it.

https://i3.energy/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/i3-Energy-plc-2019-Interim-Report.pdf

Morning all,

Despite my intention to step back until Serenity the drill result is reported, I felt it prudent to share something I noted in the interim report.

For those who have only accessed the interims report through the RNS, you may have missed arguably the most important part of the report.

For some reason (i think due to page space in the front end RNS), the following section is only available in the full report on the company website ;

"The Company’s focus for the remainder of 2019 will be on 3 key areas:

1 The safe completion of its multi-well drilling campaign at Liberator and Serenity.

2 Continued advancement of a robust Liberator Phase I development plan while securing associated funding to bring the field to first oil.

3 On success at Serenity and Liberator West, progress development options for these assets.

The Company continuously evaluates opportunities to strengthen its balance sheet whilst maintaining tight control of its costs and working capital position."

The above really needs to be read in conjunction with the other statements made in the report, the associated RNS, and of course all other company information.

Right now I3E is being punished hard for failing to hit its target on the first pilot well. Everything that has been said or provided/issued by the company, prior to that drill, is effectively being disregarded. What this implies is that the phase 1 development is no longer viable, the 3rd drill on Liberator will likely not proceed, and the Serenity prospect is far more risky, with the COS and 'appraisal' tag stated a sign of over-confidence from the company.

The above statements backed up by the RNSs and interviews released since the initial well result on the pilot well on Liberator, counter that argument. Infact nowhere has the company stated anything has changed on either LIB phase 1, the Serenity prospect or indeed the 3rd and final 2019 drill on Liberator, and yet the market does not believe them, on pretty much any of it.

The above focuses were reported as being achievable as of the audited date for the interims, which was 30th September. So post L2 pilot well.

What readers of those words should perhaps be asking themselves, is why did they include the word 'robust'?

Why also do they talk separately about success on Serenity or Liberator West, leading them progress development options for these assets. Why if it is necessary do they not directly tie the 'robust' LIB phase 1 to future potential Liberator West success?

Could it be that the company has reported no change to their plans because there is no change to their plans? Or is it simply a case that we should continue to disbelieve the company because a drill with a reported high COS, failed to hit its target.

That's for the individual to conclude as they see fit.

The mind can play tricks and nowhere is that more true than in the AIM market. Question whose mind is being tricked on I3E.

That last post was just my musings and nothing else. Others have different opinions, which is just fine and I respect that.

I remain cautious on things but feel that today's announcement shows real intent and ability to get the job done.

For AMER to say the process has an anticipated end and to state it in the RNS, indicates to me that they are confident of achieving their price or at least close enough to it for them to accept.

Hence my shift in expected price, which if secured, I will be more than happy to accept.

As it stands, the information available points towards the final offer price being significantly above where it is now.

When I say that, I mean even at my original conservative 23-25p level, there is still circa 30% upside from these levels. Anybody who sniffs at that in this current market, is in my opinion pushing their investments too hard.

Today's announcement, coupled with JW's move on 2nd Oct, points in my view to a BOD that feels it has enough information at its finger tips, to support a confidence that the sale process will complete at a level they would be satisfied/comfortable with. Furthermore, the indications around the process being completed this year, also indicates that the offer they may unofficially be aware of, is at a level that would perhaps push all other potential offerors away from the table. Otherwise, why even state Q4 when nobody was forcing them too.

I would therefore think that my 23p would be absolute bottom end of that and is likely too low to push those other offerors firmly away. So I tend to lean towards this now being sufficiently higher to achieve this.

Lets also not forget that there are key precedents here already in the $93m and $19m paid by OXY for the 2 farm ins. Neither of those 2 50% license transactions secured operatorship. So at the very least we should be talking about doubling those 2 sums and then added a premium for control.

The start point on those assets would therefore be c. $224m because of the $93m that OXY are/have started to spend on the assets and the $19m received in cash.

If we then add in the remaining cash (circa $25m reported), we find ourselves at $250m before we even start to talk about CP0-5 and the OBA (incl. 3rd party oil transport authoritisation).

So there's an argument for 20p plus just on a pragmatic approach to the deals AMER have already done with the operatorship premium still to be added.

Any offer has to be signed off by an independent party that it is a reasonable offer for the company. I struggle to see how the above transactions could be ignored even when accepting that these independent checks can be a tad light at times.

My 23-25p base case considered the fact that the BOD wanted out and that only 1 party would come through and the offer would be discounted on that basis.

However, it is clear that the BOD feels more confident than that and so a premium on my minimum achieved final price is, at this juncture, warranted.

So I am going to push it up to between 26-29p. Still conservative but perhaps high enough to chase the other potential suitors away and secure AMER's chosen candidate.

One disclaimer on that would be that we do not know what OXY have found to date in their work in their Putamayo blocks, which could affect the final price for the better or for the worse.

I have double checked the Takeover Code documents and it is the 28 day Put Up to Shut Up period that falls away when a formal sale process is announced, not the 28 day period to publish the offer documents.

My previous points on the 28 days period and the fact that the offer documents can only be published within 14 days, following consent from the AMER BOD, stands.

So if they follow the contractual takeover offer route, then the 74 days (plus whatever time they need to get the offer documents out) rule must apply.

The only other speedier route would be through a scheme of arrangement, which can be employed when the offer is recommended by the BOD but I have limited knowledge of this form of takeover.

Timetables for both options are available in the document below, page 50 onwards.

https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/39320/a-guide-to-takeovers-in-the-united-kingdom.pdf