Member Info for BigBiteNow

@Ophidian With regards to your takeover target you are absolutely correct that is a one possible scenario. However, it was noteworthy that in the question and answers section of that presentation when Mr Shafiq was asked about tax loss pools to offset the development costs, he answered by saying that ;

"if we are successful in the summer the we would potentially look to execute on some of the other similar types of transactions that we are looking at to put some diversity into the portfolio"

Clearly this is a message that the expected substantial re-rate in value that would come with success with this drilling campaign, will be employed to acquire further assets. So it may just turn out to be I3E that is the buyer and not the seller.

That said, I can certainly see a scenario where by a successful Serenity drill allows I3E to monetize that asset with the partners on the Tain block. The message is clear that the sands in Serenity are much thicker than in Tain, which points to a better asset, which the likes of RRE and Repsol would certainly be interested in.

That would free up considerable cash resources for other ventures or the expansion and monetization of Liberator but there is no real need to sell up unless the offer is too good to turn down.

That all said lets see Liberator Phase 1 brought home first.

@Ophidian Yes you are absolutely correct and I have indeed listened to that presentation many times over as a means test against the CPRs.

In referring to 50% recoveries CEO Majid Shafiq is once again referring to the Phase 2 CPR, which actually provides more telling information than that. On page 32 it states ;

"In Blake Field, where the oil column is consistently closer to 100 feet, a recovery factor of at least 50% has already been achieved (STOIIP estimates have not been reviewed by AGR, therefore percent recovery can only be an estimate). With oil decline, GOR and WCUT trends well established, recovery may exceed 60% based on field level decline analysis. Blake benefits from water injection support and horizontal wells optimised with respect to both GOC and OWC."

The original Phase 1 plan (L1 and L2) weren't expected to deliver oil columns of circa 100ft but Liberator East and West if successful should exceed that margin by a good distance (more on that in a minute).

Furthermore, the statement explains that more than 60% recoveries may be exceeded if water injection and most importantly "horizontal wells optimised with respect to both GOC and OWC" are delivered.

The 2 production wells will be horizontal and the decision to drill this pilot well will optimise the trajectory in relation to the Gas/Oil Contact (if gas is indeed present) and the Oil/Water Contact. Hence why it exists and why I have been saying that this is all about optimization and not exploration whilst the market is continuing to treat I3E the other way around.

Now back to that oil column thickness. In the presentation you refer to Mr Shafiq talks about coming back in next year to drill the 2 horizontal production wells, which he states as being "likely" to be L2 which runs through the current pilot well zone and, L4 which runs into the phase 2 area.

What this will do is maximise the oil columns, which as far as the CPR currently say should be closer to 70ft rather than the 25ft that was established in the discovery well. The drill centre is certainly set up for this scenario although it is capable of drilling L1 as well but over a far greater distance and therefore cost.

The gist of all this is that the guidance is conservative and the CPR STOIPP recoveries based on thinner oil columns expected in a combination of L1 and L2 and not the actual expected reality of L2 and L4.

When we combine this with the pilot well optimization and the expected water injection then the recoveries should improve substantially, which in turn will reduce the level of success required to make the phase 1 development highly cash generative to support phase 2 and beyond.

This reality isn't being appreciated by the market right now. The market is looking at the base Mid Case figures that the company has presented and taking it as read. However, the development has much more going for it than that and the valuation should be far more de-risked at this point in time.

According to the model in figure 5.2 in the CPR, A3 is aiming for a circa 160ft oil column, which is significantly larger than those used as comparisons from Blake, which themselves have gone on to recover over 50% because as the CPR states they are over 100ft in thickness.

So A3 has even more headroom than the Phase 1 pilot drill to achieve significant recoveries even if it does not indeed deliver its high case, and as I have already said it delivers double bubble scenario in that it should de-risk a much larger Liberator West resource, which is already carrying a 56% COS even when there is a question mark over the sands being the same as those found in the phase 1 discovery drill from 2013.

That is because the 2 areas are simply too far apart. A3 goes a long way to remedy that.

Both CPRs are well worth a thorough read through because there is even more in there than I am attempting to point out.

However, the general point holds true that the market hasn't looked far enough into what Liberator is, how far it is advanced, what the purpose of the pilot drill is and what a potentially very significant snowball effect a successful L2 drill creates for I3E across its 2 assets and beyond.

Such opportunities as this do not come along very often. Yes risk remains and all investors should be aware that there are no guarantees ever with these things.

However, we are talking about a fine tuning exercise in a proven oil field that is economically robust even in a low Brent oil environment.

The exercise is being driven by funding that requires more Ts and Is to be crossed than a self funded developer.

Confirmation of phase 1 allows for a significant return to be made from these sorts of levels but what it does is give investors a free run at Liberator East, West and Serenity, with the knowledge that a good profit is still there to be made if all that is left at the end of it is Liberator Phase 1. That point becomes all the more relevant should Phase 1 hit its High Case of 58mmbl STOIPP.

According to the CPR (page 23) ;

"The resulting recovery factor range for Phase 1 area was 22 to 29%. A value of 22% corresponds to a Low case with a deep top reservoir and therefore thinner oil column, average of only circa 30 feet, and smaller total aquifer volume. The higher recovery factor of 29% corresponds to a slightly thicker oil column, circa 50+ feet. Additional injection support potentially improves recovery to 35%."

The values 22% (18mmbl STOIPP) and 29% (58mmbl STOIPP) correlate with the CPR published on slide 13 of the January 2019 company presentation.

What the 2 pieces of data are saying is that a confirmation of a 30ft oil column, (so essentially the same oil column achieved at the discovery, which was in a far shallower section of the Captain Sands), will achieve the low case.

However, a 50ft oil column will deliver the high case and that 58mmbl STOIPP.

That means the goal is to achieve a circa 60ft gas/oil column with maximum 10ft gas cap (remember gas cap is a maximum and may not actually even be that thick, if there at all) in a currently conservatively anticipated 70ft total gas/oil column.

Why 70ft? Well that is what the modeled data is pointing towards for the L2 pilot well (see figure 5.2 in phase 1 CPR page 34).

As already stated, any sort of solid result for L2 will essentially set up A3 as a free carry on risk but what it will also do is further de-risk the A3 drill itself.

If we now look at the Liberator Phase 2 CPR (also Nov 2017) then we find the following :

The CPR is very clear that in the case of Liberator phase 2 East, the conditions are the same as phase 1, which is why the resources are listed in the phase 2 CPR as "contingent resources , development unclarified" (see page 6) and not prospective. Better still page 4 states this "because the area is un-licenced, resources cannot be classified as Reserves."

If the development plan was as advanced as it is now for phase 2 then we would likely be talking about an A3 drill that was drilling into reserves not contingent resources.

https://i3.energy/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/20171108-Liberator-CPR-2017-Phase-II-vF.pdf

Quite remarkable what we are witnessing here in terms of disconnect between actual value and current valuation.

The enclosed document is the CPR for Liberator Phase 1 from November 2017. It was produced prior to Block 13/24a, which is now known to hold the vast majority of the Liberator field. Hence the phase 1 development stills points towards L1 and L2 being the primary production wells and not L2 and L4, the latter of which will highly likely be implemented should A3 deliver as expected.

Key takeaways.

The CPR deals with a programme that intended to move straight towards a drill programme that included the 2 above production wells only. There were at that time no plans for a pilot well because at 11mmbl 2P reserves phase 1 was already production ready through the low cost capex route to employ the Blenheim FPSO.

Page 67 also states ;

"Under the price assumptions used in this report, Phase 1 economics are positive and robust for all production cases."

All production cases, Low through to High. However, at that time I3E were looking for a farm out in order to finance the production. That has now been sidelined and I3E are currently moving forward at 100% operator-ship.

That means they are looking to finance phase 1 through an RBL.

On page 6 of the enclosed CPR the risks are listed. Item 4 states ;

"Landing trajectories in optimum position with respect to the HC column given the thin oil column, depth uncertainty and uncertainty around the presence or absence of a gas cap. A pilot hole could mitigate this risk."

The introduction of the pilot drill is therefore designed to optimise the future position of the horizontal production well and secure funding that requires more certainty before being released.

Of the list of concerns it is designed to de-risk, we can see that ;

"The conclusion from the analysis is that a gas column greater than 10ft is expected to give high amplitudes on seismic data. From inspection of various amplitude extractions, it is highly unlikely that there is an extensive primary gas cap over Liberator" (page 23)

Plus because I3E have since acquired Block 13/24a they are able to position the pilot drill at the top of the highest point in the Phase 1 area, thus the model is targeting a circa 70ft oil column.

So the problems have dissipated even before L2 got started.

Page 67 then goes on to state that the Mid Case 2p reserves of 11mmbl delivers an overall cost of just $24/boe. Therefore, lower Brent prices do not hinder the success of Phase 1.

At an NPV of $200m phase 1 confirmation turns the A3 and Serenity drills into free carries.

Even moderate success at A3 substantially de-risks Liberator West, which at 6 times bigger than Phase 1 is the real prize, and then there is Serenity.

Mr market isn't getting any of that at this valuation.

https://i3.energy/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20171103-Liberator-CPR-2017-Phase-1-vF-1.pdf

Excellent find 50cc and thank you very much for posting. It certainly thickens the plot because now ONGC Videsh is set up both corporately and financially to make acquisitions as it sees fit. Therefore, if the other 30% of CP0-5 is to their liking then they could well be a very willing suitor.

By this I mean they would likely present the strongest opportunity to achieve the highest price for CP0-5 because of their knowledge of the block plus their size and thus willingness to pay what it takes.

Its a really interesting development.

On your point regarding delaying the interims it is important to remember that thus far only the date has been removed from the calendar and nothing else plus, they have to produce the interims anyway by the end of September so the work still has to be done and no doubt will be being done in parallel to the sale process.

Yes it is is important to be driving the sale process but until the dotted line is signed there is no guarantee that the sale will be completed and so thew show must go on and be managed in that manner.

I would be careful assuming too much from the simple updating of the website.

The website was completely renovated recently and it may be that the date was incorrectly added during those works and through some form of investor communication it has come to their attention. I say that because it is interesting that the date has been pulled on the very day it was being discussed on a company forum, which itself may be down to an investor contacting the company.

Yes more sinister things are possible but it is just as likely that that is not the case as is.

Furthermore, the interim have to be released by 30th Sept and no offer even if recommended is going to achieve full close prior to the end of the month. In addition, all company information is available to all potential purchasers and so there is nothing in the interims that would be worthy of being held back.

So the 'pulling' of the interims is not necessary, highly unlikely, and we are likely dealing with an administrative issue rather than anything more sinister. However, as with all these things anything is possible in investing and the worst things ever less surprising.

Just to clarify the 12th Sept Interims release date was stated on the company website under financial calendar. I know this because I checked it about 3 hours ago.

Having now checked again I see that it has been removed.

Apologies something went wrong there with my formatting.

Page 25 of the 2018 Annual Report lists the processes involved at Vametco.

Step 4 states ;

"NitrovanTM production: the MVO is briquetted and fed into a shaft induction furnace in a nitrogen atmosphere to produce
NitrovanTM, a trade-mark vanadium product used in the steel industry, and MVO."

The point being that the process is producing MVO briquettes but all available measurements that affect the shipping and sales are in Nitrovan, although FeV is mentioned. But as I say the process sheet does not record how much FeV was produced and given there is no break down, I suspect in 2018 all production was Nitrovan as recorded in the Q4 update.

Again I am going to push you on your statement a little if I may Ophidian.

Here are some company statement with regards to production (Q4 update dated 30th Jan 2019) ;

"Vametco's production for the 2018 financial year was 2,560 mtV (2017: 2,649 mtV) in the form of Nitrovan from magnetite concentrate"

In the production table for the 2018 Vametco results the company using this statement ;

"Vanadium (Nitrovan plus FeV) produced"

However, the figure is the same, 2,560 mtV. The two statements conflict with one another so at the very least the exact make up isn't calculable, although the Vametco Site Visit Presentation whilst describing the Vametco process in great detail, does not discuss how the company produces FeV from the MVO. Nor doe sit stipulate how much MVO is being produced to then be processed into Nitrovan.

So how is it possible to be able to state that Vametco does or does not have significant surplus MVO.

What we do know is that there is a surplus becasue the company has stated as much and what they do not state is "when available", which means it must be something that occurs fairly regularly.

The Vametco plant clearly goes through various maintenance and expansion phases so spare MVO inventory may have been accessed in order to feed this.

That aside, without specific quantities of MVO production or indeed front end feed data, how are you able to calculate that surplus MVO is minimal, given that Vametco came with inventory and has been under BMN control for over 2 years now.

Page 25 of the 2018 Annual Report lists the processes involved at Vametco.

Step 4 states ;

"NitrovanTM production: the MVO is briquetted and fed into a shaft induction furnace in a nitrogen atmosphere to produce
NitrovanTM, a trade-mark vanadium product used in the steel industry, and MVO."

@Ophidian Understood (mainly) and certainly appreciated. I believe my favorite part involved the "outside possibility."

Moving on to something else that you may also have a view on.

In the Vanchem acquisition presentation dated 1st May the following line presents itself (see slide 15) ;

"Vanchem has significant surplus ferrovanadium smelting capacity that will enable surplus MVO at Vametco to be converted
to ferrovanadium at Vanchem."

According to slide 8 there are two smelters within the Vanchem business.

"An electric smelting ferrovanadium converter, located at the Highveld Steel & Vanadium (“Highveld”) site, situated approximately 10 km from the Vanchem Plant, which converts vanadium trioxide into ferrovanadium; and

An alumino-thermic smelting facility, also located at Highveld which converts vanadium pentoxide into ferrovanadium"

These two pieces of equipment are not directly associated with the current 1 kiln operation and the wording employed above does not state that these 2 smelters require further refurbishment at this time.

The way I understand it is that Vanchem production has been to date been limited by the fact that just 1 kiln is operational not that its smelters require capacity expansion.

Therefore, it looks very much like BMN post transaction completion can fairly quickly employ their surplus MVO from Vametco to further increase production through additional FeV units.

There may be a desire to first and foremost review all equipment and perhaps even carry out some maintenance but if the capacity is there then it should be up and running fairly quickly.

It is also key to remember that the presentation clearly states ;

"A US$45 million refurbishment programme, incurred over a 5 years period from completion of the Transaction, will allow Vanchem to reach a steady state production of 4,200 mtVp.a. from all 3 kilns."

That capacity is based on what the 3 kilns can produce to feed the downstream equipment, so in theory BMN should have upto circa 3,250 mtV capacity to go at if they have the necessary feed materials to achieve it.

Therefore, perhaps investors need to start thinking about some larger production numbers rather than simply adding Vametco to the 960 mtV that Vanchem is currently able to produce per annum.

The other key consideration that should never be forgotten is that the acquisition is the biggest burden here because it does not enjoy the sort of potential tax incentives that the refurbishment will achieve.

Once we get into that phase it becomes a lot more interesting because BMN should be then taking advantage of the 12I Tax Allowance Incentive (12I TAI), which should allow the company to offset the majority of the $45m refurbishment costs for Vanchem against taxes on ongoing profits. Thus BMN wouldn't have to be making quite so much profit in order to execute its refurbishment nor would it have good grounds for delaying the refurbishment because the alternative is the money is lost to tax rather than benefiting the business.

With that in mind the company can also (if it needs to) look to raise debt against the refurbishment costs because the financiers will have the benefit of appreciating that the costs are tax deductible to BMN, so considerable more affordable. I would trust this is likely unnecessary at this time given the advertised (but not definite) timeline of 5 years for the full refurbishment of Vanchem.

Get the acquisition over the line and then the growth can truly begin.

@Ophidian I nearly always bow to your technical experience with these things but as a very simple facts based man, my question would be why on page 9 of the prospectus does it say under opportunities ;

"Vanadium Pentoxide
? Sound economics for V2O5 recovery.
? Upside on FeV production at low capital expenditure which is the preferred
method to strengthen steel.
? Further upside as V is used in catalysts.
? Demand emerging from new generation vanadium redox batteries"

Fe-Ti-V Resource (“Resource”) includes:
? Iron
? Titanium , Vanadium
? ****

Plus on page 3 it states ;

"Fe-Ti-V Resource (“Resource”) includes:
? Iron
? Titanium , Vanadium
? ****"

It doesn't declare that it is all of or nothing of one thing.

The BMN RNS talks about ore supply only.

I appreciate that it is certainly no given that they are employing this very local and very cheap ore(resource/****. However, I don't currently appreciate how it could be so easily written off given the limited information that there is available for its physical make up.

Well if we cast our minds back to Vametco the following took place ;

30th Nov 2018 - Competition Commission Approval.
20th March 2017 - Wogen Finance agreement, which secured the first $3m of debt for the total consideration.
30th March 2017 - Bridging loan agreement, which secured the remaining $11m of debt for the total consideration.
31st March 2017 - Satisfaction of conditions precedent for Vametco transaction.
6th April 2017 . Acquisition completed.

As you can see from the above the finance for Vametco was declared very close to the closing date for the transaction.

Those processes will no doubt all have been intertwined with one another but the groundwork will have been put in well in advance and it was the final sign off that was reliant on such things as the Section 11 approval. That is not in play here thank goodness but the South African Reserve Bank approval still is and that is likely th last key stumbling block for any finance agreement.

To be clear this transaction is far more simple than Vametco. Back then BMN were trying to raise $14m in debt finance as a company that had no revenues. That is not the case today and the necessary debt finance should be fairly straight forward.

I still think it will all be announced close to the transaction date but I have no concerns over the company's ability to close out the finance in good time.

What I am keen to see is how much finance they will raise and for what.

@Pickedpick There will always be other opportunities out there, just got to go and find them. Now is the time to be doing the research to plan where that cash should go once it arrives.

(2 of 2)

The **** has a reported 0.99% V205 content and is from what I can in line with what Vanchem was already processing back in 2015.

In the latest Highveld Business Rescue General Meeting minutes from 18.08.2019, page 18 under "offers currently being evaluated" states the following ;

"Sale of balance of Titanium bearing ****"

Now I am not suggesting that BMN or Vanchem are negotiating this sale, what I am saying is that the wording strongly indicates that part of the **** heap has already been sold.

The reason I mention this is because if this **** heap is viable as an input for Vanchem , be it it requires further processing, then Vanchem has a very good cost effective source of ore that no doubt can be acquired for a fraction of the cost it would be when bought from an active business (business rescue remember), and it is situated just 10 kilometres down the road from their works and not the 154km that sits between it and Vametco, which brings even more cost savings through reduced transport costs.

What's more (Vanchem Plant RNS 1st May 2019)

"SAJV is located at the Highveld site and is situated approximately 10 km from the Vanchem Plant. SAJV comprises of an alumino-thermic smelting facility which is adjacent to the Vanchem Plant electric smelting facility."

So Vanchem is there on site at Highveld where the **** heap is situated.

The theory requires more research but if that Ti-V **** is being employed by Vanchem then the facts state that Vanchem could be achieving very favorable operating costs in what is a restricted pricing environment.

It is of course all down to the **** and Vanchem's ability to extract the vanadium element but the opportunity is certainly there and in this pricing environment potentially a very positive one.

http://www.evrazhighveld.co.za/winddown/prospectuses/Ti-V%20Resource%20Prospectus%20public%20copy.pdf

(1 of 2)

Morning all,

Excellent news this morning on the completion of the competition commission approval. Whilst South African regulatory bodies receive much criticism here the Competition Commission has now on 2 occasions demonstrated its ability to meet its advertised timelines for its work and that should be applauded.

I do however feel that it is the securing of the debt facility and confirmation of the finance being in place that will push the market to better recognise the worth of Vanchem to the BMN business.

If the market was prepared to look a little deeper into BMN recent past it would find a series of inventive and value accretive transactions with the bridging loan for the Vametco transaction being one of the best I have certainly ever seen because it was effectively paid off using inventors from the very yard that BMN was purchasing. So I have no concerns over the finance for the transaction but I feel the market does given the current price of vanadium.

Whilst here, I noted in the Vanchem acquisition the following statement ;

"The Vanchem Business has secured sufficient ore supply from third parties to support current levels of production, until Mokopane's development has been completed. The Company retains the optionality to supply magnetite concentrates from Vametco to the Vanchem Business."

Whilst I have no concerns at all about Vametco being able to supply Vanchem if necessary, I find it very interestng that such a statement has been made.

Even if Mokopone were to be signed off tomorrow, we are looking at minimum 12 months before it could start to supply Vanchem and the RNS states "until Mokopone's development has been completed" (that being the revised $20m build rather than the full mine and processor).

I also do not see BMN making claims in an RNS that are directly influenced by an expected timeline for Mokopone being signed off, that cannot be substantiated because in my opinion they would be called out by the nomad. So the ore supply must be fairly substantial and allow for contingencies.

Vanchem up until 2015 was supplied by a combination of ore from Mapochs and V **** from Highveld. The same **** fed Vametco until BMN took over.

I do not think that Vanchem have gone back to Mapochs if for no other reason than BMN could simply have said so, rather than saying a 3rd party. Nor do I believe it has been imported.

However, there is a good possibility that it has come from the Highveld Industrial Park. The following is the prospectus for a Ti-V **** resource based at Highveld Park.

http://www.evrazhighveld.co.za/winddown/prospectuses/Ti-V%20Resource%20Prospectus%20public%20copy.pdf

I had only included the best 4 intersections in my last post. Here are the full 8 for review ;

• Galena - 2.0m @ 25.02 g/t Au from 141.50m (COR0367) including 1.0m @ 48.18g/t Au
• Serra – 4.0m @ 3.36 g/t Au from 354.0m (COR0370) including 1.28m @7.45g/t Au.
• Meio #2 – 0.35m @15.57 g/t Au (COR0372) from 197.05m
• Meio #2 – 1.3m @ 32.04g/t Au (COR0373) from 144.75m including 0.5m @ 79.47g/t Au
• Meio # 4 – 0.60m @ 4.65 g/t Au (COR0378) from 210.70m
• Meio #4 – 0.75m @ 7.61 g/t Au (COR0380) from 174.8m
• Meio #4 - 1.40m @ 15.82 g/t Au (COR0381) from 275.0m
• Meio #4 - 1.15m @ 9.69 g/t Au (COR0383) from 134.2m including 0.60 m @ 17.74 g/t Au

Good morning everyone,

The Management Discussion and Analysis document for Q2 highlights some very interesting points regarding the pending PEA estimate scheduled for release before the end of August.

To date Coringa has an indicated resource of 216,000 oz @ 7.95g/t and a total resource of 514,000 oz @ over 7g/t.

However, on page 14 of the MDA the company states the following ;

1. "On March 4, 2019, the Group announced an updated estimate of the Mineral Resources of the Coringa project which represented a 37% increase in the total global resource for the project to 514,000 ounces."

2. "The Group has, on the basis of his increased Mineral Resource, commenced work on the preparation of a new Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) the results of which, it is hoped, will be available before the end of August 2019."

3. "As detailed in a news release issued on 20 June 2019, some of the above results represent final certified laboratory
assay results and supercede previous results generated by the Group which had been included in the new mineral
resource estimation issued on 4 March 2019."

Those said results include 8 significant intersections ;

- "Galena - 2.0m @ 25.02 g/t Au from 141.50m (COR0367) including 1.0m @ 48.18g/t Au
- Meio #2 – 1.3m @ 32.04g/t Au (COR0373) from 144.75m including 0.5m @ 79.47g/t Au
- Meio #4 - 1.40m @ 15.82 g/t Au (COR0381) from 275.0m
- Meio #4 - 1.15m @ 9.69 g/t Au (COR0383) from 134.2m including 0.60 m @ 17.74 g/t Au"

4. "The Group also announced the result of further drilling that had not been included in this new mineral resource estimate."

5. "In addition, the Group has also undertaken a re-logging and re-sampling programme that was completed on historic Coringa drill holes in the first half of 2019."

"Re-sampling was completed on 43 of the 179 drill holes honouring geological contacts and quartz vein structures. A total of 92 core samples were analysed and significant grade increases reported in many mineralised intersections"

6. "Together with the additional drilling results, these improved intercepts are now being used in a further revision
of the geological resource estimate and will be incorporated in the PEA."

So the 514,000 oz total resource will be affected by final certified lab assay results, which demonstrate significant gold intersections, further drilling results, and the re-sampling of core samples that show "significant grade increases."

What exact affect these combined results will have on the Coringa PEA is not known but from where i am sitting it looks like the market could be in for a surprise and at a time when gold is hot and very much in favor.

https://www.serabigold.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MDA-Q2-2019-Full-Version-vFINAL.pdf

@Bigsmoke the Takeover Panel legal guide is in my view essential reading because it demonstrates the tight constraints under which all parties including the directors of AMER must operate.

28 days does indeed sound fair but I have likely made an error in my post from yesterday when I said this would trigger the 'firm offer.' The reality is that the 28 day period is likely the time period needed for each interested party to establish a valuation for the parts of the business they would be interested in. The issue will then be how the parties communicate their interest without falling foul of the Takeover Panel.

I doubt any party will want to be named before they know how likely their possible offer will succeed. Nor will they wish to publish an offer as a firm offer unless they absolutely have to because once they do they are tied to it and must follow through plus everyone else will know what they are willing to pay. They will no doubt attach conditions but are not guaranteed that said conditions will allow them to walk away if they aren't satisfied with how things are proceeding, the legal guide is very clear on this.

The whole set up is very complicated with many possible outcomes because right now we don't know how many interested parties there are nor what they would be interested in acquiring but it is fun at least attempting to dissect it to establish what can't happen or what may come to pass.

Two key requirements from the Takeover Code ;

1. "General Principle 1 provides that Target shareholders must be afforded equivalent treatment – in practice, this means that information must not be disclosed to some Target shareholders but not others. The bid announcement, offer documentation and any revised document must be sent to all Target shareholders"

2. "In order to improve the chances of the takeover offer succeeding, it is helpful if the Bidder can obtain irrevocable undertakings to accept the offer from some of the shareholders in the Target before it announces the offer"

"The Bidder will need to consult the Panel in advance if it intends to seek irrevocable undertakings from individuals, or small corporate shareholders, or if it wishes to approach more than six people before the bid is announced."

The 'equivalent treatment' principle applies to the bid (firm offer), it does not apply to a possible offer and when conducted with the Takeover Panel's approval, allows the bidder to acquire irrevocable undertakings prior to the formal announcement of the bid. In doing so they will highly likely have the directors on board too.

This is why I offer the opinion that the AMER BOD will likely whittle down the interested parties behind closed doors. This process can only take place once the possible offers are known.

So the 28 days is likely the period for establishing that. The n we have an unknown period for whittling down the interest unless one or more parties goes more aggressive.