Member Info for Bladesman

Everyone needs to calm down.

See this extract from the rns announcing the N Sea deals which I have re read today in great detail:

"These amendments (of existing credit facilities sic), including the extension of the facilities, are conditional on the Schemes becoming effective, the net proceeds from the equity raise having been received, the Andrew Acquisition or the Tolmount Acquisition having completed and satisfaction of customary documentary conditions. Accordingly, the extension and the other amendments will become effective when the last of the foregoing conditions is satisfied.

So, its not guaranteed that the equity raise WILL be undertaken, its just that it MAY be following the SoA approval as this must be approved by shareholders at a price jointly determined by Pmo, Jeffries and RBC.

Big week next week !

My view is that IF the SoA is approved by its creditors this will be a vote of confidence in PMO's near term liquidity which should settle the nerves somewhat. PMO can re-asses the equity raise when things have calmed down a bit, in Q3 all being well

J, I very much hope you are correct. That would appear to make sense to me but not everything in life is common sense. I'm minded to call pmo tomorrow to verify ie the court hearing only deals with process and procedure, not the substance of the deal.

Grippa, pure maths says a RI results in dilution, but if this saves a company from bankruptcy then at least shareholders live for another day in the hope the sp recovers rather than losing everything.

.



These are the resolutions to be opined on:The Scheme meetings (on Feb 12) were held for the purpose of proposing resolutions to the Scheme Creditors to approve the schemes of arrangement (the "Schemes") required to implement the announced UK North Sea Acquisitions, related funding arrangements and extension of Premier's credit facilities.
So, there are three matters under scrutiny, two of which are connected-acquisitions and related funding. It will be interesting to see the criteria the court uses to determines what is " fair". I would have thought that it is not fair to ask for approval for a deal that was conceived weeks ago under very different circumstances. Despite pmo being confident about the verdict, legal history is littered with examples of very disappointed advocates. We'll soon see.

Cheers Gripps

Cheers Gripps

A question for any of the more informed members of this board, if I may.
What exactly is approval being sought for at the hearing? Is it both a re finance AND acquisition funded through issuing more shares , or are the two things being considered separately? I can't believe that the asset deals are still on the table given the different macro environment we are now in compared to when these were first announced

Even at this low low price. All to play for next week!

Nice to know Peel Hunt rate PMO TP as 50p, but I have no confidence at all in Brokers' ability to get anything right . Their questioning at the results presentation was inept

Mentioned by a spokesman from IG markets on BBC breakfast TV to limit stocks volatility, as was the case in 2008. Seems right to me.

Suar, I'm at pains to agree with you. I listened to pmo results presentation which was all about prospect this and prospect that. Oil Co execs just like spending shareholders money and forget share holders would very much like a return on their investment, all being well. For the huge risks they take. Hmmm.

BOD need to take the initiative and call this deal off due to current events and put in place a credible cash preservation plan until normality returns. An Rns to this effect tomorrow is not a day too late

I agree. Ismalia is not correct, just putting the frighteners on

Just re read pmo results presentation. On the last slide they say that 55% of future cash flow is discretionary over a 7 year year period. Ie only 45% is non discretionary. With substantial hedging in place at 65 bbl until July, running out of cash is not going to happen.

Ismalia, you raise an interesting point : is pmo contractually obliged to go through with the acquisitions? I would have thought not since it must be conditional at least on the scheme of A being approved. I think this is now highly unlikely. Anyone else have a view ?

Thanks Grippa. Very helpful. As I said in my post just a few minutes ago, all non essential expenditure should be postponed indefinitely until normality returns and a clear statement made about liquidity.

I worked for an energy services company that plummeted to par value of 5p after the crazy times following the lehmann induced financial crash. Four years later they were trading at 6 pds. No logic at all, just blind panic. PMO can ride this out but they need to focus on cash and postpone the acquisitions and all non essential expenditure for now. Reassuring investors that fcf is sufficient to meet all near term commitments will calm things down. TD needs to be decisive and steady the ship. Even if that means eating humble pie re canning the spending spree.

And to point out the obvious the price of purchasing the assets has increased nearly 100 per cent due to weak pmo sp in terms of the resulting dilution. We were at 120 when the deal was announced, now almost 50 per cent down. Who knows what the SP will be at the date of the court hearing. Best to pull it, imo. The strategy should now be cash cash cash.

Given the adverse market reaction to pmo results and lack lustre presentation today plus the uncertainty posed by the virus and zama sale, the board should reconsider the strategy. The timing does not look right just now to be forging ahead blind to the emerging events. Imo