Member Info for bluerill

Whoa there Red, you're missing a couple of crucial points. First and foremost, 'permission' is not intent. At the moment, all the company has actually announced is a tiny buyback of $2m, which at current prices represents less than 1 1/2% of the company or around 5.5m shares which, under the rules and considering daily volume trends, will take Cantors around 3 months minimum, and likely far longer to complete. And while it is true that when this small program is finished, some 6m shares will have been bought and cancelled, Tosca's share will only rise fractionally of course. But wait, there's more......If the company should then announce further buybacks - especially if a block of shares are suddenly made available, which the company would not, I believe, have to pre-announce, but under the Article passed could simply transact and then announce it - those new share purchases do NOT necessarily need to be cancelled. In fact, conscious of just what you are concerned about Red, the company may very well opt to simply put the shares in the Treasury account, making them eligible to be resold sometime in the future potentially at a (much) higher price, or to keep them as a bulwark against any unwelcome, cheeky bid for the company. Furthermore.....there is absolutely nothing inevitable about Martin Hughes bidding for minorities, no matter the level of his holding. Every indication in fact, is that Tosca's long-awaited plan for sle is that it act as a cash machine for Tosca (who do you think insisted on a payout regime of '50% of free cash'? Management???) over a period of time, before selling out at a materially higher price to a 3rd party interested in a prolific foothold in Nigeria. Finally, without the help of huge share buybacks taking his share in the company higher by default, but with larceny on his mind, Martin would have to buy a non-negligible number of shares in the open market in order to get anywhere near the 95% threshold where minorities (ie., US) might be disadvantaged; something in the neighbourhood of 50m shares. To do that, he would have to 'go through' sophisticated shareholders including not just Jite at 13%, but BrandonHill and company management itself, including Oisin's own 2%. What sort of price do you think Tosca would have to pay such holders (not to mention smaller institutions and high net worths who know the value here as well or better) - in the market or through private negotiations, wouldn't matter - eventually to get anything close to making a dent in that 50m share nut? I don't know either, but its a hell of a lot higher than 50p. Once Tosca were forced to pay those holders (much) higher prices, minorities remaining (ie., US) would then have to be paid a premium to those HIGHER prices in order for him to get to 100%. That might not take us back to the £2+ levels that would make many longer-term holders closer to whole, but it would get current holders within spitting distance of a quid, I reckon.

Use small amount of cash to at least begin a 5/6m share buyback and cancellation program before announcing further capital returns like dividend(s).

http://pdf.reuters.com/htmlnews/htmlnews.asp?i=43059c3bf0e37541&u=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20191017:nRSQ1972Qa

if this is what you're wondering about, let me be the first to explain that it is an unreconstructed positive. The company obviously no longer needs Halliburton's 5/6m anymore and frankly, some of us were sweating that Halliburton might have exercise their option - despite the fact that the oil service industry generally is clearly moving rapidly away from such deals and Halliburton is already committed to another driller in the region - just because there is such substantial upside for the small initial outlay. In the meantime, Halliburton have also taken their sweet time coming back to us, so this is a bit of an outcome both in terms of NAV uplift and further streamlining the company for takeoff. woo hoo.....

huh?

And, perhaps even more importantly, the bid for Eland, no matter how one feels about sle, Oisin and/or the company's history, puts paid to this often hysterical notion of big, bad, black hole Nigeria. Seplat's cash on the barrel head must come as a welcome relief to the blackswan's of the world.....

Not sure I get your point red. There are 'corporate actions' and then there are cash bids for neighbouring businesses. Eland, which is only producing net around 10k bbls/day, is as close to a pure comp for SanLeon as you're going to get, so the premium paid is far less important than the imputed valuation for its core business and how that reflects on ours, which I am working on now. However, a back of the fag-packet estimate shows that at 166p, Ela is going out at right around a market cap of £350m and an enterprise value of over £400m fully diluted, which includes over £30m in net debt. Meantime, sle have $40m in net cash, with roughly 140m more due and a market cap of just £116m (effectively a negative enterprise value and therefore no imputed value for the operating business), so a bid which values the operating business at even a tiny fraction of (less than 20% say) of Eland's would already get you to above 60p. But again, that's very quick and dirty.....

http://pdf.reuters.com/htmlnews/htmlnews.asp?i=43059c3bf0e37541&u=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20191015:nRSO8881Pa

All I can tell you redeyemines about a divi/special divi is 1. you're absolutely right about the rationale for paying them and the company's ability to do so. With the final 7m payment to come soon, the company will have over 40m net cash and low expected outgoings, so a significant cash return remains very likely; but more importantly, 2. In fact, such a divi declaration could NOT be included in today's interims by regulation, as the current rules would require such an important disclosure to be declared in a separate RNS, so logically that would come in the next day or so. 'In due course....' would be all the company would be able to say, again by virtue of the current rules, in the meantime.

Marty, please don't make me regret trying to respond to you as if you're a reasonable actor.....In the main, your entire post demonstrates you don't understand my point, so I will try - just this once - to explain. I am not arguing sle's performance this year (and from the 18p lows reached at the height of the Suntrust overreaction) as a rationale in itself for owning the shares now, any more than the fall from their highs 5 years ago is a reason not to. The point is this: the trolls I am battling here ARE arguing the latter; they are transparently promoting the idea that because of past performance, the shares, no matter the clear, physical asset value (read: C-A-S-H) that should be evident to all, are NOT the deep value opportunity that any sentient person can plainly see them to be. That somehow, the company's and share price's difficult history trumps real, verifiable evidence to the contrary, a proposition so absurd that Jabba and his minions find it necessary to try and gaslight shareholders into ignoring what is right in front of them. As you can now see, that even extends to trying to 'explain' away the share's solid performance so far this year, which includes the ONLY special dividend paid in the sector on AIM. The recovery from the lows may be minor in light of the fall it has suffered, but if there were no merit here, there would be no recovery at all, regardless of its size, and these person(s) are clearly committed to denying those facts. THAT'S the point. And it is anything but irrelevant.

I just explained it to you, tonto. Despite the recent fall, the share price is still up 15% on the year nominally and 46% when the 46p cash out - effectively a special dividend - is included, making it one of the very best performing oil and gas shares of any size outside of Eco Atlantic in 2019, you towering imbecile.

Someone tell this muppet's muppet that his lists are largely gobbledygook, whose main purpose is likely meant to - once again - throw up enough dust to obscure genuine data, like the fact that the period covered includes a cash-out, at 46p, of over half the shareholding of nearly all small shareholders of record at that time, making a mockery of his 'performance' tables.

HI, Junkie. Maybe you could help me answer a more pressing issue: Is there like, a micron of upside, for someone like Alaric to even entertain answering your 'question' when, after doing so, your fine, excrement-loving self can be reliably depended upon to shamelessly roll onto the next snark-covered slur disguised as legitimate enquiry? You know, the way you've done forever, immune to your award-winning message board career for getting stuff wrong and never owning up to anything? Yours is a phoney world of scholarship a mile wide and an inch deep (e.g., sle's fall from 40p to 30p is in-line with the sector over that period, but most names are now sitting at or near all-time lows while sle has STILL provided shareholders with over 40% total return this year), and you still manage to nearly drown in it every time. Dilettante

TBH, ATM, his POV is a POS. LOL

And, at the risk of upsetting some who are so very interested only in debate which adheres to some arbitrary rules which prohibit mean comments from some ( ie., those who would try to explain simply and directly that at current price levels the shares trade at a significant discount to cash + a deeply discounted value of the balance of over-collateralised notes maturing in a little over a year still held by sle, thus giving shareholders the 10% economic interest in OML18 for free and providing a strong foundation for significant future capital returns), but leave others (e.g., those who may hold the shares from higher levels) who may be suffering losses and think that entitles them to marinate in their ignorance and throw around hugely relevant commentary on management's weight. It's so great to be back.....

If you meant me, don't despair, I haven't gone anywhere.

ok, off that, just a bit. though the statement is entirely standard, i suppose they didn't have to include the word 'strongly', so you could consider that a small positive hint that the board likes the look of the scrum in the data room at the moment

omg! yes it does. THAT IS THE STANDARD STATEMENT EVERY BOARD MAKES IN THESE SITUATIONS. They don't 'have' to say it but they ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS do.

please stop. this is pretty much all the takeover rules allow them to say anyway. completely standard regardless of how many times they say it

The only important part of the statement of course its that there are now officially multiple parties involved. this creates competition (or 'tension') of course and is the best element for a higher price

again: "Shareholders are strongly advised to take no action in respect of their shares until completion of the FSP"... is entirely standard. it just means the board is reiterating that they believe the current price to be inadequate and for shareholders to simply wait for the entire process to finish. They are not implying success or failure of the process, just that shareholders not take any action until process is finished. Standard comment