Member Info for bluerill

yes, I noticed that but I was so excited to take this snake oil salesman 'on', I completely ignored it. thankyou

why don't we start with you utterly idiotic suggestion that Eroton's restructuring its RBL, after a massive reduction in principal brought on by the NPCC finally making good on arrears payments to local operators, has somehow resulted in MORE restrictive terms which will prevent it from paying divis for 'years' (?!?!?), when the truth is precisely the opposite? Or how about your made-up nonsense about MLPL, which I have schooled you on in the past?!?!? Firstly, you have absolutely no idea about any material debt at MLPL in the first place, which you are constantly blubbering as fact. If it does have any, I believe it is small. Even if you hadn't made that up out of fat air, your constant contention that any financial difficulty at MLPL is going to somehow going to endanger SanLeon, when our loan notes are claimable against the assets of Eroton AND Midwestern, and we will always get paid FIRST in the event of any kind of foreclosure or windup, not to mention the fact that any coupon miss alone can trigger a claim by SLE on the entire Midwestern OML18 stake at the sole discretion of SLE (try and read the admission document genius). And finally, if absolutely anything of the total rubbish you and your FCA-registered blowhole produced to smear this company were even remotely true, they would have already conspired to prevent the audited results that were only just published. Take your 24 years of experience in the oil business and stick up your FCA. No one's buying.

omg, it would be a pleasure, you total fraud

This is a total fever-dream-produced pile of perfidy borne of bitterness (you've lost money. poor baby) and ignorance (where do I start? Your lack of knowledge of this company - from the OML18 deal that helped redefine it completely to the health of its operating partner to absolutely anything to do with the corporate structure that houses its 11% interest in the OML field - is exceeded perhaps only by how little you understand about basic accounting). Nothing you said in that post is even remotely true and the comment about insolvency (assuming you even know what the word means) is borderline libellous. You might want to keep some of those good luck wishes for yourself, mate. You're going to need them.

I will make an exception this time, but please don't make me regret it NO ONE is saying 46p is 'suddenly seen as such a great price....', least of all me. This is a (likely deliberate) misrepresentation of my and others' position.
The positive discussion around 46p breaks into 2 separate, crucially important pieces, neither of which advocates for 46p as uniquely 'such a great price': 1. if the market fully understood the mechanics of the buyback and the heightened probabilities of large holders NOT to tender, the 'fair' price for the shares right now is north of 40p, in my view. However, given the general misunderstanding/disinterest about the buyback AND the imbedded disappointment of longer-term shareholders in company management to deliver shareholder returns (something which has been particularly well documented on this board and in fact, something which bulls-from-here DO NOT DISPUTE, yet another thing you don't seem to understand), some are using this announcement and its resulting 16% bounce (now 70% from recent lows) as a 'liquidity event' to reduce their holdings, while buying (for now) is still subdued. Therefore, the short-term advice from me - which is laid out in agonising detail below - is that buying at these levels (34/5p) and tendering your position is a high quality TRADE. For legacy shareholders however, who likely own the shares at a far higher price, I never said that tendering at 46p represented a great absolute outcome. To that much larger constituency, my goal is simply to explain how this tender would work, and in doing so, hopefully explain to them that if they DO choose to tender, they will have an enhanced opportunity to elegantly reduce their holdings by likely (much) more than 10% at a price that may represent a loss from genesis, but in fact would be a greater than 100% gain from the lows. In addition of course, if I'm right and a tendering pi does manage to get away much more than 10%, they can then attempt to buy some back below 46p, post-tender.
2. [Get ready for informed bullishness]. An even more powerful aspect to this buyback - something completely overlooked by a cynical market/squirrels - is what a capital return of this size 'represents'. [PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY]: Early stage, small cap commodity companies simply DO NOT return £23m (3x the original amount announced) to their shareholders, coupled with an RNS which boasts of a balance sheet in rude health, imminent well results and an operating business in ascension which strongly hints at more capital returns to come (as I've already noted, the company has another 17m due in a month, effectively replenishing its cash balance). With limited capX commitments for the foreseeable future, it would be almost deliberately naive to believe that this massive capital return is the last one we'll see for a while. In short, this tender and the associated RNS update are management trying to send us a message. I, for one, choose to listen

Very tough call

I don't reckon anyone here needs any help in understanding the depths some tortured souls will sink to.

Related to the much more famous game theory thought exercise, the Prisoner's Dilemma - where fellow crooks separately decide on a non-optimal outcome (ie., ratting on each other) rather than both staying shtum and getting off scot-free - is the fast-growing, social media conundrum of Poster's Dilemma: Does one engage with the very worst squirrels, the ones completely consumed by bitterness, driven by a blinding need for some kind of revenge and undergirded by the most mind-numbing level of ignorance in their arguments that is pure Trumpian in its shamelessness, or choose the outcome that would clearly maximise everyone's utility and ignore them? Tough call....

I do remember they were issued warrants, and I think it was during the suspension when they underwrote a CB to allow the company to pay off Avabone. However, whatever they may or may not do with 10m warrants right now is incidental to the main argument. It doesn't change the share count materially and therefore the tender calculations, and obviously doesn't alter the central point of whether or not they'll tender their 62%,

As ever, Alaric is largely correct and the angry sock puppet is left yapping incoherently. The trick to understanding the opportunity here is to appreciate that all shareholders NEVER EVER tender all their shares (more on that later) in any tender ever, and all shareholders must necessarily be treated equally.[WARNING: MATH COMING]: For simplicity's sake, let's round the number of SLE shares in issue down to 500m. Therefore, SLE's proposed 10% tender at 46p constitutes a buyback of 50m shares, or £23m. Things start to get slightly kinky however, if - for whatever reason - some shareholders decide not/neglect to tender. And let's say, again for elegance sake, those shareholders total 50% of the share register (again, more on that later). This will result in only 250m shares being tendered, more than enough for the company to satisfy its intended 50m share goal of course, but because all shareholders must be treated equally, those tendering will enjoy an equal bump in their total sold, from the original 10% to, in this example,20% (50m/250m). Sorry squirrel.The fun bit then is engaging in a bit of informed speculation as to which holders are likely not to tender. While I completely agree that it's perfectly rational for the average small shareholder to tender their entire position, not all small shareholders behave rationally. Some will simply ignore an offer like this as they consider themselves long-term investors or, wrongly see the 10% as too small to bother with. Retail holders of this company are a small group to start with, and probably constitute no more than 10% of the company. However, it would be completely consistent with precedent if up to 20% (2% of the company) fall into this category. Moving on to management, strategic and institutional shareholders and things start to get interesting. First, Oisin Fanning won't tender, so that's 2% more. Then, among the large instos, I believe it unlikely that the company's broker, Brandon Hill and its 4% will tender (possible, but unlikely), while Midwestern - which will have 15% (of which 9% is confirmed) when the Suntrust deal completes soon - will certainly not tender (if anyone cares to debate the logic of this, then you belong on Reddit denying the moon landing). This takes us to almost 25% unlikely/highly unlikely to tender, and our typical tendering pi is now looking at a bump to 13% from 10%. Since I have no angle on the other instos, to be conservative, we will leave them in the general population. Finally then, there's the big Kahuna, Toscafund and its 62%. I contend that to assume that the hedge fund-which has devoted such time and capital to this company and its Nigerian adventure-would, just as the Project and the share price are starting to take off, tender 30m shares they will never get back, at a price far below their historic average, defies logic. Should Tosca not tender, the exit for tendering pi's moves up then to over-65% at 46p. And that's not squirrel feed.

Um...yes, that's essentially correct, if a bit lacking in detail!

Because Oisin put together - with Martin Hughes's help - an extraordinary deal where they will have - by Oct 2020 and the final repayment of the loan notes - effectively bought a 10% stake in this prolific field......for nothing. That kind of value creation (clearly not yet reflected in the share price) tends make controlling shareholders into enthusiastic advocates who then look to do MORE deals with that executive, rather than replacing him.

Those are sentences (I think) that, strung together, constitute - at best - a waste of perfectly good bandwidth. It was agonising to read (and I speak fluent squirrel), even as a guilty pleasure like I might get by clicking on an Evangelical Christian website offering to guide me to my own personal relationship with Jesus. Best I can tell from your strangulated syntax, you are mangling a description of a Dutch Auction, which this decidedly is not. This is a simple tender where anyone who tenders their position is guaranteed to get a minimum of 10% sold at 46p, with their total increasing pro rata as - for whatever reason - any other shareholders choose not to tender. Since it is my view that a material number of key shareholders are likely NOT to tender, it is therefore my further view that anyone buying today and tendering will get far more than 10% done at 46p (I can discuss a more detailed analysis of the company's share register later for anyone who's interested).

You covered similar rubbish in college, did you? I weep for the state of higher education in this country

Yes. The balance of February will likely remain a busy period for comms from the Company,

the 'basic' maths are more potent than pc suggests:

with just jite and tosca - assuming the ST transaction has closed or is closing - and assuming at least 5% further in strategic hands like brandon hill, we are looking at AT LEAST 85% of the shares that will very likely NOT tender at 46p.

Including some of the 'new' shares that have become relevant with the employee option rejig, we are therefore talking about a 50m share tender into a roughly 85m share free float (15% of the 500m share total + around 10m shares for some employees excercising their options and tendering).

therefore, the 'simple' math is that the average punter will be able to tender their entire holding at 46p and have a very reasonable chance of having around 60% of his or her shares sold to the company at 46p.

that basic math argues for a much higher price than 33p, especially if specialist hedge funds pick this up. 38p+

Patience, mate. The company only just cleared its final court appearance on Friday. I'm sure there are still some technical matters to resolve with various parties (broker, NOMAD, regulator, etc) on how the company will operate in the market on a daily basis, whether the shares will be held in treasury or cancelled, how block share trades might be handled, etc., before SLE is ready to put out comprehensive RNS covering a return of capital. Shouldn't be much longer to wait (this week?) to work through this final paperwork.

Talk to me when it breaks a quid.

some more good news from the North Celtic Sea Basin:

http://pdf.reuters.com/htmlnews/htmlnews.asp?i=43059c3bf0e37541&u=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20190201:nRSA7389Oa

Ooops. Posted this before it was finished....

'Subject was meant to read: 'Secretarial' and the message was going to be that its not my usual thing to pass along tangential news items, but this is already up on the Lansdowne and Providence boards, so I'll highlight it here as well that this potential roadblock to the good guys proceeding with Barryroe has been removed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/an-taisce-settles-providence-court-case-with-government-as-licence-quashed-1.3777480