Member Info for Bohemia

I agree there might be an upward play to be made. However for me the key signal is whether Bizzell put in the £2m due to BPC on the scheduled date which is 14th June. I struggle to believe they don’t have the inside line on what’s going on (of course they avoided putting further money into P1 in January rather clairvoyantly) and may be on the board by then. I assume we won’t learn the S2 outcome by then, and also that the placing overhang is likely to persist most of June.

So if they do put money in the company is better funded and it seems like a positive signal. If they don’t it’s not a good sign, and of course you have to question if the money is coming (money being counted on for paying existing bills).

icemax, those 191m Fee shares are not related to the placing. They were agreed to settle "current corporate creditors" back on April 23rd and would have been paid whatever the scale of the placing.

The fee "payment" for the Placing was the 99.6m 4-year warrants. Actually that is described as "part compensation for services" so there was probably a cash element too.

I think we can now rule out the idea S2 spudded yesterday but, erm, it was a bit late.

I mean this in a light hearted way. Stockholm Syndrome is a strange, persistent bond formed with those that have you trapped. Your ongoing support of the company and management fits that description far closer than your terse relationship with the bears on this board.

Auctus have not said the current market cap is covered by the existing production business. This is just a throwaway comment given by Eytan and now repeated blindly by Starchild and others here.

If Saffron-2 and Suriname fail you are left with a T&T production business that has never made a profit in many years for LGO and CERP. There is enough detail in Auctus’ forecasts for 2021 to see that the business - modelled by them to generate $3m cash in 2021 if production averages 966b/d - would be cash negative at 500b/d without Saffron.

A business that consistently losses money is not somehow worth £25m. Obviously it is worth nothing, unless you are a management team drawing your salary from it.

SC

“icemax: go to the Auctus link I posted. It actually showed $23m estimated balance, but i deducted $3m Bizzell and moved it to 'available financing' as it's not in the bank yet”

In that case you should also remove the $3m from 2021 production which they’ve included in the $23m. Similarly you have listed that as a further source of funds, and it’s not yet in the bank.

You’ve double counted. The $10m cash figure given pre-OO was inclusive of the $3m expected from Bizzell and the LO-related fee rebate.

“ (a) cash at hand, proceeds of fee rebates described below, and expected amounts of not as yet received funds under the Conditional Convertible Note facility (approximately $10 million);”

So if you want to class the $3m as “Available” then actual cash at bank is $17m. And if it is drawn it would of course add $3m to the debt figure.

Plus $17m would assume the fee rebate has been received. If the credit has already come in then the debit due to LO is $4m not $3.5m.

Shore and Gneiss were responsible for the placing part - in fact that was $6m not $5m. They would have introduced BPC to IIs. BPC doesn’t have to involved them, but presumably felt their contacts were worth paying for. They’d also be working on a success only basis, so potentially wasting their efforts - that sort of work costs more.

Plus of course Gneiss have taken a lump of shares themselves; so too the sub placing agents perhaps. At the risk of getting my post detailed, I presume they are taking the risk of having to sell these shares at less than 0.35p so the warrants are payment for both this and the II introductions. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Gneiss have taken 2.99% of the shares in issue, so they won’t have to disclose when they sell the shares.

They haven’t got 100m shares - its 100m warrants, only worth something if the price goes above 0.35p.
They are shared by Shore Capital, Gneiss and other sub placing agents.

You may not like what they did, but it raised $5m. Without the $5m BPC had $11m cash and $18m of LO/Stena bills and no money for S2, so the company had to raise the funds somehow and who works for nothing?

No, the £5m condition was in relation to the £2m due in June. Here is the relevant part of the OO Circular:

"The date for funding and issue of the £2 million of Convertible Notes previously committed on an unconditional basis and initially intended to be drawn / funded at the end of February 2021 has now been rescheduled to be no later than 14 June 2021 (that is, concurrent with the anticipated completion of the drilling of the Saffron #2 well, but not dependent on the completion or outcome of the Saffron #2 well), as well as now expressed to be conditional on the Fundraising having successfully secured at least £5 million;"

However, as that paragraph alludes to, the £2m was due to be paid to the company on an unconditional basis in February and it wasn't. So you can believe that it will now arrive in June but you should apply at least some level of scrutiny.

The £10m was and remains just a facility. The >£5m raise was not necessary or sufficient condition for the £10m. It will be drawn down if both sides agree suitable conditions are met in the future: i.e. it is not unconditionally available just like it wasn't unconditionally available during P1 (when it ultimately was not delivered upon, hence the LO nightmare).

Not quite. The first £2m from Bizzell is should now be coming mid June, though it was meant to be coming in February and we have no explanation why it didn't. The further £10m facility is still available but entirely at the lender's discretion.

So they got it done. Probably time to close my short as the placing hasn't marked this down to a lower level. But Gneiss taking shares and the line about giving warrants to "various other sub placing agents" makes me think a lot of the shares have gone to parties that will try a flip them into the market at 0.35p or for a small loss and take a flyer the warrants will give them a future profit. 4 years is an incredibly long term for such warrants and a quick calc says these warrants are worth about 0.25p, so quite a sweetener. So there are probably several hundred million shares the holder would probably rather sell before taking the chance on S2, so I don't think it's going anywhere fast.

:)))))))

It wouldn't be standard stuff for Primary Bid to be taking and returning money for transactions they have NO INVOLVEMENT in.

Cool story, bro.

Except that BPC don’t have your bank details.

So you acknowledge the placing may be done at a discount to 0.35p. Even if you believe it would only be a small discount, I don't see how it's not disengenious of you to have left that out of your numerous "sermons". Especially since you've said, for example on 2nd May, "Any shortfall will be covered with an II placing at the same rate."

You must also therefore understand that if the placing price is set by demand, rather than being fixed, it *could* technically be materially lower if that's all the IIs are willing to pay. I think the congregation might have appreciated you sharing that.

If you believe the discount will be modest you've still played it strangely. If demand is good and exceeds the shares available, placees will be scaled back. Smaller placees tend to get cutback more than IIs so if you believe "Either way win win win" you'd have been better off getting your shares in the OO.

So you acknowledge the placing may be done at a discount to 0.35p. Even if you believe it would only be a small discount, I don't see how it's not disengenious of you to have left that out of your numerous "sermons". Especially since youve said, for example, on 2nd May "Any shortfall will be covered with an II placing at the same rate."

You must also therefore understand that if the placing price is set by demand, rather than being fixed, it *could* technically be materially lower if that's all the IIs are willing to pay. I think the congregation might have appreciated you sharing that.

If you believe the discount will be modest you've still played I strangely. If demand is good and exceeds the shares available, placees will be scaled back. Smaller placees tend to get cutback more than IIs so if you believe "Either way win win win" you'd have been better off getting your shares in the OO.

Curious, why would you do that when you can just put your excess order on the Open Offer return? No fee and more likely to get the number of shares you want.

There is some detail on the licences in this document from 2008 when BPC essentially came to AIM. Page 100 onwards. https://d1ssu070pg2v9i.cloudfront.net/pex/bahamas/2008/09/01180256/2008-09-02-bpc_-_admission_document_2008.pdf

If you want to see how the rental and commitments have jumped around, you need to jump into each annual report here https://www.bpcplc.com/investor-relations/financial-reports/ and search for "rental".

My concern would be that, as far as I can see, the renewal terms are up for negotiation. The second, current exploration origianlly carried rental fees of $1,000,000 per year (much higher than the first term) but this was cut mid-term to just a fraction after oil prices crashed and the government apparently wanted to help BPC get the drill down.

But now, if they've decided they don't want to support BPC, I don't see why they can't set the cost for the third term at $2m/yr and, let's say, set the minimuim work commitment for year 1 as $1m of seismic, pre funded into escrow. BPC doesn't have that money so it's putting them on the spot to prove their intent and financial capability.

Thanks - any idea how many votes cast?

There is nothing factually incorrect about the $20 number BPC. But it is nothing more than a goal for average lifting costs per barrel once Saffron is well into development and total production is 2500/d.

But you are interpreting it as a current lifting cost, as if the old low output wells are as efficient as future S2 wells. The CERP results demonstrate they are not, and the costs and royalties I referred to are cash costs, not accounting/profitability distortions (they do not include capex/depreciation/tax) so they are a fair comparison.