Member Info for bonum

We had 120M new CLN shares issued into the market 4th June @1.27p - they've probably only scratched the surface in any disposal of such.

We have a massive further dilution from the 2.5p CLN, for which conditions haven't even been met yet, hence putting a 'doubt' on the P1 drill finance.

We dont have any confirmation of the Force Majeure, hence further doubts.

Why do you think the BPC share price will advance as you say, given the major suppression factor of new discounted shares, flushing the market to supposed drill.

It's a Lose / Lose - whether P1 gets its funding or not!

Atb

Obviously we have different interpretations of ' ebullient'....!!

https://youtu.be/g2I-qlOM2ls

He looked uncomfortable and evasive, imo.

Starchild, you're already talking about 'dividends' when we haven't even secured the finance for P1, let alone clearance regarding the Force Majeure - the company were evasive in the answer they gave e the PI who enquired.

IK - circa 900M if that helps....perhaps you didnt see the (c) in previous posts.

Hillbilly - "again....you talk as though investing in stocks/shares is a dead cert...it's gambling.
If you're not willing to lose it, don't bet it, it's that simple."

Its risk management applied to individual stocks and according to their distinct profiles - many of us were looking at a pragmatic derisk but with the massive dilution (and other uncertainties), that's heavily compromised now.

Apparently we were only '3 weeks from drilling' - were we? This is a different investment now but will still spectacularly crash on a dry hole - Potter & co will remain salaried though.

Have to agree with Laallee - if they were going to increase dilution to such an e tent, a P1 & P2 drill would have been better.

Theres also a $17M-$26M cash shortfall, until conditions pertaining to the CLNs are met.

Enough conjecture & 'things up Potters sleeve' rubbish......that sounds like fanciful whimsy and has no place in serious investment discussion.

Atb all

Willec, I meant you sound desperate.

Bully, referring to the recent RNS on costs etc-

"on the basis of this revised total well cost estimate of US$21 million to US$25 million (plus potential contingencies), the Company's current funding "gap" for Perseverance #1 is in the range of $12 million to $16 million (plus a further $5 million to $10 million depending on the extent to which potential contingency / provisional costs may be required / opted for)."

That's a minimum $17M - $26M

Bear in mind , it's also subject to conditions being met for the 2.5p CLNs - which haven't as yet been met.

Go to Plan B, which is pick up 'something' on the market in case P1 doesn't even go ahead - and continue with a working, heavily diluted operation.

Willed, you sound desperate with your posting - try to apply some rationale to your argument please.

Atb

BPC need a further $17M-$27M just to fund Perseverance 1 and without any other acquisitions in the meantime!

The c.3.3 Billion shares in issue after the merger, will almost undoubtedly be significantly increased to actually get the P1 drill underway - for which there are as yet, still unsatisfied conditions to be met.

A NO Vote would see the share price freed of its 'shackles' - and not subject to massive suppression trying to make progress upwards, given the massive dilution effect if all the new shares.

That's the obvious effect of all those new shares - it's not rocket science and subject to fanciful whimsy!

"BPC plans to merge with, or acquire, little explorer(s) x, y, z" - That one seems to be on the cards at least and with the BoD 'stealthily' shifting away from its '100% focus on P1'

It's getting ready to issue almost a BILLION new shares to acquire 'a little explorer' (with minimum production).....!!

How much more?

Atb

So, on top of the circa 1 Billion new shares for the CERP merger, we have further major dilution ahead.

"the Company's current funding "gap" for Perseverance #1 is in the range of $12 million to $16 million (plus a further $5 million to $10 million depending on the extent to which potential contingency / provisional costs may be required / opted for)."

All subjects to conditions being satisfied, for which there are no guarantees - and dealing with a BoD, who have been shown to b e somewhat 'untrustworthy' in their comms to shareholders.

That's the tangible reality - not some 'hopeful' narrative being spun out.

This is just a short snapshot of what's ahead -

"the Company's current funding "gap" for Perseverance #1 is in the range of $12 million to $16 million (plus a further $5 million to $10 million depending on the extent to which potential contingency / provisional costs may be required / opted for)."

They have various funding deals on the table ex a CLN facility with Bizzel, subject to certain conditions being met and for which there is no guarantee.....and at a 2.5p price.

If you can't get Bahamian strategic cash rich investors to buy shares at a discount, how on earth are you going to get the general public to buy them at 5p...!!

Is that a fanciful hope that the price will be significantly above that and a multitude of 'cash poor' Bahamians will pile in at a price significantly greater than the rich Bahamians?

'Major oil company wants to join the party but are miffed at being sidelined' - getting into a Farm in deal would have been 'small change' for a major - they could have joined the party at any time but they didnt - why?

If you look at the recent rhetoric from the company, they're focusing away from the Farm in carrot dangled to investors for many (many) years.

The alternative is what's already being auctioned - various Financing measures that progressively dilute down shareholder value.

You forgot to add the possibility of a further Acquisition, to go with the 2 that we've had within a matter of weeks.....and to take advantage of the deals atm.....even though the CERP merger must have been planned months in advance.

You omitted a further expansion of the CLN arrangement since we've had one doubling up of it already.

Look at the more obvious direction of the company, based on their actions and shift in rhetoric, rather than what you would like it to be.

Atb

BPC have pretty much admitted the 'focus is away from a Farm in' now.

Regarding not voting yes or no - when in doubt, which us an understatement here - say NO!

"then a case of riding the tiger uptil P1 spud and then oldies like me who cannot afford a 7 in 10 case of failure will hopefully sell into a rising price and bid farewell."

That was the plan for a lot of BPC shareholders - good luck with that, with the amount of additional dilution going forward and further drawdowns / placing at presumably a heavily discounted prices.

That's assuming we dont get even further dilution to finance further Acquisitions!

Far too much suppression on the share price leading up to the drill now......assuming it actually goes ahead, as finance certainly isn't all in place.

I'll be voting NO.

There was a 'manufacturer's supporting of the BPC share price around the time if the Open Offer - we're seeing the same here now and in order to facilitate the merger without a complete price collapse.

That support will get 'pulled' as necessary.

Starchild, with the greatest respect and Eureka moments aside, what you're stating is pure conjecture.

You ask 'why' but you're trying to make the pieces fit a certain narrative when the more obvious indications are probably closer to the mark - not the ones that try to suggest people have got ' something up their sleeves'.

Let's forget the conjecture and stick to the obvious;

It's a hedging of bets for BPC against the the CERP acquisition & for CERP, a route to finance.

That's pretty clear.

Why did the CERP directors vote for it when they'll be out of a job?

Severance payments & other 'inducements', which are part & parcel of such deals. The BPC directors in the meantime, continue in their salaries positions beyond P1, irrespective of the drill outcome.

Stena may eventually come on board but any news of such, whether it happens or not, will be months away.

What we have right now ahead of us is another major dilution - not itfs & buts or maybe- but another tangible c 1 Bilion new shares without any near term contribution to the bottom line by CERP - that alongside additional equity releases to fund P1.

I've been forthright in stating that I tried up my money early so that I couldstrategically derisk going forward and based on a pretty clear investment case presented - I also stated that was a pragmatic approach to take and bearing and forgoing dividend generating opportunities elsewhere.

The route BPC have progressed down, within the space of a few days (accepting it must have been months in the planning), has radically changed.

They've misled investors somewhat in rhetoric about the focus on P1, whilst not mentioning any view towards an acquisitive strategy at all - am I the only one who thinks they've been somewhat 'devious' in their communications to shareholders.

If I wanted a 'safer' investment, I could have balanced up my PF risk profile with separate deals in various other companies.

Now we may have an element of safety built in, albeit a massive suppression on the share price given the overall new shares in issue....and not that much added value if P1 is a duster - the price drop here will still be catastrophic.

And how many further Acquisitions will follow in the coming weeks.

I much prefer the binary play we were led to believe was the case until a couple of days ago. I also believe any buoyancy on the price is just a 'supported' way of trying g to get the YES vote passed - we saw what was going on at the time of the Open Offer.

I'll be voting NO and based on common sense fundamentals to our original reasons for investing in the respective companies - not conjecture & hope for unsubstantiated outcomes.

Atb

That should reasld 'further equity release in ADDITION to P1 costs'

Also Voting NO!

CERP wont add anything significant to the bottom line, to fund P1 and given the timescales involved - BPC have further drawdown facilities for that, obviously resulting in more equity release.

CERP's 'potential' at least can be debated, but further equity release beyond P1 will be required to realize such going forward, accepting any bottom line additions from nearer timeframe ops.

Certainly before P1 resuts to ensure funds can be obtained with a share price that hasn't completely collapsed.

Atb

Sorry Laallee, I'll keep posting for a NO vote - not against BPC per se, just against the direction pursued......even if it is against the 'party line'

Atb

The degree of mitigation of such wont be significant Chesh and a much greater level of dilution will result from development of CERP assets - and funds secured prior to P1 results through various drawdowns / equity releases.

We likely have other Acquisition targets given the timeframe to P1 and current strategy embarked on by the company.

Current CERP revenues could barely 'cover the transaction costs' associated with the merger, so they'll need access to greater funds in the near term, acknowledging the potential degree of share price collapse off a Persevereance 1 duster.

I'm not against BPC or CERP in their previous strategies and accepting the vastly different investment profiles associated with the respective companies - I'm against this 'hybrid mish mash' that has been thrust upon shareholders and confused risk parameters.

I'll be voting NO!

Btw, I haven't been actively 'trading' this - I've ALWAYS been positive on it!

Always!

It's changed now, imho and any strategy at significant derisking is redundant now with serious suppression on any upward price associated with the P1 drill, given the magnitude of new share issuance.

I dont want to rely on BB hype based on 'something up someone's sleeve'