Member Info for CaptainSwag

i doubt there is any mileage in pursuing the CPR companies. they both used the data supplied by hur - and gave them the CPR that no doubt the company paid for. hur needed a good one to sell the FB idea and got it. the new hur had come up with a technical review with a massive downgrade and the CPR they paid for confirmed it.

there are enough disclaimers that basically the CPR is not responsible for anything other than being a piece of paper. if anything it is the CPR process that needs to be up before a judge!

i dont see anything drastically wrong with the initial CPR - lancaster has come up good relatively speaking - 11k barrels is still impressive. ok GWA was disappointing but there was still oil. more data was collected and the geology was revised. perfectly reasonable. the second CPR is acceptable for lancaster as that is where they got it from. my puzzlement is halifax where the initial promising oil samples suddenly became invalid and then this means that the oil has completely disappeared ? maybe this is completely feasible though it is somewhat convenient that it is now worth nothing just as the company is about to be given away. certainly food for any conspiracy theorists.

i can accept the geology - even if halifax doesnt quite sit right with me....it is the action of the bod since trice left that is unpalatable...

macadder- hur made it clear that further work was needed to prolong the production - this was always going to have to be paid for - either by raising the cash or JV etc. the first action should have come up with a plan and then sell it - approach stakeholders to see if they were willing to finance. If not then there should have been contact with major shareholdrs etc. if that failed then offer existing shareholders.

the transfer of the company over to the bondholders should have been the last possible option.
however on the face of it it doesnt look like it was

Awk - i think you would be very surprised about judges. I have a friend who was a civil servant managing a legal department and some of the things she has told me......lol

i suspect very much that everything will depend on if they are confronted with any viable options - at the moment there aren't.

mcadder - i think by now most people know both sides of the story. they should certainly read back through the posts and company rns before buying. i think it doesnt matter how many times you advise against it there will always be some people who think they are getting one over the market....and hey who knows something might happen ? however i share your view that this is a single ticket to 0.1p. after that - well i would be looking to possibly invest again

if they called an EGM anytime before court hearing could that postpone it? or does egm have to be announced by close of play tomorrow?
would CA be able to get into court hearing? to object?

foresight - you are right in that the geology is the key. you cant go against that. i think the risks were laid out before the drill - and i always thought the max risk was the first few months after AM started producing. with every month that went by and the oil production increased it seemed the risk lessened until december 2019 - when the price started to tank. there were warnings from posters etc but trice maintained his perched water theory and that results were better than expected. maybe he made a mistake , maybe it was deceit , maybe the geology in the future will show they just drilled in the wrong place - we probably will never know.

however when he was ousted there was the optimism that the new bod were in control of the situation - they knew what the geology was and how to maximise what was left. the oil is still being produced, oil prices have improved and even the water cut seems to behaving better (well 7 coming back online with no massive spike must be a plus). so it really looks like not putting a forward plan into action and drilling in the weather window has "killed" the company. the bod would have been more aware that this could happen than anyone else. they should have made a plan and tried to raise funds through minimum dilution in my opinion. maybe if desperate they could even have offered an open placing to the public - 100% dilution at $60 million market cap. it would have been painful but not like this

foresight - i think the complaint would be that a forward plan was not made by xmas as promised. without a definite plan it is of little surprise that funding could not be obtained. the trashing of the SP surely did not help either. those 3 months from september to december were pivotal - if the weather window was not to be missed. miss the weather window and this was always on the cards

maybe the board did their best but it certainly looks like they could not have done any worse if they had tried. serious questions marks on whether incompetence or dangerously competent

Well I don't take any enjoyment in being pretty much spot on with my 30% drop prediction yesterday.

Really sorry for anyone left holding.

Lol that sounds like my man!

Lol that sounds like my man!

mcadder - i agree if it goes to court i think it is a formality. the only question is if CA want to oust the bod before and need/want a certain percentage of the shares beforehand - that is the only way i could see serious buying. personally i hope it happens but feel it is unlikely

i predicted a max drop today of 30-50% yesterday. Currently at 31% so hopefully that is the worst it will be today.
end of the week? too early for a guess from me. it has got further to fall but the MMs will try to keep an orderly market.

if this goes to court then in my opinion it is a foregone conclusion. so we would ideally need to hear from CA by the end of the week? if they intend to replace board?

taverham - going to be interesting to see what happens. if the bod in anyway facilitated the "give away" then presumably they will be kept on? if the give away is as a rsult of their inaction or incompetence then surely they must go?

You cant blame the bondholders - they put a lot of money in and want to get as much as back as possible. if there has been no shenanigans and the giveaway is as a result of incompetence - Would you as a bond holder trust this bod to run the company?

mick - quite possible/probable that CA didn't know the company was about to be given away. it would seem to me that they bought as a statement that they didnt agree with the new CPR

yes. the ethics of it might not have been great - but then neither has this giveaway been.

levs - the system takes your money by making you buy higher than you sell - so that bit is actually quite predictable.

And of course the brokers and market makers take money on both the transactions

slift - it is a real shame they didn't do a placing - even better if they had done it before the downgrade in september and the subsequent trashing of the SP. A dilution by a doubling of shares seems like a blinding deal for shareholders compared to the giveaway.

incompetence or dangerous competence. guess if they keep their position after the restructure we will know

i dont think so. one the MMs like to keep an orderly market. they will want to cushion the ride down so as not to be left with a lot of shares they cant pass on.
secondly the restructure hasn't happened yet and still got a couple of weeks to go - should CA want to get involved. it is not quite the done deal
my guess would be 30- 50% drop max - could bounce a few times - but hey it is unchartered waters...hey might even be a buyer if CA or someone want to fight back?