Member Info for Cephalo

Thanks for posting your views Swizz. Suing the government under the ECT, and to reverse BOE in would be 2 bites of a very nice cherry. Given a successful claim now by LOGP, I suspect the government would think twice about reneging on the licence again if the LU decision is ever reversed. There’s a chance that they could be sued for a billion second time around. There’s a chance the government may see sense a reverse it before LOGP make their ect claim, but something tells me they won’t be savvy enough to do that, not with the current minister at least, who is so dogmatic he will put principle before business sense.

Clearly Boldy has given Ryan plenty of wriggle room, and enough rope to hang himself. Had he not given him time then the case would not be as robust. It is interesting to note that the UK plan to withdraw from the ECT, but recognising they have no choice but to honour contracts made up until next year. The ECT was drawn up to protect large investments, quite right. If the authorities extracted decades of revenue to line their own pockets, it isn't fair that they can simply break a legal contract without recourse. These contracts have to be honoured. I do hope that they take the Irish government to the cleaners. That government is in danger of becoming an authoritarian dystopia.

Beardozer, you have that wrong I am happy to say. It’s in your isa and that’s a tax free wrapper. The shares don’t get cancelled because of suspension

Spud, I think by granting the extensions for Predator and EOG, he has shot himself in both feet. It means the reason for rejection of Barryroe was squarely for financial reasons. He has shown the government are prepared to accept revenue for licences, with the exception of in circumstances where an oil or gas discovery is ready for production, and then they will try to apply unenforceable by-laws to cancel the licence. The industry is based on the premise that you raise finance after you are clearly in a position to need to do so - i.e. when you have proven reserves, and obviously a valid licence extension and a supportive government to attract and encourage such investment.

I would suggest it demonstrates that Ryan is prepared to accept revenue for the licence, up to the point at which a commercial discovery is made, at which point he would almost certainly put a blocker on development as he did with Barryroe. EOG have 2 years to make technical studies, then if they decide it's worthwhile they will need to apply to the renew for exploration and that probably means 3 years without Irish politicians committing to development and extraction. Who is more cynical therefore? Me or the Irish government?

Condolences Swizz. Bit of awaiting game here, to atone for all my sins perhaps

Just wishful thinking, but should LG want the whole caboodle, and the direct right to sue the government under the ECT, surely buying LOGP, and leaving them a net profit interest would be a neat solution. He would have LOGP’s losses as well, as an offset. BEY should really have been left with 18% rather than 5% to align them more proportionally to San Leon. It’s a ghastly irony they are left with only half a percent more.

Just for fun, what should he buy LOGP for? I would suggest 15-20p plus npi of 1.25% would be fair

The guy ought to be strung up for treason like in the good old days. I have an idea, LOGP sue him for the 300million, then lease home a ship connected to floating platform topping up the gas from Barryroe

I would love to see 1) Judicial Review from LG, 2) Concurrent litigation from LOGP, then 3) decision reversed/lease re-instated, Ryan prosecuted personal basis, damages awarded to LOGP as a result of litigation, representing lost time, costs and opportunity costs, followed by 4) Joint venture between LOGP and LG (LOGP using the proceeds of the litigation settlement) to develop Barryroe.

You declare the trade on a tax return as for any other trade for which you realise a loss. You are selling it for 0p. Then this loss carries forward and if you make a future capital gain you can offset all or part of it. Best wishes

JR can be done at the same time if LOGP decide to litigate, LG can do this in parallel. Alternatively LG and LOGP do a joint venture and both wait for Judicial review. I guess they could both litigate but I suspect the bigger picture is to develop Barryroe

Hi Makeabundle, I think if LOGP initiate litigation, then they are on that path and that would preclude them from participating in a joint venture with LG which may eventually include developing the oil and gas.

Part of me likes the idea of getting a big litigation payoff. A quick payoff is unlikely because Ryan will whinge his way out of it, and also it won't be as lucrative as the other options. With correct and water tight contracts you can do business with LG despite who he is, and take 20% of a new and interesting venture. You don't need to like a person to do business. People are too emotional about that, just as they are with people like Trump for example.

Sadly, BEY holders have been squeezed out of the opportunity, though I do believe oil and gas will eventually be developed when common sense prevails. With a combined litigation effort, or field development, BEY holders will eventually share 5% consolation prize.

The smart move would be to buy LOGP while they are this price, but please everyone do their own research and make your own decisions. I have been on the wrong side of this for the last 10 years, however I did make money on LOGP until 2012, and I will hold for either litigation award, compensation or field development. I can't see Boldy and his board turning over shareholders, I have always had a hunch after meeting and speaking with them several times that they are okay.

Thanks to Tommy for this link posted on EOG

hTTps://twitter.com/offshoreireland/status/1721497153669861471?s=46&t=yb4bY8lQ32WiMrlMFx8_yQ

Thanks to Tommy for this link posted on EOG

hTTps://twitter.com/offshoreireland/status/1721497153669861471?s=46&t=yb4bY8lQ32WiMrlMFx8_yQ

LOGP can 1) participate in a new venture with LG, or 2) litigate for compensation , or 3) come to an arrangement for compensation with Ryan’s government. If a new venture precludes the reversal of the LU, they couldn’t both litigate and participate. If the new venture involves a reversal in some shape or form, they won’t have grounds to litigate. I would have thought they revert. If they get compensation offered, or they litigate, they are out of any involvement for good, and it’s case closed for LOGP and one would hope they distribute the funds to shareholders and shut up shop.

If discussions are to offer nominal compensation, or dangling carrots, ie no immediate prospect of a reversal of the LU (as per Swizz’s last point), they shouldn’t hesitate to start the litigation process. Unless to consider the new plans over the SEL 1/11 licence area.

The intriguing question is, why is LG acquiring SEL 1/11? If it’s just for the tax losses, and no LU reversal. Losses have to be offset in kind, so there’s no point acquiring them unless significant revenue can be generated in a similar venture. Which begs the question - what is of significant value to make it worth his while? I would guess that it’s not for the prospect of a really expensive green energy research and development, there’s no money in that at all, just pouring money into a bottomless pit. I would guess that he has an eye on extracting oil and gas from Barryroe

I would have thought then the court may take the view that the obvious objection by all shareholders means they either that they up the percentage to a more reasonable 20% or they point out that without LG there would be nothing, except that had BEY been reverse taken over by LOGP then all shareholders would have had recourse to litigation under the ECT.

If this examinership proposal is accepted, BEY won't have access to litigation, and LOGP will have either litigation option or maybe a 20% in this as a joint venture. BEY 5% of 80% being 4%. If LOGP get a free carry they go from being a 1/5 to a 4/5 relative to BEY.

If ever a future government change their tune and allow the development of the oil field, then BEY shareholders get net profit (?) of any development with zero outlay

Let's hope that LOGP don't get drawn into anymore of Ryan's time delay tactics. I would instigate litigation the day after the 3 month deadline passed if they haven't come back with more than a cursory 'Let's talk'

..that doesn’t include gas;

Value of Barryroe

As has been demonstrated on many occasions, Barryroe contains significant quantities of oil and gas with the potential to deliver much needed energy security for Ireland and great value for all stakeholders.

Lansdowne has invested c. $20 million in the Barryroe project to date and the results of the Competent Person Report carried out by RPS ("RPS CPR") announced in February 2022, addressing simply the first phase of a Barryroe development and solely the Basal Wealden Oil reservoir, concluded that the P50 volumes were estimated at 81.2 million barrels of oil recoverable gross (16.24 million barrels net to Lansdowne) from a Best Estimate of 278 million barrels of oil in place (STOIIP).

An economic evaluation, documented in the RPS CPR, covering the proposed Phase 1 development (Phase 1A and 1B) and in the 2C oil resources case, delivers an NPV10% for Lansdowne's 20% share of $104 million under a Brent Oil Price assumption of US$68 per barrel in 2027, rising to $70/bbl in 2028 and 2029 and inflated at 2% per annum thereafter.

As stated before, the RPS CPR has only addressed the oil in the Basal Wealden A Sand, which allows it to be correlated to the earlier work carried out by Netherland Sewell and Associates Incorporated ("NSAI").

Gas was proven in the Basal Wealden C Sand reservoir in the 48/24-10z well that overlays the oil reservoir and this has previously been estimated to hold a potential gas resource of c 400 BCF GIIP. Lansdowne believes this significant gas resource could make a vitally important contribution to Ireland's energy mix as it transitions to a zero net carbon economy and it is anticipated that any future phased development programme will include consideration of this important gas resource.

My ball park number. Here’s what I could find, I thought I saw a figure somewhere they’re aiming for with litigation but can’t seem to find it.

“ An economic evaluation, documented in the RPS CPR, covering the Phase 1 development and in the 2C oil resources case, delivers an NPV10% for Lansdowne's 20% share of $104 million under a Brent Oil Price assumption of US$68 per barrel in 2027, rising to $70/barrel (bbl) in 2028 and 2029 and inflated at 2% per annum thereafter. As stated before, the RPS CPR has only addressed the oil in the Basal Wealden A Sand, which allows it to be correlated to the earlier work carried out by Netherland Sewell and Associates Inc. ("NSAI").”

Decision (auto corrected to Deck on)

Disclosure- I only hold LOGP, and in my post about meeting the board, I refer to LOGP board. I briefly held PVR but for a matter of days, preferring LOGP all along, which turns out to be a good thing currently it seems.