Member Info for Cephalo

Makeabundle, I am not popping corks because I have now been here in and out for 11 years, I made money on it in the first instance when they affirmed the discovery in 2012. Since then I have found myself averaging down, and it’s been in the bottom drawer. I am here because I have met and chatted with Steve boldly, and members of the board several times over the years. The main let down was PVR management who got greedy and decided to try and prove up an exploration portfolio in the North Atlantic margin with a view to selling the company when a few discoveries equal or better than Barryroe were in the bag. PVR said that they never intended to become a production company, which is why this hubris was allowed to continue, and they never intended therefore to develop Barryroe. Logp have had good investors over the years, and probably watched in dismay, only to have the whole debacle compounded by the emergence of a woke climate emergency fascist arrsehole call Eamon Ryan finally pull the rug out. It’s lunacy when you consider the lost opportunity for local jobs and revenue for the exchequer. However, should bey become a green energy (transition) company, and have the deck on reversed on Barryroe, then it’s win win for the environmentalists and investors in the original companies here.

As far as value goes, I have no real idea, except to say that LOGP are looking for 110 million which equates to 10p per share of Logp. That’s the value of existing and proven resources. What is not included in that valuation are the lost opportunity of further appraisal and drilling into the high pressure Jurassic sands below the current discovery, and further proving up of oil and gas in any other compartments, and horizontal drilling to perhaps increase the P2 volumes of oil in place further.

If they are able to reverse takeover BEY, who is to know whether the litigation lawyers won’t be looking for half a billion in damages.

All in all, the whole licence if developed and fully appraised, would make Logp worth multiples of 10p per share. What the main investors would accept next month would not be just enough to cover their costs. By now with their own averaging down the big investors must still have averages of 2 to 3p per share at a guess (LOGP). Would I accept 2-3p? If that was a finality. I won’t be complaining. However, I feel there’s a lot more to this tale to come. Meanwhile I will leave them in the bottom drawer and not lose any sleep despite being down.

I can envisage Logp making a lot of money from the ECT route. Should bey reverse into Logp, you can add the 200 million cost of past operations to offset against future earnings. Helvick hasn’t been mentioned but that is still part of Exola I think, or at least within the two companies. Gas extraction from Barryroe constitutes part of a green energy transition. Whichever way you look at it, ECT route or license resurrection, Logp is in a sparkling position in the case where litigation lawyers are queuing, AND where LG is there in the background supporting the case for Barryroe - either for JR or costs offset and future business plan. Logp could call it quits after an ECT win, because they would be cash rich, but as part of a new BEY, it would put them in the driving seat, whether or not they have a free carry on costs.

Looks like all the shares you dumped last week are being picked up Mamms

Well mamms, you cashed out. Hence you support that outlook. Time will tell.

Anyway, in summary it would seem best for a positive result to occur with judicial review, leading to re-instatement of the licence. This would be the common sense practical solution for a country short on indigenous resources, who wish to transition over a realistic time frame to alternative energy sources without importing everything and ignoring low hanging fruit.

It would also mean the company can mature into a green fingered one, using profit to invest in alternative energy.

That would leave LOGP in a fabulous position, with a possible uplift in ownership proportion for existing LOGP shareholders, plus with 100% of the licence protected by the ECT in the event of similar future shenanigans, for minimum half a billion gbp for current resources alone.

The fanciful view is that the government will hand over £110 million now in arbitration, when actually they are too childish and scared to reply to a single communication from the company. It would not be difficult for LOGP to remain a going concern by raising £6 million. It would be quite easy to raise this sort of money with a view to the value of the outcome of litigation.

However, with this pathway LOGP would be bowing out of future involvement, and their part of the licence along with BEY’s would be assumed to no longer exist. BEY’s best interests are as Swizz suggests, served where the licence is re-instated, but with the protection of the ECT in a new vehicle.

*deck on* =decision

Should Barryroe reverse into LOGP, I wonder what value claim LOGP would be able to make under the ECT(?)

Assuming it creates a proportional valuation, then LOGP would be looking at half a billion GBP in damages, recompense and lost earnings, instead of circa£110 million.

If this is the case, it’s going to be explosive news. Personally I would like to see Eamon Ryan sued on a personal level, as he has knowingly and maliciously set about to cause financial harm to thousands of individuals who have invested here.

In the event the valuation of a litigation claim in a combined vehicle is less for the BEY 80%, portion due to it starting outside of the ECT, it will still make for a substantially enlarged claim I would imagine. If the reverse into LOGP, there has to be some kind of valuation upgrade for LOGP for carrying the can in my opinion. I would like to think that the LOGP shareholder resultant proportion of the enlarged vehicle would be increased from 20% to something like 40%. However, on the other hand, LOGP need the reverse takeover to be a going concern without raising £6million and diluting. I still think there is quite a bit more value to come out of litigation than the initial claim by LOGP. That said, if the JR forces the deck on to revoke the licence to be reversed, any further move to cancel the licence WILL mean a value of more than half a billion GBP in litigation.

It’s pretty intriguing, but now I have talked my way through this I am of the view that if JR reverses the decision, it leaves LOGP in an outstanding position, and better off than before.

If the government pay the £110 million in arbitration, or even half of it, it’s also very good, but less useful for BEY shareholders as they will be able to retain their portion of the licence going forward but not be part of the ECT and therefore subject to the same risk going forward. I have averaged down, holding only LOGP.

Well said flashgarden. Swizz, thanks for your interesting updates. The only thing that seems slightly wrong is where is states “ based on a report by external consultants EY and an internal review by the department’s own financial adviser, they did not meet the investment cover criterion set down by law. ” So firstly, it was not law, it was a by-law or regulation stipulated by the department, wasn’t it? Secondly, the permission given for the licence without financial cover implies they are willing to play along and take the licence fees until the point where things get practical, but it set the precedent that you don’t need to meet financial requirements for drilling if you are sitting at a desk planning it.

Am I missing something? Irish logic isn’t one of my strong points.

Child Ryan will have noted this, and he will be thinking like a simpleton as follows, that the UK will supply all Ireland's needs. What a complete bigot

Exola still holds the licence, albeit expired. It carries the tax write off and still carries the licence for Barryroe and Helvick which is still active/under consideration. If the decision by Ryan is overturned for being illegal in LOGP's legal action, or ultra vires it means BEY own 80% of the licence still.

No-one seems to be offloading shares, and mostly some steady buys each day.

Sometimes the MM will take stock at higher than the bid, if they want some, but a large trade like that would probably not be given a premium in the slightly saturated current market.

8p after a settlement of at least 100 million pounds and 20% litigation expenses seems about right, with a billion or so shares in issue. I think the large investors would want to clear 7p, depending upon whether or not they averaged down from that level, which they were at for some time until more recent raises. Who knows, we know the worst outcome and teetering in the balance, so..

It’s not the institutions or large holders who have the decision to draw down the money, it’s bey management. Also, at current prices, they only stand to double their money if the share price holds at 3cents when the shares dribble onto the market. And it will be less if they all offload the holding straight to the open market. Your average debt for equity swap will probably see the shares being sold on the open market for 10 or 20 percentage points, I.e 2 cents. You see, it’s only the 10% coupon that’s nominal value shares. So, it won’t be a wipeout in this worst case, because they won’t be able to recoup their money if everything is dumped on the market. And even if done slowly over the course of one year, value will out when Barryroe is finally appraised. I doubt all current large holders will take a slice just to match or save their current holdings, then press management to pull the trigger. But even if they do draw down, again it’s no forgone conclusion.

“Between them they own more than 50% of BEY so would be able to ram this through at an EGM. Retail shareholders won't be able to do anything about the move”
By the same logic, why would they dilute their own 50% which represents millions in past investments at higher prices too? LC capital master fund and Brandon hill capital have backed shareholders in Logp for years and will also expect a return many multiples of the current share price on their current investment.

Noting that “ The Company has agreed to grant Vevan the right to subscribe in cash at a consideration per share equal to the nominal value thereof (being EUR0.001 per ordinary share) for 107,186,000 ordinary shares (representing approximately 10% of the issued share capital of the Company) “ plus an additional 6 million or so subject to shareholder approval, it makes a great investment case for an institution to take a share of that 10%, even if none of the loan is also converted.

Should a farm in partner make additional investment into a wider work program than the one required to acquire the lease undertaking, another source of funding may appear. If the loan notes are dripped into the market at 0.015€, the market is likely to provide a steady exit at €0.03 allowing the Vevan investment to double for a quick exit. And far more if a farm out occurs. I suspect however, that just as GKP dripped it’s seda convertible shares into the market at 11p until they were offloaded for a 20% rake, the share price will suddenly be far greater despite the dilution when the work program becomes a reality. And unlike the seda agreement, Larry is a private investor who is not in the business of making a few percent, I suspect he views an exit of 5 fold.

It’s no accident this propaganda. Worth reading an article in the Spectator magazine January 2022 World Edition about the coming of Neo Feaudalism. A few quotes..

“ Climate-change policies could nurture the new autocracy for a
generation. As tech oligarchs and the financial establishment
implement the Davos notion of a Great Reset, they will force a quick
end to fossil fuels. There are huge opportunities for massive
investment by super-rich companies and speculators in the ‘green
economy,’ all made possible with tax breaks, loans and guaranteed
sales to governmental units.”
“ The leaders of woke capitalism have signed onto a pledge to defund
fossil fuels in the great quest for Net Zero. This is not, as the
wacko right and the wacko left might think, a conscious conspiracy.
Instead, it is propelled by tech firms’ natural desire for profits
derived from replacing the carbon-spewing analog world wherever
possible, and the irresistible lure for investors and corporations of
a huge, subsidised and government-financed market.
Most tech and finance executives are not ideologues. Nor are they,
despite appearances, sociopaths. Yet they feel justified in censoring
and even demonetising not just Donald Trump or the New York Post or
Bari Weiss, but also the credentialed experts whose views diverge from
the accepted line for staffers at Google, Facebook and Twitter,
organisations where woke instruction is increasingly imposed. Many firms espouse woke ideas, says Jim Wunderman,
president of the Bay Area Council, because they are ‘afraid of their
own employees.’
In practice this often means eliminating conservative opinions — and
not just views from the crazy fringe, according to former employees.
Academic experts such as Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, with somewhat
contrarian takes on climate, are routinely ignored, attacked and
marginalised. Sceptics like the long-time environmentalist Mike
Shellenberger, the Obama advisor Steven Koonin and the ‘sceptical
environmentalist’ Bjorn Lomborg are largely consigned to the
social-media memory hole for detailing the environmentalists’ record
of exaggeration, hyperbolic projections and immiserating policies.”
“ John Kerry, president Biden’s chief climate scold
and beneficiary of an heiress’s fortune, travels on a private jet that
use thirty times the energy of the average American vehicle.
That’s fine. The anointed purchase ‘environmental offsets’: a green
version of indulgences. This may make them feel better about their
vast wealth and excesses, just as it did for the murderous and corrupt
aristocrats of old. Still, many are also making preparations against a
potential peasant’s revolt — just in case. This includes using private
security, building bunkers”
“ We are trying to impose a
green economy that we don’t have the technology or even the
electricity to power. This will force some countries to return to coal”

So Logp could do a reverse takeover perhaps to facilitate this?

I don’t know about Ireland, because I haven’t worked there since may last year. However, if the UK is anything to go by we are on a race to the bottom in every conceivable way. It’s the woke left wing agenda, started by the US and executed via social media particularly pre-Musk Twitter. If you don’t agree with the lunacy conceived under the fog of covid, you will be cancelled, hence anyone’s reluctance to do anything logical. We are run by Nazis in all but name.

Mamms, your wording actually misrepresents.
Here is what was actually said by Logp
The deadline set by DECC at 21 November 2022, creates an unrealistic timetable for the partnership. This timeline is particularly frustrating given the report on the financial capability of the applicants (Providence/Barryroe Offshore and Lansdowne) was completed in June 2022, but it was not until late October 2022 that the Barryroe Joint Venture partners were notified.
Lansdowne intends to consult with its shareholders and other financial stakeholders to assess compliance with the new Financial Guidelines introduced in 2019 by DECC. In parallel, Lansdowne will work with counsel to review the approach taken by DECC and determine the available alternatives to protect the Company's rights and the significant investment of its shareholders since 2011.

That’s not what they said mamms, you are wording it your own way, so here is what was actually said..
The deadline set by DECC at 21 November 2022, creates an unrealistic timetable for the partnership. This timeline is particularly frustrating given the report on the financial capability of the applicants (Providence/Barryroe Offshore and Lansdowne) was completed in June 2022, but it was not until late October 2022 that the Barryroe Joint Venture partners were notified.
Lansdowne intends to consult with its shareholders and other financial stakeholders to assess compliance with the new Financial Guidelines introduced in 2019 by DECC. In parallel, Lansdowne will work with counsel to review the approach taken by DECC and determine the available alternatives to protect the Company's rights and the significant investment of its shareholders since 2011.