Member Info for Cheddars

Hi Catiche,
Re yours of 18:43 yesterday.
I am sure you are right about Rolls Royce - I am also sure that Boeing and Airbus will be working with GE and Pratt & Whitney too. All interesting stuff!

Kenny100 posted - Hydrogen Aircraft Market to Reach $174.02 Bn, Globally, by 2040 at 20.20% CAGR: Allied Market Research - earlier.
I just spotted this in an aviation industry news sheet:
Boeing commits to deliver commercial airplanes ready to fly on 100% Sustainable Fuels
Boeing is setting an ambitious target to advance the long-term sustainability of commercial aviation, committing that its commercial airplanes are capable and certified to fly on 100% sustainable aviation fuels by 2030. Boeing has previously conducted successful test flights replacing petroleum jet fuel with 100% sustainable fuels to address the urgent challenge of climate change.

First post on the PHE board although I have held shares for a number of years. I spotted this press release on LinkedIn earlier today - hope you find it interesting.

Arena Aviation Capital is proud to announce that the company engaged in a partnership agreement with AeroDelft to support the team in developing the world’s first liquid hydrogen-powered aircraft. Also known as Project Phoenix.

According to AeroDelft’s ambitious timeline, a full-scale gaseous hydrogen-powered aircraft is set to fly in 2022 followed by its liquid hydrogen successor in 2024. If successful, the project would be a huge step towards hydrogen-powered commercial flight.

v2cola - What is there to say, apart from to extend sympathies to those sitting on hefty losses and a finger to those who ramped this share unmercifully without any appreciation of risk or regard to common sense.

My comments are giving my thoughts on what I see as stupidly optimistic posts. My sympathies go to those sitting on a loss, and if you don’t like it Mortoncj01 I suggest you look the other way!

Tilburn - this is all very interesting but as PET said in their RNS dated 3 April ".............. as soon as the signed Petroleum Agreement is ratified, and subject to securing the necessary funding." And who is going to lend to or invest in PET with such a dispute involving a major, possibly majority, shareholder?

On 3 April Alliance News reported: Petrel Resources PLC on Friday said it has not been able to finalise the second tranche of shares in its Tamraz group agreement as a result of "changed circumstances" due to Covid-19 and a volatile oil price.
Petrel also said the Tamraz group will maintain its current 32.1 million Petrel shares.
The high court injunction over the 32.1 million shares is to remain in place until "outstanding matters" have been resolved to the Dublin High Court's satisfaction.
Make of that what you will!

Onassis - Where is this reported?

mikebassetts - Very difficult to say, I have had a quick look at the schedule for the Dublin High Court but can't see a date for the next hearing. This is going to take a very long time, in my view.

I can't see that the BoD can say anything meaningful until the legal process has run its course. Or how a new BoD could be appointed whilst the identity of a major, or indeed the majority shareholder, remains in dispute.

Manabouttown - So if you replace the BoD tomorrow with the Tamraz group and then next Monday find out that the Tamraz group are in breach of the Lock-In Agreement what happens then?
As I have tried to explain to you, nothing can happen until the legal issue has been resolved.
I suggest that you read the RNS's for the full picture. This has a l-o-n-g way to go yet, in my view!

Manabouttown - I am not sure that your idea of replacing the BoD is a particularly good one, what would happen if the court found in favour of EYCP LLC?

Manabottown - Once again I think you are wrong. Quite rightly the PET BoD want to know what has gone on with the shares, That question is now up to the court to decide upon and is not something that can be agreed between the Tamraz group and PET.
Secondly you don't seem to understand what the Tamraz group is saying about acquisitions and the issue of new shares to pay for it. I suggest that you read up on it before your holding is diluted beyond all recognition.

betablet - If the owner of the $100m asset accepts shares in PET in settlement he will end up owning 90%+ of PET.
I suggest that you read the RNS's to gain a clear understanding of what is happening here. The Tamraz group are / were looking to acquire 51% but then go on to say that new acquisitions would be paid for by issuing new shares in PET. The Tamraz group will then need to purchase an equal number of shares in order to maintain their 51% control. Whichever way it goes it seems clear to me that existing shareholders are going to be diluted to next to nothing.
Manabottown - if you really know what is going on perhaps you can explain how this pigs ear is going to be turned into a silk purse!

Manabouttown - Acquisition of a £100m asset will require the issue of £100m worth of PET shares - It will need to be quite a deal to attract that level of investment as I am sure you will agree. And a share price of 20p would give you a market cap of over £400m, it simply isn't going to happen.

Comment on the arbitration by the board of Frontera must follow by RNS.
Awax - is this correct, FFR is no longer a quoted company so probably not bound by the same rules?

Sadly it's gone well beyond a simple sort out between PET and the Tamraz group, the shares are subject to a High Court injunction.

Mikebassetts - I think a lot of people got carried away thinking that the assets would be gifted to PET by the Tamraz group, fortunately that has been clarified in the most recent RNS - "The Tamraz Group continues to work on possible investment proposals / deals to be presented to Petrel Resources plc. Should any of these proceed, it is envisaged that payment will be in the form of Petrel shares."

Hi Sampson - Reference to Ghana is made in the most recent RNS. For me the most interesting quote, lifted from the release, is "We are ready to initiate the Tano 2A work programme (as previously referred to in the Company's announcements), as soon as the signed Petroleum Agreement is ratified, and subject to securing the necessary funding."
It now comes full circle, in my view - who is going to lend or invest here until the the Tamraz situation is resolved, after all we are talking about a potential majority shareholding here!

Mikebassetts - I think you'll find that the Tamraz group CAN'T leave the building because of the mess with the shares already issued.
The RNS also states that any progress in Ghana is subject to securing the necessary funding which is being made more difficult by the share mess, I would imagine - why would anyone lend to PET whilst the share structure, which could result in a change in the majority ownership, is in dispute?