Member Info for dougb189

After seeing sbrown’s earlier cheeky buy at 3.0 then left wondering if we perhaps have an MM who is ‘appily enough to then operate outside of JBER’s tightly controlled zone.

Can’t be that far off from starting an order book ?

There is still always a wee bit of inherent speculation Antha ! But thanks on the rec. Still quite a few known-unknowns (production levels / JV / dilutions) & known-knowns (workovers / GGS) to then ponder over but hopefully we have seen the last of the unknown-unknowns eg. further plumbing issues.

Reckon that there’s not much liquidity left in the stock & will take a week or so to then clear today’s 25M. Then expecting the MM’s to hit it hard, as per any illiquid stock. Keep some dry powder.

Borrowing any additional funding if it’s needed, is perhaps better if it comes from AM, rather than any additional bonds. I strongly suspect you really do not want to see the earlier Anavio offer of $7M cash, being raised from further bonds :

$7M cash from Anavio is then a principle of $8.75M and adds 44 bonds.

The next Conversion rate is then maybe c.3.5p / 4.4 cents ??

Currently 8.17c gives 2.447M shares per bond.

4.4c then gives 4.545M shares per bond & applies to All the 149 existing bonds:

(A) so a possible 677.27M shares from existing bonds,

IF the conversion rate gets changed to today’s VWAP.

$7M cash via Anavio & each bond, gives c.4,545,454 shares x 44 bonds.

(B) therefore another 200.0M shares

Plus the conversion fees c.$140K per bond / 4.4c at today’s VWAP,

giving 3.18M shares/bond, x (149 + 44)

(C) and hence another 614M shares.

(D) Plus today’s current tally 477M

(E) plus 140M of 6.75p warrants.

677.27M + 200.0M + 614M + 477M + 140M

A possible total of 2.108B shares in circulation for $7M of Anavio cash. Effectively Doubling the expected shares total, from the existing bonds, for $7M cash. As per earlier, all the bonds may not be converted but the MM’s will use those unconverted bonds as part of their mc equations.

Any further new bonds will reset the conversion rates. $1M or $7M. Further dilutions for the Pi, good news for Anavio IF the flow production increases & sentiment then returns. AM could well be extortionate but re-setting the conversion rates puts a very high figure on the outstanding shares.

Anavio pre agreed a possible further $7M in January.

When the sp was then at 16p.

When there was then decent liquidity in the stock.

Lol, but as a wild guess, I’m pretty sure, that metric has radically changed.

Would perhaps throw AM a wee bit of slack ; he is old school & does not do niceties. There is a big chasm between the cold brutality of old school & possible claims of criminal negligence.

There is no ‘day’ job Stas for this lowly mechanic. Work is mostly routine problem solving but then occasionally have to step up & so have been known for some fairly successful out-of-the-box ‘blue-sky thinking’… generally sorting stuff out. I think it comes from being fairly well grounded, also stepping back often & i try not to get too involved. Been a few years though since being approached / head-hunted by any overseas operators. Still enjoy the physical & mental games that occasionally crop up but find myself also enjoying more of those costa breakfasts. Lol.. When not getting emotionally corrupted by opaque financials.

Thanks also, Mr.T on highlighting the opaque finances.

The covering up of the fees now being paid for each bond conversion does not instil any confidence in the current or long term financial planning.

But one had the feeling (pre-costa) that it would not be toooo far fetched for Ryan to get the BH to pay for a new bloody kettle or as a down-deposit on AM’s next set of airborne wheels & at which point the conversion rates will again immediately get lowered, off the back of p!ss poor planning. Lol but post-costa and although the bitter after-taste of an RNS with ‘opaque financials’ is slightly watered down by the prospect of Phase 1 GGS coming online within the next two months, there is as ever with Ryan, a disconcerting feeling of yet another sucker punch arriving. A new office chiller perhaps for storing all those prairie ducks / grouse/ budgies.

“.. payments to the bond holders for previously converting bonds. It’s the exit fee of 19% and accrued interest on already converted bonds. Kind of like their bonus. It's nothing that is not already know.”

If it was indeed ‘nothing that is already known’ then WHY does COPL now not disclose the conversion fee for each bond ??

The figure of $140,000 paid as fees for previous bond conversion Q1 2023 is now no longer stated. The only statement is that the fee is tied into the 5-day VWAP.

Using your own criteria of ‘19% exit fee and accrued interest’, how then does a fee of $140,000 arise from a conversion of a $156,000 bond held for less than 12 months ??

Lol but lets see which way the wind blows. As the only known for next month is the hedge restarting. Thankfully though & AM’s received a $16M war-chest he can fall back on, courtesy of that property sale. God forbid we again have to go back to the BH & then reset the conversion rates for a fourth time. But that’s okay, the ramptastic crew will easily talk up “only another 1.5B more shares to go, & the production increase will be a game changer!!”

“… And if you knew copl, you'd know that eventually we are looking at just under a billion shares in total if they are converted in full compared to 477M currently…”

Absolute muppet who then fails to take into account the additional shares that are being created by these conversion fees.

So far this year and we know that $140k was being paid as fees for each bond, ie. for the BH converting their bonds into confetti. Confetti that they only paid $156K for, so each bond then only needs to clear $16K. Means they can sell as low as 0.5p.

$200,000 / 0.0817 = 2.447M shares per bond : $16K / 2.447M gives $0.0065 or 0.5p

Which will then very soon be £5, post 1000:1 consolidation.

Lol, but AM knew which way the wind was blowing when he screwed you lot for 1000:1.

Will be lucky if the existing bonds Plus their fees Plus the 140M 6.75p warrants, then sees us with 1.2B shares in circulation.

Ed, that’s similar to my interpretation, that there are overall very few actual shorters but that those participating are then covering fairly serious holdings with some exceptions: There are one or two peeps on here that I suspect are engaged but can be seen they are quite small players and hence easily agitated. Dear old Stas is just way too emotionally involved in his feuds against AM to have then shorted it.

As per my earlier thought, there is a disconnect with the LTH and their recognition of any risk assessment. Group psychology at work, I guess. Several of TW’s peers hold shorts but I’m guessing it’s not in the quantities that are being reported. Which then asks, who would hold shorts in the significant quantities that are being reported and it does rather point at one of the spreadbet firms.

FCA involvement ?! Lol, they are already involved and have been since the ambiguity was raised of the discrepancies between the Sedar reports and the RNS reports, earlier this year, where unfortunately the UK was again denied all relevant data with regard to Sedar’s updating of the various significant risks.

Lol but The ONLY disconnect surely is that there are not more investors shorting this ?! The board’s average age of 69 almost exactly matches the average mental ages as seen by the ramptastic crew ie. veterans who will all ‘appily go down with the ship ?!

There is a huge disconnect / complacency seen in the ramp posters inability to recognise the risk inherent in a board who’s communications & management skills do nothing for a London market, do nothing for any of their overseas investors (95% of the crew) & generally does nothing out-with of Sedar & so operates on a par last seen with the Titanic’s ‘she’s unsinkable …- - -…’ hence the ramp crew’s inability to vacate.

Did suggest to AM that he puts young Liz in the hot seat and that he concentrated on the mud-hound disciplines. Was quite a heartfelt reply suggesting that no one could have foreseen & hence done better. I agreed with him on the field disciplines but totally disagreed with him on the the coverage by COPL with the admin / PR disciplines which is a significant part of today’s business ethos. Needs a younger person with an understanding of modern PR practices in the hot seat. Or an angry hedge fund manager.

‘.. i own 1% of the company and art has blocked my emails - is this legal - might of told him what a **** ceo he was in a drunken rant - but anyone know any legal rights i might have….’

You squandered your legal rights. Then you resorted to a drunken rant. Your complacency in neglecting to address the current serious risk assessment directly tied to COPL was shown when you failed to use your legal rights in removing AM from the board. You could have voted. But you squandered it. So.. at least you enjoyed your drunken rant ! Lol.

Guessing that perhaps your name could as easily be Mr. Goozee & who recently entered a TR1 for 3.3% when the sp had dropped from 6p to 5.75p (“unfortunate timing”) now finds himself c.£200k down on the spread-bet portion of his investment (difficult position to hold, even for a robust millionaire) & soon to be contemplating the requirement of a 100% increase to get back his deposit.

3.16p will be the setting price to consolidate at Above 100:1 eg maybe at 1000:1. At today’s £/$ of 1.26 then below 3.16p and we have insufficient sp to meet the $4 US criteria.

Should the BH again be willing lend further funding then that will smash down through into the 2p region with a new level then being set for their conversion rates (initially $0.2001, then $15.83, then $0.0817, then….. ?). The suspicion is that AM now realises the BH are wary of the already large bag of confetti that they are still holding, hence AM’s need to raise the recent $16M war-chest from sale of a property. And there’s still a long summer ahead prior to any decent/ serious upgrades in production levels.

Thankfully a small handful of posters have totally driven the liquidity out of the stock which then leaves the BH holding that large bag of confetti. As No one now wants to buy. Perhaps it’s time that they now stepped up..

Mr.S., HL are refrained from informing on how individuals voted, as any nominee voting is always held such that the voters names are then not disclosed. That though is a separate issue to knowing the results of any block voting. If the error was then from the HL camp and IF there are then significant differences, the offer was made to then highlight any significant discrepancies between HL & AGM votes, by forwarding it to AM.

Entering any new markets with ‘clouded’ issues could then be a mistake.

As is the belief that consolidation will prevent the shorts from operating.

Perhaps then it is worth looking at when a 1000:1 might be utilised. And currently a 100:1 would elevate us to £4.00 / $5.00, so meeting the $4 threshold. The end of January estimate was that $15.7M was required to fund the development costs over next 12 months, for which 4 weeks later $11.7M was raised. Then leaves a shortfall. And a question mark as to another book-build (as per Mr.T’s recent thoughts) or further placings. And at which point we have likely dipped below the $4 threshold when using 100:1 hence COPL now have legal permission to go to 1000:1

Any significant numbers from HL, will then get passed on but now suspecting that there is a Lot of complacency. Lol, but still a few more barbies to go yet.

Trujack, I suspect that Hargreaves Lansdown very likely screwed up ; courtesy of the poor response that I received from them. I had to chase them quite hard around various offices and was then left with the half-promise of a reply next week.

I will now wait until I get feedback from HL as to the actual numbers that voted against the various resolutions. I’m starting to suspect a lot of apathy.

I’m intrigued at the number of Pi’s on here who are complacently posting that there is ‘no 1000:1 consolidation occurring as per the AGM statement’. It then points to a fairly significant percentage of Pi’s who have committed no due diligence & so are fairly ignorant of the risks involved. The fact that there was a verbal statement given at the AGM that there would be no 1000:1 consolidation raised means zilch, as it is now legally available to COPL should they so desire.

The suspicion now is that the complacency appears to be endemic ie the ratios For v Against of the missing votes, might indeed be the same as the ratios of the votes that were then delivered. Hence I am not going to be stirring anything just yet, including no further correspondence with the VP of CSE Listings & Regulations till I get a clearer picture of the voting percentages. As I explained to HL on the phone, i don’t believe there was a malicious intent with the votes not being received or sent, but that I suspected it was a hiccup through the data transfer server. IF the figures are then significant against the consolidation I would then ask AM to delete the resolution legally allowing 1000:1 & limit it at 100:1. The last thing COPL want is to list on a new market and a baying pack of hounds then descend complaining of improper regulatory compliance or similar ilk, which as seen here recently, is quite detrimental for liquidity. Hopefully we can work out an amicable solution for all.

Indeed Shouston no conspiracy. Lol. Or at least there wasn’t until R_Dunc then went off at a weird tangent mid-morning, muttering to himself ‘conspiracy, conspiracy!!’ but then quickly withdrew his wild theorems when rebutted by Stas..

1509., I phoned through to a lass on HL Investor Helpdesk who then compiled the anomalies that I reported and who then reassured me that this will be investigated early next week.

As per AM’s reply, there appears to be a ‘hiccup’ possibly being generated from HL with the votes not being correctly forwarded.

Would suggest that you contact HL to then again put more emphasis on their investigations.

Thanks Yankee., for me the tone matches what we have seen in the most recent AGM presentation, with its open & brutal honesty.

Does feel like there’s a wee bit of a step-change now appearing.

…. We are doing our best to work through them all, it has been no small task for our team. I suggest before you criticize you read them all over the past 18 months. Then ask yourself, what would I or anyone else do under the same circumstances. If you do this, I am more then willing to enter into a discussion with you and others.

Sincerely

==========

AM.

Thank you for your note. First, COPL has nothing to do with the voting process, the receipt or tabulation of the votes. Our part of the process is our law firm writes the Proxy and the Information Circular and sets the record date for the meeting. The materials are then forwarded to the Registrar/Trustee being ComputerShare Trust which undertakes the process of distributing the Proxies to the Registered Shareholders and the Nominees who are registered on behalf of the beneficial shareholders. It is up then to the Nominees to distribute the Proxy to the beneficial shareholders who vote the shares through the Nominee. The Nominee then forwards those votes back to Computershare for tabulation, which are then totaled and presented to the Company's Board at the AGM. The Company has no influence in the process. Computershare Trust has offices in the UK as well as the US and Canada. Your issue is not with the Company, or Computershare, it is with your Nominee.

In Canada, I receive Proxies directly from the Registrar/Trustee for shares as a Registered holder and Proxies Through them or an intermediary for those share held through a Nominee (held in a Brokerage account). All Proxies are received by mail either on the same day, or within two. If you have voted through a Nominee, then it is their obligation to forward those votes back to ComputerShare in our case. They cannot be counted if they are not received. Thus there have been no votes "accidently" mislaid, which in our case is a serious accusation and without any basis in fact.

In addition, the Company has no intention of doing a 1000:1 consolidation. I made this clear in the AGM.

As for your thoughts on other investors in the UK, there are others who's votes that may have suffered similar issues. They represent a much higher percentage and were supportive of the Company's proposal, thus not negative. The common denominator seems though to be Hargraves Lansdown. I suspect their back room does not process requests as directed by you as it costs them money which they cannot recover. In Canada and the US it is a legal regulatory requirement for them to do so, and is part of the fees administered to all Brokerage accounts. I would suggest in your and others cases, HL is collecting fees from you for services they are not undertaking as there is not legal or regulatory obligation in the UK for them to do so. Thus you need to dig deep.

As for your dissatisfaction with the Company's performance, I suggest you read all of our disclosure: Prospectus, Annual Information Form, Financial Statements & Notes, and MD&A. You will find the issues we have faced well disclosed in detail. We are doing our best to work through them all, it has been no small task for our team. I suggest before you criticize you read them all over the past 18 months. Then ask yourself, what would I or anyone else do under the same circumstances. If you do this, I am more then willing to enter into a discussion with you and othe

Received an open and quite direct reply from AM which reads well.

The offer is then made to enter into discussions with investors willing to engage.

As follows next.