Member Info for edgar222

I like Jamie Ashcroft at proactive and if it is a mistake it is an honest one. It is an article that is covering a number of different companies and future newsflow so you can see how a mistake could happen. I also think the Company would have had to RNS such news.

But I have been back to the roadmap RNS and have reminded myself that the full field development decision is "before the end" of 2022. Which to my mind is quite quickly after the CH1 drill (spudding "Q1 2022" though Scir talk of January). So I guess it depends what you are waiting for with Aminex. Have believed I am waiting for the CH1 results at least but full field development is that massive income stream to Aminex and is closer in time (relative to the CH1 drill).

(Still bunkered down. Still not sold a share. Still waiting for profits from elsewhere to buy more here.)

We are 5 hours ahead of the Bahamas.

Assuming the High Court sits there at 10.30am that is 3.30pm our time for a start time for oral argument.

So unlikely to get a decision before close of market tomight. But I would expect news prior to 8am tomorrow (UK time). The Court could announce a decision with judgment to follow or reserve judgment and hand it down later. The latter is the worst of all worlds as it is uncertainty (at least for those who think the outcome miht be uncertain).

CH1 well brought significantly forward according to proactive.

Or an honest mistake?

Pro

You have (finally) got my single point. Your source for many different further permission arguments is the media. The BPC announcement is (to a lawyer) unambiguous. The JR is over. The further hearing may be costs and ancillary matters (costs is a major issue) none of which means the JR is a live issue. What I am saying is commonplace and not controversial.

So for you and the media to be right (and you might be) the BPC announcement has to be materially and seriously wrong.

And the BPC announcement will have been checked by a lawyer.

So I dont know, there is a disconnect between media reporting and the official BPC announcement but I prefer the BPC news.

I am not going to say it again as this is about my 6th go and I am boring myself now. Its almost as if you domt want to hear/have an agenda.

Pro

Yes. But permission to apply for Judicial Review denied is the end of the judicial review.

So the further hearing may be sweeping up/costs etc. But the Judicial Review is over. IF the BPC announcement is accurate, and if it isn't someone is in trouble, which makes me think it is!

Here is the text of the announcement by BPC. Which I cannot find in RNS lists. Is that because the market was shut at the time? Anyway, if this text is correct then the Judicial Review is over. There may be further hearings about costs (but not necessarily judgment handown which can be done without attendance).

24 December 2020
Bahamas Petroleum Company plc
("BPC" or the "Company")
Outcome of Court Proceedings in The Bahamas – Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review
Denied
• An Application for leave to apply for a Judicial Review, brought against the Government of The
Bahamas in respect of BPC’s Environmental Authorisation, has been denied
• A request for a stay order (halt) to BPC’s drilling activities has also been denied
BPC advises that the Supreme Court of The Bahamas has issued a ruling refusing leave in relation to
an application for an extension of time to apply for Judicial Review of the decision by the Government
of The Bahamas to grant BPC Environmental Authorisation to proceed with the drilling of Perseverance
#1, and an associated stay of BPC’s activities. The Application was brought by environmental activists
against the Government of The Bahamas.
The Court has indicated that written reasons for thisruling will be provided on or around 29 December
2020, and that there will be a further hearing on that date. The precise nature of the further hearing
will be notified to the parties and BPC on 26 December 2020.
The ruling of the Court means that progress of drilling of the Perseverance #1 well in The Bahamas can
continue unimpeded. As previously advised drilling of the well commenced on 20 December 2020,
and is expected to be completed within 45-60 days of commencement, targeting P50 prospective oil
resources of 0.77 billion barrels, with an upside of 1.44 billion barrels.

Pro
Like I said before the two parts denied but more to come media reports are a direct contradiction to the RNS. Which suggests the Court case is over.

The wording of the BPC Rns means (to any lawyer) that the JR is over. Permission denied is the end of the line. Subject to appeal.

The media reporting of further hearings and issues still being live does not lie easily with that RNS.

I don't know which is right. I do know a lawyer will have approved the Rns wording but not the media write up.

Also, the argument that new permission is needed because of a change in ship is hopeless. That is subject to there being specific evidence that this particular ship is an environmental risk/danger. Which we know is not the case.

What price on opening after the JR fails to achieve permission to proceed?

Wow.

Clare Montgomery QC for BPC.

Top drawer.

Thanks Irish and to you.

I feel for everyone hurt by 2020. I have been lucky in work and in health so far. Had the disease in March. Felt terrible for 2 weeks. No hospital. I got off lightly.

Prosperous new year to you and LTHers. (I have not sold a share, am bunkered down and if I make any profits in some dabbles of mine they are coming to AEX. Dabbles are GWMO, TOM, BPC in case anyone is interested. UOG interesting too but do not yet hold).

I have found these difficult to work out. Please put me right if I have this wrong.

Greenfield is 50/50 Tomco and Valkor. Tomco need Valcor as they have the licence to the Petroteq technology for extracting oil.

The current work at Asphalt Ridge is not Tomco's oil or licence. But greenfield is operating the site for Petroteq.

So production from Asphalt Ridge does not go to Tomco (except for 50% of the operating fee).

The reason it is exciting is if the technology leading to production works then Greenfield will build a bigger (10k bopd) plant on Tomco's licence and that will be their production (shared with Valkor under the Greenfield agreement).

Add in today's news from Petroteq that the side product of the process is a valuable type of sand used in the industry and there is a second revenue stream to add to future oil production.

So as a Tomco shareholder I am hoping for proof of concept but not production, yet. The 10k bopd plant costs $185m to build but will produce $130m pa. (source proactive video interview from 12.10.20).

Tiny mcap and lots of exciting news coming is why I am here. I just like to know exactly what the Company I own part of actually owns. So if I am wrong on any of the above please say. I find the Tomco structures, agreements etc complex.

Shocking that they wont be given a court date. That is an emergency application for judicial review and interim relief.

They should be heard and then lose, in my view.

This is a clever move by BPC announced this morning.

The CERP assets are potentially incredible and to raise money for assessing them now, while excitement about P1 is high and the result is unknown, is clever. They would not be able to raise after a duster. And if it is a duster there is now a rescue route that is funded.

Flag

Check out s89(2) Finqncial Services Act 2012.

Posting on a bulletin board is not covered as part of a relevant agreement or exercising or refraining from exercising any rights.

And at least the Aminex farmout has an actual free carry not just the right to borrow ;)

We have a different definition of being on your knees, I think.

2TCF discovered (not reserves, GIIP from memory). Free carry to production income that is per year double the current mcap.

Wont say I am happy to wait more for Aminex but it is only going one way with (more) patience.

"Or, you could buy #pvr and possibly make money next week."

Down 34% on farmout confirmation, Buckler. Another "aim turd"?

X2 5m sells.

So far.

Been doing some reading from scratch and the structures and inter-relationships are not straightforward. Can I just set out what I think I have gleaned sommore knowledgable posters can correct me? With thanks in advance.

TomCo's value is the oil within their leases. The oil is in sands, bitumen/tar. New technology is being developed to efficiently extract the oil in a more cost effective and better environmental way than before. TomCo has no rights over that new technology, which is Petroteq's? Tomco has no deal with Petroteq but does have a deal with others to test and trial run petroteq's technology to see if it works. Greenfield is the name of the joint venture that is doing this and TomCo own 50% of Greenfield. Valkor own the other 50%.

I can see that the numbers of barrels of oil in the sands are truly eye watering. So if this works, or even might work, it would provoke substantial upside.

If the above is correct, my question is does Greenfield have any of the TomCo licence's or are they still held 100% by TomCo?

Thanks in advance