Member Info for Fastfood

It’s Official. The Bondholders have it !! The Bondholders have it …

Well Daniel. You seem to display a higher level of intelligence than previous. Thank you for reply. The Hedge is not restrictive re any development beyond the 948 and indeed is completely eliminated come date of expiry March 2024 then ?

Good evening God bless.

Daniel. Everyone on here knows what I expect the GGS to deliver Q4 and it isn’t zero.

So Pilot / the hedge is only for first 948bopd. So everything over this is freedom WTI ?? If so I can more than live with that.

Please confirm and I can go sleep in my coffin. Thank you.

Daniel is multi moniker. ATB.

Thank you Pilot I will look into it. We cannot go forward with a Hedge in the low 50’s. Ridiculous but Art signed it and probably no better deal ant the time (Nightmare Re visited). Can see now why Art desperado to book Reserves and resolve RBL.

The Senior Lender wants to mitigate Risk to an extent that they’ve basically got first 5 numbers in the lottery. They’re already on the beach with they’re deal with Art / Copl.

Daniel. With respect / you are the lad who thinks Fed Deep has already been fully Appraised. Unless you have multi moniker because last time you spoke you were it was like a scene out of The Exorcist.

I’m after some real detail about the hedge. I believe it was a fundamental part of the SCF (Insurance Policy for Senior Lender) but could be wrong ?

Devilboy. I am of the thinking that the $52 a barrel hedge is in place so long as the Senior Credit Facility is active ?

Anyone anymore detail re Terms of this hedge ?

Unnd / But the Bondholder(s) are pushing SP down with flooding of Shares upon converting.

That aside / What I was saying was that the Bondholder(s) want that GGS to perform as Art promised. If it does they surely Stop converting because 13%PA retained and prospect of higher SP due to Stop converting and GGS Proven. So it’s a race to get that GGS performing and then Bondholder(s) will have de risked their own Investment and thus retain the 13% per Bond as then it should be Stick on No Risk due to increasing Production.

Yes ?

Doesn’t matter if you have 40m barrels of reserves if you cannot demonstrate a profitable route to Market. Jadestone £400m Revenue per Annum. I think as part of their RBL (Bermuda Banks ? Unnamed) they had to keep minimum cash level and as I’ve said £100m at Bank each of last 5yr. I think carrying £500m of debt so yes every situation different BUT you have to have a Profitable route to Market. This supersedes Reserves every time.

Tiburn. I understand that now much better. A genuine Thank you. V Helpful.

I still maintain that RBL’s Terms not easy to come by. Jadestone Energy obtained RBL with strong 5 year Track record and £100m cash in bank each of last 5 years. But they had to raise part by Equity as part of the deal / so the Banks only met them half way to their borrowing requirements.

So RBL for Copl is not straight forward imo / Not until Field de risked. Not just about Reserves. Just my opinion.

Unnd / Sorry to trouble you. One last Q.

The Bonds taken out pay the Bondholder 13% PA. So if Copl can de risk the field ie : Increase Production to say 2000bopd immediately and then onto 2500 etc and achieve consistent output / Then the Bondholder(s) may be less likely to forego their 13% PA ?

It’s a race to de risk this GGS and in the meantime Bondholder(s) are hedging their Investment ? So by definition / The Bondholder(s) are ensuring Art delivers on time or else !!

Have I got that right ??

Unnd and Dougb know their stuff. You have my full respect. BB needs people like this.

Unnd or Devilboy. Is there any reason that the Bondholder(s) would actually Stop converting in immediate future ??

Unnd. I think you’re right. SP is firmly in the hands of the Bondholder, thus Converting or Not converting.

Https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/05/22/wyoming-may-be-in-the-running-for-a-new-14-billion-petroleum-refinery/

Https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=29&t=6

Apparently Wyoming are one of 3 States being considered for New Refinery. Not seen on this scale since the 1970’s. US have added Capacity to existing Refineries but no large scale developments. Ultimately lower Gas and Oil prices and processing costs aid lower inflation. Current US infrastructure needs an upgrade.

Whoever has Best Investment decision will get said Refinery.

This could be contributing factor to JV delay imo.

Https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/OLeary-Looks-For-A-US-State-To-Host-His-14-Billion-Refinery.html

Https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/news-releases/2023/0316_exxonmobil-boosts-fuel-supply-with-2-billion-dollar-beaumont-refinery-expansion

Pilot. Art said 120 Wells each producing 2000bopd so one might say 100.000bopd is conservative even by Art’s standards. Unless he’s Pinocchio ?

It is a worthwhile Q that needs raising. How do you get that oil to Market and what infrastructure costs (Wells aside) will that involve ? It’s a massive investment imo re infrastructure. Refinery being one of them. But Art only Sells PI part of the story (The Good stuff ie 120 Wells) I think this maybe a reason why JV taking so long. Awaiting Oil Major signing of Total Cost of Investment to get Oil to Market.

I think this bb should discuss rather than dismiss. It’s completely relevant. But up to this bb if wish to factor in to decision making..

Pilot. If you are going to produce 100.000bopd how are you going to get that to Market ? On Trucks ? Not exactly environmentally friendly is it ? You are going to need Refinery Capacity on site to cater for that scale. 100.000bopd x 365 = 36 million barrels per annum.

Not exactly but it’s not Top 10 ? If FD is 100.000bopd then it puts them in Top 3 ? It’s not difficult to find out. Your Point Pilot ?