Member Info for HeidHoncho

the BoD significantly underestimated the power wielded by their “second hand” shareholders.

Much in the same way that they significantly over estimated their skill set suitability in their ability to adequately run a business.

They should have stuck to what they know, testing laboratory mice.

IMHO

Keep an eye on the buys and/or sells, that will tell you how the vote went ;-)

Fredd, chin up, I think we are far from defeated yet.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/283

rhd1, I fear you may be overlooking a critical point, that being one that I made in my post of earlier this morning.

No voters are No voters, but those who do not vote No are not necessarily Yes voters.

The resolutions are passed or otherwise on the percentage of votes cast on a resolution, not on the total of voting rights possible.

No voters, by their actions, are active voters.

People who do not vote No are not necessarily Yes voters, as a significant percentage of those are potentially either apathetic to the vote (i.e. will not vote, and cannot be claimed to be for the resolution to be passed voters), and there is likely to be a significant number of passive investors who do not actively review their shareholding (as such, may not be aware that a vote is even taking place, and will consequently not be voting in favour of passing the resolutions).

I think your assumption that were only a few hundred million votes cast against a resolution likely to make it fail then you may be seriously underestimating how close the vote may be.

IMHO

Well, it looks like no one picked me up on my challenge to research what democracy equated to when it comes to votes cast, so I will ease any concerns prior to the vote occurring by giving my opinion below.

When estimating whether your vote will count for much prior to voting perhaps the following snippets may be of help to you should you fear that your vote may not carry enough weight to swing things.

1) It is the percentage of votes cast, and not the number of shares available to be cast that matters.
i.e. if there were 1,000,000 shares that carried a vote in issuance, and all of them voted, yet only 260,000 voted against a standard resolution, then the resolution would be passed.
However, not everyone will vote, as a number will be either apathetic towards the vote or just weren’t aware of the vote (a number of investors are passive, and don’t actively follow their shares), and in that instance if the same number of shares were cast against a standard resolution as above, yet only 500,000 of the total voting rights shares were ultimately cast, then that standard resolution would fail to be passed, even though that 260,000 votes was only 26% of the total voting rights of the shareholders.

2) What is critical to also understand is the % of votes cast that are required to defeat a resolution.
There are 2 types of resolution, standard and special.
Standard resolutions require 50% of the votes cast (note. votes cast, not total voting rights) to be against a standard resolution for it not to be passed, but Special resolutions require only 25% of the votes cast (same disclaimer as above) to be against a special resolution for it not to be passed.
i.e. using the same voting intent example as in 1) above, in the instance of a special resolution, it would only take 125,001 of the total votes cast to be against the resolution for that special resolution not to be passed.

3) at this GM the first 2 resolutions (consolidation resolution, and authority to issue 100% more shares) are standard resolutions, whilst the 3rd resolution (pre-emptive rights) is a special resolution.
Although I have detailed above in 1) that it is not as difficult as you might think to defeat a standard resolution, in my view the absolutely critical resolution to defeat is resolution 3, which in this instance is also a special resolution.
Why you may ask, if at the end of the day the resolutions are passed to consolidate, and the authority is given to “potentially” issue an additional 100% of the shares currently in issue, why is defeating resolution 3 of any importance ?

Well, I’m a great believer in having people better understand their rights as a shareholder, and the best way to do that is have them do their own research.

As such, in advance of the GM, can I suggest that those interested research the results of a disapplication of pre-emptive rights resolution not being passed.

Above is IMHO, and best of luck for tomorrow.

Bleeding autocorrect .......... “deployable” not “deplorable”

Clearly well intentioned advice fell on deaf ears, which just goes to prove that you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

I reiterate my initial point, for the benefit of the majority of the other BB users who do not have knowledge/experience of/in the industry, I respectfully suggest that you stop intimating that you know what you are talking about, as you are feeding incorrect information into the discussion.

Yes, wellhead manufacturers have BOP test tools, but not because the BOP has anything to do with the wellhead manufacturer (as pointed out to you earlier, the BOP is rig equipment, and owned by the drilling contractor), but because it is a tool that requires run into the wellhead and requires to meet the tolerances/specifications of the same.

The BOP isolation test tool is ran into the wellhead so that you can pressure test the BOP (rig supplied equipment) without applying that test pressure to the formation.

To all intents and purposes it is a deplorable and retrievable tool into the wellhead to ensure that the uncased formations below the seabed (where the wellhead resides) do not experience the pressures that are necessary to be applied to the BOP for it to pass its pressure test.

As a general rule of thumb, almost certainly unanimously so, were the formations to experience the pressures applied during a BOP test the formations would get fractured, and that is one thing that you do not want to induce whilst drilling a well.

The best advice I could offer you is to step away from Google searches, and if you do not have the knowledge/experience to understand what you are talking about then desist from doing so, as other BB users may be mistaken that you do, and end up basing their investment decisions on false information.

IMHO

Utter rubbish.

The Blow Out Preventer (BOP), and the associated Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP), which forms the majority of the subsea Pressure Control Equipment(PCE), are without argument rig equipment.

This is not IMHO, it is readily corroborative fact.

If you are going to be investing in shares within this industry, or even more importantly attempting to advise others that you are knowledgable on such matters, it would be prudent to first gain/obtain that knowledge, IMHO.

Think you may find that the answer to any questions relating to whether the share buy back programme can be continued due to a belief that we may be in a closed period are already answered in the RNS regarding the share buy back agreement, or rather more specifically in the clauses referenced therein.

IMHO

They will not have purchased a BOP, as that is rig equipment.

If you mean the wellhead system, I seriously doubt that it was bespoke, as it is common design (though a number of different model attributes).

Had you been talking about a Xmas Tree I would have agreed to an extent that it may be heavily modified , and to a degree bespoke to the project, but no Xmas Tree has been ordered.

One other thing to be cognisant of before I go, is to be aware of tactics that may be utilised to wear down the resolve of those seeking to defeat the resolutions.

It is not impossible that on the day, or just prior to it, that the BoD will try and adjourn the meeting on the basis that it has come to their notice that a demand will/is being made to have the results based on a polled vote and not merely a show of hands, and that as such they were inadequately prepared for such an event, and to give them time to put that in place they will need to adjourn the vote/result until a later date.

After all, given that the ONLY reason to hold the EGM is currently to vote on the resolutions, what sense is there in voting on the resolutions if in advance of a show of hands being requested the demand is received for the results to be on the votes/shareholding’s polled.

I am not saying that this will occur, but likewise I have witnessed this happening previously on other shares, perpetrated in the hope that those wishing to vote against the resolutions lose heart, or not be willing to go to the expense and time to then attend the following adjourned meeting.

My view on how I have voted against the resolutions are public notice, and I wish all that are voting against these resolutions that they will triumph at the end of the day.

It is WAY past the time to not only say “enough is enough”, and if the only way to achieve that is to put actions in place to prevent the BoD from continuing incessantly on as they have done over the past number of years, then that is what WE will require to do.

Now that the time to discuss things prior to the proxy voting time is soon to pass I feel that I will most likely not post further on the subject of the vote until after the meeting, as the horse will already have bolted the stable.

Till then, take care, and have the strength to follow your convictions.

Some may remember one of my earlier posts when I mentioned something akin to some “democracies” being more equal than others.

What I was alluding to their was relative to the differing levels of votes required to pass certain resolution types.

I have been in other shares where although it only takes 50% plus 1 vote to pass a regular resolution, it has taken 75% plus 1 share to pass a special resolution, and I’m sure that I am not the only person to have witnessed that previously, as some I hope can attest to.

The questions you need to ask yourselves are:
1) are all three of the resolutions standard resolutions, or are any of them special resolutions.
0 if the answer to the latter is positive, then will any special resolutions in this instance require only 50% plus 1 share to pass them, or is this an instance where special resolutions require a greater level of votes to be in the resolutions favour to pass them.

The answers to which will not change how shareholders vote necessarily, but it may give those shareholders who are voting against the resolutions greater hope of success, as they may note require to achieve 50% of the vote to stop the resolution from being passed.

Additionally, it is perhaps prudent for those voting against the resolutions, who may be feeling will my votes really make that much difference, to consider that it is a percentage of votes cast, not votes in issue.
Given that it is apparent from this BB that the predominant voting trend being intimated from the vast majority of the poster’s on here to be against the resolutions, and as such that position appears to be more vehemently held than those intimating to the contrary, then there is a credible view that could be taken that of the shares being voted in this instance the apparent apathy from those intimating to being voting in favour (to my view a significant minority of the posters who have given a voting intimation) may aid further the defeat of the resolution.

Therefore, if indeed any of the resolutions require less than 50% of the votes cast to defeat them, and if the voting intimations shown on here are reflective of the shareholders overall, and consequently there is indeed an apethitic voting approach being taken by those voting for, or alternately not caring enough about how the vote goes or merely not being knowledgable/aware of the vote occurring (which may be many, as there must be a lot of unengaged/passive shareholders), then in actuality/reality it may not be such a far fetched assumption to believe that the resolutions will indeed be defeated.

The one thing that is critical in ensuring the best chance of having these resolutions be defeated, as I have mentioned previously, is ensuring that enough members are present (or by proxy) at the meeting (only 5 members if memory serves me correctly), to demand that the vote is taken as a poll, and not merely a show of hands.

All of the above, as always, is merely IMHO, and not stated as fac

0.00%

Damn but that’s tight.

“There are only two countries in the world actually 'pushing' this electric vehicle thing; the USA and the UK.” ?

I respectfully suggest that you may have overlooked Norway there, as Norway easily trump (pardon the pun when mentioning anything to do with the USA) both the U.K. and the USA in their drive to adopt the EV revolution.

IMHO

A bigger sceptic of the BoD’s intentions would postulate that the shareholders would not be informed that there was a need to adjourn the meeting because a polled vote had been requested until the current GM had started.

It is amazing how large a deterrent that would be to shareholders who had travelled to the GM from wanting to travel yet again on the date of the adjourned GM next being held..

Logical really, as would they be willing to go to the expense and effort to attend a further meeting only a few weeks later.

One could postulate that would be a great way to reduce the number of shares being voted against proposals in person, or by proxy, at the date of the revised meeting.

Clearly to avoid an entire thread being deleted through an orchestrated approach.

But then again, that shouldn’t be news to most.

SL100, don’t consider this as advice, merely an option you may wish to consider.

If you are concerned that you will potentially lose everything when the vote goes against all the resolutions, which a straw poll of voters on here would confirm, you could always sell your shareholding now.

At least that way you would salvage something, in relation to the total wipe out that you are currently concerned about.

The decision is your’s, and your’s alone.

Freddy, You know my feelings on the matter, but I am not willing to accept the BoD only NOW willing to put significant skin in the game (be that through a significant level of share purchase, or working for free until significant level of SP gain has been achieved) is unacceptable.

The majority of the exposure (exposure that previously loyal shareholders have had to solely bear over the years) has now gone, so logically, if ANY of our product lines is to end up being commercially positive, the risk that the BoD may only NOW be willing to take were they to put significant skin in the game is exponentially lower than their previously loyal shareholders have had to endure.

In point of fact, we’re they to significantly invest now, just prior to a potentially SP accretive announcement of commercialisation, they would be open to claims of insider trading.
I would hate were that to be the case, that their get out of jail free card was an excuse that they only invested at that time, knowing that a soon to be commercialisation event was on the cards, was because their shareholders had demanded that they invested at this time.

As always, IMHO only.

I do not know about other brokers other than my own, so it would be advisable for everyone to check with their own respective brokers, but the e-mail that I received from Hargreaves Lansdown stated “The Hargreaves Lansdown client deadline to place a vote on the proposals is noon on Wednesday 12 February 2020.”.

This would leave little, if any, time to adequately review, and discuss, any response from the BoD if it were not to be received prior to the weekend.

Personally, there is nothing that they could say to prevent me from voting against all 3 resolutions, so I have no need to await their response.

Some may be a little more forgiving of their documented past antics, and wish to hear what stories that they wish to tell this time round before making their decision on how they wish to vote, as is their right to do so.

However, I would raise a point of caution, should anyone wish to consider it in parallel with reading any response, but the BoD have previously made commitments in the past so that they could get unpalatable proposals voted through, and then failed to follow through on the commitments that they made.
Such as offering their previously loyal shareholders the option to participate in a rights issue, rather than making highly discounted placing (with massive attached warrants) through the “great and the good” (said sarcastically), yet then failing to honour that commitment and feed all placing through the feeding trough of discounted placing participants as per their normal modus operandi.

i.e. to paraphrase the Blues Brothers ...... they can talk the talk, but fail to walk the walk.

All of the above is IMHO, and based on my recollections from the past.

Fredd, the current standing method for a vote on a resolution at a general meeting is for a show of hands to be taken unless, prior to or upon the declaration of the result of the show of hands, a poll is demanded by one of the following methods.

1) demanded by the chair of the meeting.
2) demanded by no fewer than 5 shareholders (in person, or by proxy) present at the meeting, who are entitled to vote at the meeting.
3) demanded by a shareholder, or group of shareholders (either present or by proxy), who in aggregate are voting on behalf of more than 10% of the voting rights of the total voting rights of all the members present at the meeting, who are entitled to vote at the meeting.
4) demanded by a shareholder, or group of shareholders (either present or by proxy), who in aggregate hold more than 10% of the shares currently issued.

In essence:
1) unlikely, but not guaranteed, the chair of the meeting (especially so if it is George, or any of the other BoD) will call for anything other than a show of hands, unless they have a cast iron certainty that they would win that (and given the current PI voting temperature, that would be highly questionable).
2) Subject to you being confident of the word of at least 5 of the members attending being true, and that they will meet their commitment to demand a poll be taken, then this is likely to be the best guarantee of throwing out a show of hands in favour of a poll.
3) there is a reasonable chance, but far from guaranteed, that there will be enough voting power attending the meeting (note, this is not 10% of the shares in issue, this is 10% of the votes of the total votes attending, be that in person or by proxy, attending the meeting) that are willing to demand a poll. i.e. of the total shares in issue there may only be members holding (in person, or by proxy) 50% of the shares in attendance, so it is feasible that were you, or any other individual (such as Slater attending as proxy on behalf of the HL nominee shareholders, for example), to demand a poll that individual in isolation may hold 10% of the voting rights of those attending the meeting, even though they do not represent 10% of all the shares currently in issue.
4) less likely than either 2) or 3), but there may be an individual, or group, who are attending the meeting, be that in person or by proxy, holding 10% of the voting rights of all the shares in issue. i.e. if you yourself held the proxy of 10% of the shares in issue, or perhaps cumulatively along with Slater’s proxy holding, amount to 10% of the total shares in issue, who together could demand a poll be held.

From what you have said to date, option 2 has the greatest likelihood to succeed, but it is critical that this demand for a poll to be taken is made ahead of the results of a show of hands being announced.
i.e. ensure that is the first point of order of the meeting.

IMHO