Member Info for HeidHoncho

BOJO wasn’t required to resign because “she” ? had a little fun in lockdown, it was because he was proven to have lied to the population about it, and consequently he lost any credibility on his word going forward.

0.845 pence, not 0.845%

mea culpa

As quoted below by yourself, from the RNS.

If the CLN is repaid “in part or whole”, then the “warrants are exercisable at the lower of 1.3 pence or a 30% premium to the Conversion Price”.

So, if the company elect to redeem in cash, or in part in cash, then the lender receives cash and an equivalent number of warrants at the conversion price plus 30%, with the conversion price being 0.65 pence which equates to an exercise price for the warrants being 0.845%

Additionally, IF the conversion is at 0.65 then the number of warrants issuable would increase to circa 165m shares, as the original terms were that the warrants would be issued at a 30% premium to the conversion price.

Meaning that the warrants would be exercisable at 0.845, and not at 1.3.

At least, that’s how I have read the original conversion notes to be, and the extension to the original term duration stated that all other conditions remain unchanged.

IMHO

“a farm out with the government” ?

That is pure comedy gold in a nutshell right there.

And the circa £7M for our EMH holding.

So, with your £8M and this £7M for EMH that equates almost to our entire MC just now.

That would mean that there is almost zero priced in for the Amapa asset, nor for the 30% JV holding in Sonora, not to mention our other smaller investments.

FunInvestor, utilising your belief that the company sp should returning to something akin to the pre Regal acquisition figure were a massive debt for equity bailout be achieved I think there may be something wrong in your calculated projections.

Prior to the Regal acquisition there were circa 274 million shares, at an sp that was circa £6.55, giving a market cap of circa £1.8 billion.

Utilising your projected 10% existing shareholder holding with 90% being then held by those new shareholders involved in the debt for equities swap, that would then equate to circa 13.73 billion shares then existing (1.373 billion existing shares + 12.357 billion new shares issued in the debt for equity swap).

Given the pre Regal acquisition market cap of circa £1.8 billion, even we’re the company return to that pre market capitalisation then the sp would then only be circa £0.13 per share.

One could argue that the level of dilution that you utilised is conservative, or that the market capital you have utilised post dilution is potentially excessive (given that the dynamics have changed since then, i.e. less bums on seats = less profitability), but I just utilised the supposition that you put forward (900% dilution, and a return to pre Regal acquisition market cap) to conduct a check on your incremental sp projection for post debt for equity dilution.

Mind you, my calculations on how to arrive at a pre Regal acquisition market capitalisation, and post your proposed level of debt for equity dilution market capitalisation, may be incorrect, so as always I positively promote others conduct their own calculations, and not accept that mine are correct in this instance.

Thought it was egg banjo, not egg beano, but maybe that’s just in military parlances that egg banjo is utilised, so may be best to disregard anything I say.

noelpbz, many thanks, at first glance that gives me most of the information that I initially require.

Much appreciated.

FreyBentos, all you had to say was …. “I don’t know”.

Is this sidetrack being planned from the wellbore that they will initially be producing from (I cannot see that being the case), or is it even being performed from the same well pad for that matter ?

Does anyone know what the horizontal separation distance is between the proposed sidetrack well location and the soon to be producing well, and the same for between the proposed sidetrack well location and the production facility/equipment packages ?

Many thanks.

I don’t know about BP, more like BS.

And the kind of BS that isn’t an abbreviation for Backing Sanderson.

A2B4C4, not entirely accurate I’m afraid to say.

Your belief that they cannot conduct a placing this month as they are only asking for authority to place shares after the AGM at the end of the month, is inaccurate.
They can conduct a placing this month if they have any unutilised authority remaining from that which they requested at the last GM.
Not that I’m saying that they will perform a placing prior to the AGM at the end of the month, I’m just clearing up your apparent misconception that they cannot.

At the AGM they are requesting authority to place shares up to 70% of the current shares in issue.
20 million (30%) in the way of a standard placing with disapplication rights.
A further 20 million (30%) in the way of a rights issue, or similar, to existing shareholders.
Yet a further 6.5 million (10%) in the way of option shares to the BoD/employees, over and above any existing option benefits that they may currently already hold.

At least that’s my interpration of resolutions 4-6, IMHO.

Additionally, it gives an indication of the costs involved in building gas storage facilities, as they intimate 2-3 Billion pounds merely to upgrade an existing facility.

Goodness only knows then what it would cost to build a similar sized facility from scratch.

This existing facility appears to be currently mothballed, but about half of the capacity could be brought back online by winter, IF the government would pony up a large chunk of change to do so.

Surely it would be more prudent, definitely more expeditious to do so (6 months as opposed to 4+ years), and arguably more economical to do so given that the asset already exists.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61633993

Surely only the 91 million can be disposed of initially.

The remaining 546 million can only be disposed of at a maximum rate of 25% every quarter.

And as to my question of earlier this morning, who is to say that Forum will dispose of them all.

We’re they to retain them, or at least the majority of them, then with their attached warrants their shareholding would be in excess of 30% of the shares then in issue, and unless indicated by conditions in the agreement then I assume they would be obliged under company law to make an offer to secure the remaining shares that they didn’t hold.

Hence my question of earlier today that no one has yet answered, but is there any agreed condition that precludes Forum from requiring to make that obligatory bid were they to exceed 30% of the shares in issue at any point in time ?

So, post the issuance of 637 million shares to Forum, and were the associated circa 173 million warrants to be exercised, would that equate to in excess of 30% of the then entire number of shares in issue at that point in time ?

If so, does anyone know if there is a condition agreed whereby Forum are not required to make an offer to bid for the remaining shares in issue that they didn’t hold in the company, which I thought was a requirement when a greater than 30% holding in a listed company was exceeded by any individual entity or group of entities acting together ?

Many thanks for clearing that up for me.

Scotty, hope you didn’t hold onto those EVR shares, as they have just RNS’d that they are suspending the interim dividend that they were imminently away to award.

That dividend was going to amount to about 40% of the share price, such as has been the drop lately.

When you Plug & Abandon a well, as opposed to merely Plug (suspend) a well, you cut and pull portions of the intermediary casing string so as to isolate any conduit from potentially forming a conduit to the seabed.

Most likely, if not definitely, the wellhead conductor was also cut, and the wellhead retrieved.

So, to all intents and purposes, the well cannot be re-entered, and a new well will require to be drilled.

“ … under the sales and marketing agreement Hurricane has in place with BP, the sale of Lancaster crude is priced at the average of either the first or last five days of the month of lifting (at the buyer's option).”

In 2020 the cost associated with the associated refinery purchase cost, BP’s marketing fee, freight and other necessary costs incurred by BP in transporting Lancaster crude to it’s ultimate destination (assuming tanker uplift logistics costs), was $2.90 per barrel discount to the contractual Brent price.
“the remaining discount to the contractual Brent price was $2.9/bbl (2019: $3.1/bbl), representing the discount or premium offered by the refinery purchasing the crude, BP's marketing fee, and freight and other necessary costs incurred by BP in transporting Lancaster crude to its ultimate destination.”