Member Info for HeidHoncho

But surely, on that premise, were WC (now referred to as WW) to have a positive result, then that may intimate that the previous results from WD were an aberration, and therefore any now perceived increase to the risk profile is at least significantly nullified, if not nullified entirely.

IMHO

project, wind speed is 24 knots gusting 27 knots, and the significant sea state is 4 metres with a 6 metre maximum.

Makes for the top end of borderline vessel working limits.

a solid piece of buying going on within the last hour.

The thing is however, the “going concern” statement can be achieved through dropping a well out of this year’s campaign.

There is no direct regulatory link between a “scheduled” current work programme, and the “going concern” statement.

What is crucial, from a regulatory sense, is that the “going concern” statement is an obligation (at least as far as compliance is concerned), whereas any current campaign schedule is not, and from a regulatory point of view the “going concern” statement takes precedence to any “scheduled” work scope that the company may have informed the shareholders that they anticipated completing within a given timescale.

Unforeseen operational issue can occur, and it is more important how the company complies with regulatory statements made, than it does to satisfying shareholders expectations.

IMHO

Why on earth would anyone want to move their shareholding out of a SIPP and into a trading account ?

If the shares return to trading, then the gains in a SIPP are CGT free, but in a trading account you would take the full brunt of CGT.

That sort of move is just illogical.

It is bad enough that we all lost the benefit of our ISA’s when they delisted, but at least those of us with our shares in a SIPP are protected from CGT if the shares ultimately return to being listed on an exchange.

IMHO

I take that back.

On review I notice that it is the new shares which are going to have a deferred element.

My mistake.

Can someone please clarify.

With the deferred shares having no rights, and the new ordinary shares being on a par with the now old ordinary shares (one old share now being one new ordinary share with 99 deferred shares), is that not akin to a 100 to 1 dilution ?

At least as far as voting rights go at the least.

Even if there is no direct fiscal dilution of each shareholder, is this just a way to prevent the previous shareholders have any control over where the company goes from here, as their voting rights have just been diluted by 100 to 1.

Or am I missing something ?

Jeepers, a 67% spread !

Even for AIM that’s pretty unusual.

The MM’s look like they want to dissuade selling.

And even buying, also, as no one would want to buy into that range of spread.

Ahhhh, so the chant of “the meek shall inherit the earth” has now been superseded by “the end is nigh”.

Gotcha.

“This just my very meek ........”

I thought the meek were meant to inherit the earth, not 2 million FRR shares.

gmcc, so are you saying that it is even worse than I first thought ?

I was calculating that the company would receive 100% of the value received by the Investors from the sale of the Ordinary Shares it undertakes in the month prior to the Monthly Settlement.

What your post intimates is that the company only has a covenant from the investors to receive 75% of the value received by the Investors from the sale of the Ordinary Shares it undertakes in the month prior to the Monthly Settlement.

Geeeeez, and you said that I was being negative !

There is however no argument that “actual” always trumps “expected”, or “regarded as likely;anticipated”, when it comes to reviewing current reality.

Reality does not deal with “positive” or “negative”, it merely reflects current fact.

IMHO

gmcc, where do you get only a 25% discount from when calculating the monthly funds received whilst the sp is 3p ?

As per the RNS, the reduction in funds received will be the equivalent of the differential between the benchmark rate and the sp (vwap).

If my reading of that is correct then with the benchmark sp being circa 6p, and the current sp being circa 3p, then that would equate to a circa 50% reduction in monthly funds received.

IMHO

As per the finance RNS, “The ISA Proceeds are to be distributed to the Company in equal monthly instalments of £473,767.71 over a period of 12 months starting from 1 September 2019 and which shall be subject to the adjustments and the terms as set out below (the "Monthly Settlement").

Adjustments to the Monthly Settlements

Within five business days of the end of every month for which the ISA operates, the Company will notify the Investors of its calculation of the adjustments to be made to the Monthly Settlement based on the volume weighted average price ("VWAP") of the Ordinary Shares on the trading days in the preceding calendar month.

For the purpose of these adjustments, the ISA sets the benchmark price of the VWAP (the "Benchmark Price") as 5.93p per Ordinary Share, being 114% of the Issue Price.

The Monthly Settlement is then calculated as follows:

· If the One Month VWAP of the Ordinary Shares is equal to the Benchmark Price, the amount to be transferred shall be 100% of the Monthly Settlement;

· If the One Month VWAP of the Ordinary Shares is below the Benchmark Price, then the amount to be transferred shall be reduced by the percentage by which the One Month VWAP of the Ordinary Shares is below the Benchmark Price”

So, with the current share price being circa 50% lower than the benchmark price, my reading of the finance T&Cs would indicate that as things stand, were they to continue, the company would receive only 50% of the funds (i.e. circa £236,880, rather than circa £473,660, per month.

With a 50% reduction in funds being raised from the financing as things currently stand, will there now be sufficient funds raised (given the current 50% short fall from the original plan, but the level of dilution remaining the same) to enable the planned drilling campaign to continue unhindered ?

Except however, the crucial point you are missing is that we already know that the Nasdaq listing is being lost, as the mandatory conditions are not being met.

No night time transport permitted.

“HGV movements over all work stages would be limited 0800 – 1830 Mondays to Fridays; and 0900 – 1300 Saturdays; and on no other days.”

Did the figure of “32” not be reflective of “transits”, and not tankers ?

i.e. 16 tankers equals 16 tankers in, and 16 tankers out.

And if it wasn’t “32”, then the principle remains the same irrelevant of the actual quantity approved.
i.e. 38 equals 19 tankers in and 19 tankers out, and does not reflect 38 tankers.

I’m sure that is how I remember it being portrayed when listening into the meeting.

I am looking for some input with regards to an area outside of my knowledge base.

With regards to the Convertible Loan Note, can they only convert the money that has been drawn down against it to date, or are they able to convert the entire value of the loan note ?

If the lender coverts does that mean that the loan (be it in part, or in full, depending on what has been drawn down on at that point in time) does then not require to be paid back to the lender ?

And does the right to convert, or repay, rest with us or with the lender, i.e. the company could choose to repay rather than allow the lender to convert ?

If it is not our option, and that option rests with the lender, then I can understand now why the BoD had to request authority to issue up to a further 50% of the shares in issue at the AGM, as we will likely not be in a position to generate enough revenue to repay the CLN’s before they are in the money, as they will be in the money at 12p.

I look forward to receiving input from others more knowledgeable on CLN’s than I, specifically so in relation to our current CLN.

Many thanks.

Precisely this kind of blinkered confirmation bias that causes pi’s to lose everything.

A closed mind is the mind of a fool.

The very least anyone deserves themselves is to review all the information so as to aid them arrive at a balanced decision.

IMHO

Does anyone (only those that can substantiate their response please) know if whilst unlisted the company is covered by the Takeover Code.

Specifically so, Rule 9.

I know the company may not be currently listed on AIM, but I have vague recollections that the Takeover Code requirements roll on for some years (so as to prevent duplicitous actions through merely de-listing, and retaining some protection for shareholders).

However, even if we may still be covered by the Takeover Code given our BoD hold a large percentage of the shares, and they are not resident in the U.K., I thought that it may be worth someone more experienced than I to look at Rule 9 to see if there is any loophole in there that we shareholders should be cognisant/concerned of ?

I know it may just be paranoia, but given the continued silence, and the total lack of communication by our BoD, that in itself feeds the potential for paranoia to begin to exist.

I look forward to any measured input there may be to the above question.

Many thanks.