Member Info for in4cedros

LayLadyLay - ‘ If you’re not being paid I can’t imagine what motivates you to spin your biased interpretation of events ‘ - I suggest you look deeply at yourself - presumably you weren’t paid for your post - it was biased - it was clearly negative to CEG - it was a shyte or bust opportunistic post - if the accounts hadn’t been published you could have basked in ‘ I told you so ‘ worship from the disgruntled ex shareholder cohort - but your bet lost big time so now all readers, bulls and bears, know you’re untrustworthy and will regard any future posts with huge scepticism!

So what was your motivation for that post LayLadyLay and was it worth it just to grab some attention from me ?

Regarding Disgraced Compulsive Liar 12bn and the other trolls on the alternative channel I enjoy chatting with them - they are like old friends now! They may claim to filter me but they know when they post their tosh they’ll get owned and. It has raised the standard over there - it’s a bit like being a Sheriff in the Wild West - I model myself on Destry !

What seems even more strange is that having royally embarrassed yourself by posting on the day before the last day ‘ I just checked on Companies House and it looks like there will be NO ACCOUNTS posted tomorrow’ - you’ve decided to ignore the old adage when you’ve dug a horrendously deep hole for yourself best advice is to stop digging!

To be fair I’ve seen much worse than your tosh posted on these boards - I’m not even claiming it’s market abuse ( unlimited fine and up to 7 years jail !) hence my amazement you are belatedly trying to justify it - even John Briggs regarded it as trivia and he’s one of the disgruntled ex shareholder cohort!

Madmax - agreed the PRD dispute is serious and seemingly an unnecessary distraction as that field was not a major producer for the company. I haven’t heard CEG reasons for their action so I’m reserving judgment.

The contributors over on PRD board are a strange bunch - why on earth aren’t they following the example of many on this board and doing their best to bring the company to it’s knees LOL!

I love the way the disgruntled seem so concerned when any positive views are expressed about this company !

They’ve just presented an excellent deck - clearing set of accounts dealing with a disastrous period for the company prior to the reset which has provided the employees and shareholders with hope for the future together with cash - $5.3 million @ 30/06/2022 . The CEO has suggested that spending is likely to improve production from Q3 - who needs rampers on here!

I’m going off line for a bit now that the excitement has died down this morning !

I’d like to thank the CEO for presenting the signed off accounts within the deadline - the disgruntled ex shareholder cohort were getting very anxious about it!

I notice you read this board - hope you found post 12317 on the other channel educational!

Investor81 - seriously it’s difficult to drill down on admin expenses without examination of detail.

The CEO advised some months ago that G& A was circa $200,000 per month - that’s a lot for a company of this size having regard to the profit generated from current production levels,

I don’t think there’s much chance of reducing salaries of BOD unless they need to ask for more cash from shareholders, which doesn’t seem likely , having regard to current cash . The company needs staff to run it and they are attempting to develop the assets - they should sort this spat with PRD - I’m still none the wiser why CEG booted PRD off site with minimal notice!

Investor 81 - they did that with Godfather Film - look how that turned out !

Disgruntled ex shareholders don’t seem to like any comments that aren’t negative about the company !

John Briggs - LayLadyLay won’t be happy for his post to be described as trivia but I won’t disagree that it was an opportunistic cheap shot by him !

Seriously I agree with you - the results do speak for themselves - year ending 31/12/2021 was a very bad year for the company - so what - most people are more interested in the future !

Jono44 - most people knew there would be a big fat loss - I’ve certainly been saying it on here - I’m sure shareholders are very pleased the BOD were able to oversee the haircut programme for most of the debt so that the reset could occur leaving them with cash in the bank to finance expenditure in the current year .

LayLadyLay - you posted yesterday ‘ I just checked on Companies House and it looks like there will be no accounts posted tomorrow ‘ - the disgruntled ex shareholder group must try harder!

Khonsu - sorry for your loss . Starfish was indeed a skilled wordsmith and I understand why people placed reliance upon him despite his ‘ get out ‘ clause .

Challenging him would have been difficult because unlike many posters here he backed up much of his posting with facts . I believed much of his posting but it didn’t convince me that the overall risk suited my appetite - others had a greater risk appetite - some thought they had but when the croupier dragged the chips off the table decided retrospectively that perhaps they didn’t - it’s a common situation with AIM, in particular.

Druid - I haven’t followed your posting history and I’d appreciate it if you point me to the post that guarantees a farm in arrangement can’t happen here . I haven’t exhaustively studied farm ins but I did take a keen interest in Bahamas Petroleum after the merger with CERP.

I remember reading about the data room access so I googled it and came across press release 03/05/2018

‘ entered into a Confidentiality & Exclusivity Agreement with a major international oil company ( the ‘ Counterparty ‘ ) to conclude a detailed technical evaluation of the Company’s licences in the Bahamas and at the same time seek to develop a commercial framework for a potential transaction.

The company will receive a non-refundable cash payment of US$ 250,000 per month ( US$ 750,000 in aggregate) for the initial 3 month period of exclusivity.

Unless and until a definitive farm in or other commercial agreement is agreed with the Counterparty its identity will remain confidential.’

Does that mean the major just felt sorry for BPC and shelled out US$ 750,000 when they knew there was no chance of a deal before they started ?

Druid - the CEO runs the company for the shareholders and is remunerated for so doing. I doubt you’d find a serious shareholder who is against the idea of developing the Uruguay opportunity. There is an interesting September 2022 presentation on the CEG website with a wealth of information on the geology - does that guarantee CEG will strike it rich there? - NO but it will educate readers better about the opportunity - it’s also useful for the trolls as it mentions Total scored an expensive duster offshore Uruguay!

CEG have said they won’t drill themselves but will partner as farm out - if they can’t get a partner they will be disappointed but I don’t see why shareholders would object to them trying !

There are many posters on here who don’t seem to understand risk/reward relating to oil exploration and production, particularly the disgruntled ex shareholder cohort !

It’s easy to criticise this company and I don’t defend some of the actions as you might deduce from last night’s chat with EOA and if I really wanted to I could write a book about failings here - would that be cathartic - like the disgruntled ex shareholders cohort - possibly but it would be boring for current shareholders who are looking to the future with their high risk stakes !

EOA - re your 20:39 post the famous quote from Mandy Rice -Davies RIP comes to mind -

‘ well he would say that wouldn’t he ‘

EOA - re your 20:39 post people can draw their own conclusions from the fact they haven’t been keen to discuss it - positive and negative - we will all know more soon !

EOA - you asked ‘ how much PRD claiming for ?’ - I answered that question . I’ve also read the CEG response which is pretty short on detail compared to PRD claim.

FRAM freely entered the agreement with PRD to develop the TI field using CO2 and PRD equipment/ expertise and finance which seemed to be operating satisfactorily until new CEG management became responsible. The finance was repayable from the TI oil production so that if it wasn’t very successful it may have taken decades to repay.

It appeared that suddenly things changed and PRD were booted off site with minimal notice - no one seems to know why that occurred and CEG didn’t advise shareholders why even though some would argue it was a RNS worthy event - particularly as PRD were unlikely merely to roll over!

I hear what’s said by CEG and they may be correct but CEG haven’t explained the arguments here so it’s difficult to be confident in them unless you have blind faith!

Mick trick a poster here has shared some interesting legal information about liability for a subsidiary company and recent Supreme Court judgment that impacts on it - let’s hope the Australian management group are well across those changes EOA!

PRD have stated they await the accounts to read how CEG deal legally with the accounting of this episode before deciding on next move !

EOA - probably stand out figure is ‘ consequential loss against Challenger’ - up to US$12,800,000 - full details in PRD RNS dated 07/06/2022 - RNS also includes an amount actually borrowed by FRAM which was not included in reset haircut so stays with CEG.

EOA - agreed financials for 2021 will show big fat loss and the actual figure is relatively unimportant as ‘ reset ‘ occurred January 2022 with decks cleared, pretty much.

Booting PRD off site with minimal notice and the huge potential claim presented by PRD as a consequence may have presented difficulties with regard to going concern wording on accounts sign off - CFO resignation also occurred. No doubt accounts will attract lots of attention.