Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video here.
I glad you agree that examining the two RNS the number of voting shares do not add up. Weird that this error has been made at a crucial voting point.
“ The idea that the both sides are acting in concert to take Reabold private is utterly ludicrous.”
Not at all, as they were once all in the happy club together. Corner stone strategic investors and all.
The last requisition was Nov 22 and it was a bit micky mouse and amateurish. Not much better this time around but judging by their website dare I say better prepared.
Under the Companies Act 5% of Shareholders can ask for a meeting. If the company fails to act, the Shareholders can arrange their own valid meeting. This is why RBD have to act, as long as the resolutions are validated.
The only way to stop >5% Shareholders is if the proposed resolutions are frivolous or vexatious.
If I was S&S I would have tied these dumb wits up in knots. Clearly the narrative is defamatory as can be proven by the website. In addition, the requisition failed in Nov 22 and on 29 June 23 both S&S retired as Directors and were subsequently reappointed.
Any Court would agree that these Shareholders are vexatious as they failed once and four months ago Shareholders voted S&S to remain.
Say a Company has 100 shares and you have 10 = 10%. The Company then buy back 10 shares, so 90 remains. You still got your 10, so 11.11%.
😂 a theory but also a possibility.
I have eyes on
Jack
Hmmmm……not one response and it’s all about the vote. Call me a conspiracy theorist but if RNS cannot adequately narrate the number of voting shares in issue, what does that tell you about the up and coming vote.
On 22 Nov 23 we were informed that the requisition party had 8.17%. Unless they purchased more shares their %age was diluted down when the Colle Santo shares were issued. 486M
Since then the Share buy back has incrementally increased the requisition party %age back up.
Why would RBD do this, unless it was an orchestrated action to take RBD private and maintain the requisition party %age.
The two RNS from Strand Hanson is worrying as no one has considered the two parties acting in concert to take RBD private followed by fund raise to dilute the minority shareholders.
If I don’t see an RNS to show the current voting shares I will act.
This attempted takeover doesn’t sound right to me on numerous levels.
Jack
Going Private..................Today 17:05
How come the Voting rights has gone up, when 110,677,289 shares have been bought back into Treasury from 14 Dec 23 ?
Jack
RNS 11/12/23
Following Admission, the total issued share capital of the Company will consist of 10,363,112,370 Ordinary Shares. The Company holds 111,572,837 Ordinary Shares in treasury. Accordingly, on Admission, the total number of voting rights in the Company will be 10,251,539,533 and this is the figure that may be used by shareholders as the denominator for the calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change in their interest in, the share capital of the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules.
RNS 04/01/24
Following the share buyback, the Company will have 10,252,435,081 Ordinary Shares in issue, and 222,250,126 Ordinary Shares held in Treasury.
The figure of 10,252,435,081 may be used by shareholders as the denominator for the calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules.
How come the Voting rights has gone up, when 110,677,289 shares have been bought back into Treasury from 14 Dec 23 ?
Jack
RNS 11/12/23
Following Admission, the total issued share capital of the Company will consist of 10,363,112,370 Ordinary Shares. The Company holds 111,572,837 Ordinary Shares in treasury. Accordingly, on Admission, the total number of voting rights in the Company will be 10,251,539,533 and this is the figure that may be used by shareholders as the denominator for the calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change in their interest in, the share capital of the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules.
RNS 04/01/24
Following the share buyback, the Company will have 10,252,435,081 Ordinary Shares in issue, and 222,250,126 Ordinary Shares held in Treasury.
The figure of 10,252,435,081 may be used by shareholders as the denominator for the calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules.
DrP
Do you know why One-Dyas ended up with 5% of the Pensacola license. Is there any background on this ?
Jack
FFS Heidi
We might have a sixteen year old win the world darts on Wednesday but trust me your “Kammy-boy” does not have a chance.
Done the maths and it’s a resounding failure…..again
😂
Jack
Heidi
I have no problems at all. Maybe the problem is YOU.
Single-handedly you have completely discredited the Requisitioners with your trolling of this BB, not that help is required.
Have you no shame 😳
Jack
Persimmon
I am not paid, and I do not do U turns. My post of 19 Jul 23 was my assessment of the asset base at that time.
I gave no value to Parta, Cali or the North Sea assets then and that statement has rung true now they are being described as Non-core. I guess they could be sold or regenerated but not in the short term.
As we know the business model is asset selection at the lower end of the value curve, inject cash and then drive assets forward. By definition, some assets will ultimately fail for numerous reasons, and it is the role of the CEO to mitigate risk by selecting a wide portfolio of assets in the hope of picking a few stars.
There is disagreement of asset write off values, but these are all clearly shown in the latest accounts under Segmental Analysis and are nowhere close to the values suggested on this BB. We should not forget that all RBD Revenues to date have come from the Cali assets.
Back in July 23 I was not a fan of Colle Santos due to the Italian Jurisdiction and the value of WN RBD gave away. Obviously, all countries are now directing attention to securing energy supply and my post of 30 Dec 23 showed that Italy were enacting legislation to:
1. Speed up work on new LNG terminals.
2. Minister see 27B euros in investments.
3. Italian Govt. to set aside 350M euros per year to 2032, to fund projects aimed at overcoming local opposition against the installation of renewable plants.
4. Onshore LNG terminal projects represent “strategic interventions of public utility, non-deferrable and urgent”
Therefore, the Italian landscape is changing and so the Colle Santos jury is currently out.
However, I still cannot believe the %age value of RBD, and the proportionate share of WN, that was given away in this deal. WN described as a unique UK oil and gas resource and the largest UK onshore discovery since 1973? So much for competing project capital allocations.
Last physical work at WN was in Aug 21. No interest from industry and lack of pace from Rathlin, RBD and UJO to facilitate the horizontal well gives me real cause for concern. It just does not stack up…….
……and that’s where I am
Jack
Persimmon,
The key phase is "Reabold Resources Limited and Gaelic Resources Limited (which are holding companies with NO IMPACT on the consolidated financial statements).
Obviously Director's pay is covered by a Statutory Instrument, and therefore any Director payments made by subsidiary or associated undertakings or the Group itself requires disclosure even if those payments are made to third parties and not the Directors themselves.
Grasping at straws appears to be the agenda of the requisitioner's troll factory.
PS - JD-Nau you cannot trust anything said by Heidi and I definitely would not click on any links by chief BOT.
Jack
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/410/schedule/8/made
Sums paid to third parties in respect of a director’s services
16.—(1) The directors’ remuneration report must show, in respect of each person who served as a director of the company at any time during the relevant financial year, the aggregate amount of any consideration paid to or receivable by third parties for making available the services of the person—
(a)as a director of the company, or
(b)while director of the company—
(i)as director of any of its subsidiary undertakings, or
(ii)as director of any other undertaking of which he was (while director of the company) a director by virtue of the company’s nomination (direct or indirect), or
(iii)otherwise in connection with the management of the affairs of the company or any such other undertaking.
Jack
JD-Nau,
As you asked -
We (Daybreak) have currently filed the audited financial statements of Reabold California LLC, covering the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2021, in an amendment to the Form 8-K that was filed on May 26, 2022 to report the acquisition.
The 8-K/A was filed on July 11, 2023.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1164256/000151597123000107/filename1.htm
Nothing to see here and all accounted for.
Jack
JD-Nau
I class you as a typical troll.
“ There are also huge questions that have been raised on here about what remuneration S&S have taken from the various private subsidiaries that RBD has been set up over the course of the last few years.”
You do realise that the Auditors “Mazars LLP” by definition INCLUDE subsidiaries in the Group accounts.
Reabold North Sea Ltd, Reabold Resourcing Ltd and Gaelic Resources Ltd are all 100% subsidiaries.
What are you implying in your defamatory statements, which are wholly untrue and seek to misinform Shareholders?
Jack
Moniman
£20M ?
That figure must have been quoted by one of the trolls.
Please post how this number has been arrived at
Jack
Italy approves measures to boost energy security, renewable power
Minister sees 27 billion euros in investments
Italy wants to speed up works on new LNG terminals
Rome also promotes carbon capture facilities
ROME, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Italy on Monday approved a decree to boost its energy security and renewable power production, with the minister for ecological transition saying the package was expected to trigger 27.4 billion euros ($29.89 billion) in investments.
The scheme was originally supposed to be announced in October, but it has been frozen for weeks due to internal disagreements within the ruling coalition and then scaled down in some parts.
We want to unlock the great potential of our country on renewables," Minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin said.
Among a raft of measures, the government will set aside 350 million euros per year until 2032 to fund projects aimed at overcoming local opposition against the installation of renewable plants.
Rome also wants to select two maritime state-owned areas in Southern Italy that will be devoted to new off-shore wind projects.
Other measures outline a framework to develop carbon capture and storage facilities (CCS), as energy group Eni (ENI.MI) and gad grid operator Snam (SRG.MI) press ahead with the set up of a CCS hub offshore the city of Ravenna.
To increase supplies of natural gas, the legislation states that onshore LNG terminal projects represent "strategic interventions of public utility, non-deferrable and urgent".
Jack
I guess the only good news is that they are consistent buyers of RBD stock.
Up 235M to 400M at 4.05%.
Day dream believers
Jack
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/RBD/form-8-opd-reabold-resources-plc-qpxejia4pt539yt.html
TF
The big issue is there has been no value add to the SP, only value destruction.
In 2022, both CEO’s were paid a total of £242k each, including £11k pension. In addition 390M (4.5%) of options were regranted this year at much lower vesting levels than previous at a multiple of the SP when granted back in Apr 23.
If a CEO is driving the business forward and creating value for Shareholders they can pay themselves what they like.
For RBD Strategy they went all in with WN, lost the Cali Business and the Parta business, bought licences in the NS that were subsequently handed back and invested in a high risk Italian job from a permitting perspective.
We should not be paying for failure.
The CEO role should be standalone.
Due to the lack of a cohesive strategy, backed by finance to see it through, the existing CEOs are also fighting off Shareholder discontent with two requisitions in 12 months
Even that should tell you that their existing roles are unfit for purpose.
Jack
PS Glad you found out about the C shares before RBD announced their C share position.
Information on the Secretary of States decision will be found here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/victory-field-development
Last update was 18 Aug 23 for a public notice of consultation with an end date of 18 Sept 23.
With 12 working days to go before 01 Dec 23 the outcomes could be:
RNS 14 SEPT 22
On completion of the transaction, the oil and gas major will pay an initial consideration of £10 million (c. £3.2 million net to Reabold).
OUTCOME 1
This will be followed by a further single payment of £22 million (c. £9.5 million net to Reabold), assuming the development and production consent for the Victory gas field is secured from the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), on or before 1 December 2023.
OUTCOME 2
If consent has not been granted by this date, then the oil and gas major will have the option to either: i) pay £12 million, with the remaining £10 million being paid at a later consent date;
OUTCOME 3
or ii) offer to transfer-back the Victory licence to the current CEL shareholders for £1 consideration, with the consequences for Shell writing off the initial £10M.
OUTCOME 4
Rehash the existing SLA, which is also required if Outcome 2 prevails to confirm a later consent date.
Since 19th Sept 23, no further actions have been raised which is probably good news. Shell UK Ltd (Developer) will be informed by letter from the Secretary of State whether it has agreed to or refused to agree to the OGA granting of consent, but I doubt Shell can influence the date when consent or not is given.
Current Market Cap £11.6M
Jack
“Wressle 6mins in capable of doing 1200 barrels of fluid a day “
The Jet pumps by definition use fluid to equalise pressure, so there will be by default more fluid.
In addition, Water 💦 is fluid.
So to mention 1,200 barrels of fluid is a nonsense. What was not said was 1,200 bopd, which is an entirely different reference.
What’s the price of a barrel of Water and what will it be at Xmas 🎅
Jack 😂
Moniman,
There maybe a strategy, but its not aligned with me.
When you look at the 23rd June RNS, when they issued 810,810,811 shares to LNEnergy existing shareholders, they continued to buyback shares. On 29th June, the buyback was further confirmed to last another 3 months to 29 Sept.
The last buyback was on 20th July and nothing since.
Of course on the 24th July we had a Holding's RNS from Robert Price 4.84% or 478,354,460 shares relating to 23 June 23 LNEnergy transaction, which fits in rather well with the buybacks ceasing.
As at 23 June 23, LNEnergy had 1,017 shares in issue, of which 600 were held by Robert Price (a Director of LNEnergy). A quick calculation stacks this up: 810,810,811 shares to LNEnergy existing shareholders / 1017 * 600 = 478,354,460
Effectively, we have swapped 8.2% of RBD plus £750k for 16.2% of LNEnergy (176 shares of 1,085 shares).
8.2% of the largest onshore UK discovery since the 70's against 16.2% of a 90% option interest in Colle Santos, which was discovered in 1966, bogged down by paperwork and permissions, and required Euro 30M to first gas.
If that's not bad enough, RBD changed the original RNS dated 09 May 23 on 12 June 23 to say that the 2nd Option for 127 shares for £1.8M due on or before 30 Nov, had been changed from solely cash to LNEnergy's option to take cash or equity.
So if RBD do take the 2nd option, and LNEnergy opt for equity £1.8M / current share price = 1,800,000,000 RBD shares. This would take their holding to 22% of RBD (811M + 1,800M = 2,611M) / (9877M + 1,800M = 11,677M)
On the face of it, a very bad deal. You really could not make this up.
Jack
Moniman,
The NOMAD, Strand Hanson, should have nothing to do with the buyback, as an agreement was signed with Stifel to act independently.
“During any closed periods of the Company, the buyback agreement will grant Stifel the authority to enact purchases of Ordinary Shares and make trading decisions concerning the timing of the purchases under the Programme independently of the Company.”
Check out the RNS of 29 June 23 for buy back details. In any event, of the initial £750k allocated to this programme, £629,164 was left as at 29 June. The RNS stated that the buyback would continue to 29 Sept 23.
It’s probably ceased due to the fact that £1.5M worth of shares was given to LNEnergy. Why buy back 6M a day, when you have just issued 811M shares?
These strategies are not aligned.
Jack
The RNS fails to mention any update on LNEnergy progress to secure €30M debt financing to fund exercise of Option and the CAPEX of €16M required by Italfluid to first gas.
Sounds like they are getting ahead of themselves…..again
Jack
From a fundamental view, the SP should never have been this low. The strategy is clear to double Revenues over the next three years, in a sector that is in focus due to worldwide security pressure.
However, it looks like the Technical rule for the sp, to remain above down trendline for 2 days, for trend break confirmation is now nailed on.
With regard to the £1M sold at end of July, it might have been purely due to cash or tax circumstances. He continues to hold a fair holding.
Jack