Member Info for jimtheknow

Bhoys, post a comment with a few material facts that can be critiqued and people might start to take you seriously. Whinging in how people just post rubbish with any facts is just wearing your poor fingers out. You’re an empty vessel who sounds desperate for a deal to go through to protect something.

Are you trying to protect a CERP position that will disintegrate if this deal doesn’t go through? Leo Koots said he could have locked in a price around 2p for CERP but would rather this deal instead. Circa 2p per share is what CERP will possibly get if this merger falls through, are people worried by that?

In response to the ‘historic’ 1 - 1.5p post.

Historically BPC haven’t:
Had a rig contract.
Had a credible plan to fund drilling.
Had Environmental Authorisation.
Had an assembled Drilling Team.
Had Mutual Fund and Family Office investors.
Had drill bits, casing and well heads purchased.

The historical 1 to 1.5p assessment has no basis going forward and is only relevant when looking at a historic sp on a chart. Such a comment shows ignorance - it’s a ‘chartists’ comment.

Anyone new to this forum ask yourself this, why would someone spend an enormous amount of time promoting this bad merger deal? Something is obviously not right when it appears to be forced upon you. If you are a BPC holder and are in any doubts as to whether this merger is a good or bad thing do your own research and try and find the good in the deal. Ask yourself:

- When you invested in BPC did you do it to be a part of a potential multi billion barrel prospect, or, were you interested in a 560 barrels of oil a day nickel and dime outfit?
- Did I invest in something that if it struck oil it would be a multibag on my investment or was I wanting to be in something that organically grew it's capacity by 76 bopd in one year!
In your portfolio of investments was BPC the high risk one which you accepted, would buying CERP change your portfolio strategy to something you did not intend?
- CERP would appear to only make money when oil is comfortably above $40/b so CERP isn't going to make anything meaningful with their low rates unless oil is well above $55/b, when do you think that will be post COVID?
- Do you feel CERP could have been 'merged' for cheaper as BPC's share price increased as progress was made on P#1 e.g. confirmation of license, updated EA, Stena rig named, etc...
- All roads to a successful merged company would still appear to be aligned to success at P#1.
- How does diluting my holding by at least an additional 880m shares, plus any additional Director options, etc. help with my initial risk/reward investment decision and given it still all seems to revolve around P#1, why do this deal now?

I have been posting about BPC for years and in general I think they have huge potential whilst being high risk. I think they were well on the path this time to realising that potential - look back at all my posts.

Be wary of those with new accounts from turn of this year who only post good and great things and are afraid of saying where the company may be going wrong. No company is perfect and it is not healthy to pretend so.

If this merger is voted down I predict this sp will return to the 4p to 5p levels and move on to levels more aligned to a risk reward ratio of a potential 2 billion barrel find.

JtK

I see still no more information on this bad deal and given the now open window on voting it is highly unlikely any will come. What another huge disappointment from BPC.

CERP are a company backed into a corner because of the global pandemic, as Malcy stated they are unable to raise money by usual means, they have liabilities in Spain to abandon 18 wells. There production is almost insignificant at less than 600 bopd. They have no profit margin in this climate or one in the foreseeable.

If it were true that this joint company would give BPC greater access to money markets and institutions then why can’t CERP leverage that position as a single entity without BPC baggage? They can’t because money men see them as virtually none existent at the moment. Money markets are sharp and if you’re wanting someone to do your risk assessment and appraisal of this deal for you ask yourself why institutions haven’t floated CERP already? It’s not worth the hassle for them.

As for BPC, we have a financing plan for P#1 and this has been clearly spelled out for us. It may not be the best deal on the best terms but we accept it. So why take on this CERP dog for almost another 900m shares more, plus all the extra options that are being tabled.

If you’re ever in doubt if this board are aligned with you just look at Resolution 3. If they were man enough they should have made that Resolution 1.

We want to drill P#1 on the terms we know now and if it fails that’s what we bought in to and we’ll have closure on this decade long saga.

Don’t let anyone fool you that voting is futile and a takeover will happen regardless, a takeover will still need approval.

All Resolutions should be voted down and we need to get back on the path we were on before our BoD sucked the life out of this share to give themselves opportunities for many many millions of more options. Get on with the job in hand BPC and reward yourself that way, you’ve bitten the hand that feeds you and we don’t like it you greedy animal.

JtK

How sure are you PoC that the force majeure doesn’t apply both ways? Are you 100% sure, are you privy to the details of the contract?

Linton, the question was for LTH Novice who seems to make out he’s been around a while and is quite knowledgeable in all things BPC.

P.S. the company have made a statement some time back on which acreage within the license areas it would give up.

Novice, How much of BPC’s licenses do they have to give up at the end of this term should there be no problems and the license extension be granted?

PoC, I don’t think you’re getting what I’m saying, I don’t disagree it’s force majeure, it is. I’ll paste the Wikipedia definition for clarification...

Force majeure is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, epidemic or an event described by the legal term act of God, prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.

In continuation of the force majeure discussion.

I think it puzzles everyone to this day why the Seadrill contract was never formalised and the same could be said for some the important CLN conditions. Surely this can only be because they were going to be given free access to the suspected drillship by a farm in partner?

With this ship now long since gone I think it was a surprise to everyone to see the Stena contract signed and maybe this was done to apply pressure to the Bahamian government in any force majeure decision making process? People close to the company will remember the words of Attorney General Bethal at the time of the last extension stating they had sought legal advice and a decision not to extend would have cost them a lot of money, maybe a force majeure situation could have presented them with an opportunity to walk away this time?

With the mutual fund, a rig contract now signed and a preliminary EA in place it seems unlikely BPC will not be given the extension to drill and evaluate results before opting to renew but we have had so many twists on this road nothing would surprise.

I think Plan A was always P#1 and Uruguayan license but BPC may have got nervous with a force majeure decision not going their way and enacted a Plan B with CERP which wasn’t ideal but it saves their bacon, and preserves the gravy.

It is almost unquestionable that a global pandemic isn’t a force majeure event, I don’t think that is up for debate. What is up for debate is what that means to this company.

A force majeure clause normally works equally for both parties in a contract and allows them both to break from a contract without penalty. BPC must therefore confirm the government are happy to continue with BPC with a delay and that they are not inclined to tear up the contract. Which is possible.

BPC are being very choice about their words, as they always are. At the moment I care little about the length of any delay and only whether the Government will continue with BPC.

Today's number of trades and virtually static sp exemplifies the fantastic job BPC's BoD has done in sucking all the life and buzz out of this share, they have so far killed interest stone dead by this merger. Talk of Moby's in the water, etc is quite frankly laughable at the moment. Given the COVID pandemic I feel this company offered something that very few did and it had the opportunity to build up a real buzz about it on further milestone news flow.

Instead we find ourselves hamstrung by an opportunity the market doesn't really like, if the greater market thought this were a good deal and we'd be stronger coming out the other side of it then the sp would have climbed, at least marginally, on the back of it. The reverse has actually happened.

If this botched, rushed merger is voted down I predict the interest and buzz will return to this share and we will see a step up back to the 4 to 5p range, with this rising further as we get closer to December - this was the path we were on.

People who have sold BPC and bought CERP must be very concerned about such a decision. Without this merger CERP will tank and BPC will rise and it'll be more expensive for them to partake in P#1.

BPC's BoD need to pull a rabbit out of the hat to get interest going again.

Anyone care to take part in a quiz just for fun? Who used to be the prolific poster on this BB that would often talk about the legalities of postings on this board and say they had everything recorded?

First to reply wins.

Cars, if only we hadn't herd that a million times before we might believe it.

Another one for discussion.

CERP will have liabilities to plug and abandon 18 wells at their La Lora concession in Spain, this work is expected to begin in 2021. CERP have a c.$1m claim in against the Spanish government to recover costs associated with this concession, again, everyone should be their own judge on whether it'll be possible to get anything from Spanish government and on what time frame.

All in black & white on page 20/109

My wants for BPC are for it to succeed and i am very much aligned to that outcome. I suspect my holding will be reasonably significant for some, whilst insignificant for others. Its enough to keep me focused but not the end of the world if it goes belly up - the right balance i'd say.

I hold the position i do as i believe in the geological potential, i like it's relative uniqueness (size) and therefore it's a bit of a buzz to be able to take a reasonably significant slice in such an opportunity. This is what's turned Leo Koots' head. It's therefore a touch annoying watching this slice eroded without clear, transparent and justifiable reasons whilst the BoD mitigate themselves against this very issue - doesn't feel like we're in it together. If i'd have wanted a CERP life i'd have gone looking for a CERP. The irony of this situation is not lost on me; how the comparatively safe, slow organic growth model is now needing to use a frontier wildcat as a crutch - shouldn't it be the other way around? CERP holders may argue this is the case. I'll be voting No but will still partake in P#1 if it's a Yes.

We (mostly) all believed in the P#1 funding plan so we held our noses and voted for it. This new path creates a bigger stench with little more to show for it and to rub salt in the wounds, the only visible path to fund the new venture is further dilution as P#1 takes up what we know.

I believe the BoD have the skill sets to deliver P#1, i believe they are competent people in that regard - however - i feel they have lost the drive and passion and have got hooked on the easier life, that being content on not delivering and not being embarrassed by it. Remember the rhetoric that they spouted when they got the license extension in February? To paraphrase, they said it focused them on their goal to deliver the well - were they not focused before? A lot of this could be brushed aside if they talked more to their holders, but they don't. They say they will explore shareholder roadshows at AGM's and once everyone is out the room they go back to talking about remuneration and Options packages for themselves. When they do appear in daylight they also ask a man to come wearing a funny tie as a sideshow because it amuses them.

Buying into a company isn't solely about faith in a BoD, you also buy into a plan, a product, an asset, a timeline, a return on investment.... I come on here and present facts and open it up for discussion, not half truths with an agenda. A few people say i talk rubbish but not one has ever said the facts aren't right. The market is so much bigger than this ****y little board so it will find the strengths and weaknesses in any deal regardless and will mark it as such. CERP may be a good purchase in times to come but it represents an unnecessary threat as it stands on what they have told us. I'd rather have contingency for a stuck drill bit or a P#2, than 560 bopd.

Surely a farm-in must be close for this to fly.

Tiburn, and that just exemplifies the nonsense that was being peddled.

Tiburn, As i do, i'd like to challenge that smoke and mirrors statement about being a joint entity makes them bigger/better. I'm a pretty hardcore BPC holder but even i will admit BPC are nothing without a find at P#1 so how does adding BPC onto CERP make CERP any bigger/better? It doesn't does it. Its a great sound bite to put out and make an analogy with a couple going for a mortgage but if you add nothing, to something tiny, you still end up with something tiny.

And that means, as has been stated before, all roads lead back to success or failure of P#1 so i'd rather do that without CERP at this moment in time.

Tiburn, Exactly what insurance is ratified, where has this come from?

Bhoys, I'm not here for an argument, i'm also not here to pass the time of day as if it's some social media chat room, i'm here to simply discuss BPC related issues.

If you want to be taken seriously by anyone, how can you say i don't carry "any substance" when all i have done is copy and paste our companies production and fiscal data, straight from their merger document. If this is not 'substance' then i don't know what is. Please enlighten me, and everyone reading, what qualifies as 'substance' and please start backing up your statements with facts to try and win people over.

If you don't you are in danger of looking like a desperate CERP holder who needs this deal to go through to save his company, and that is about as unsettling as it gets for BPC holders expected to vote on this.

In the interests of getting to the bottom of some of the hard facts that may help people understand the merits, or not, of this merger I would urge everyone to read the CERP Operational Highlights on page 21 of the 109 page document. Some of the key highlights are this:

CERP's average production in 1H 2019 was 561 barrels of oil per day. This compares to 485 bopd for the 1H 2018. So in 1 whole year they only managed to improve operations in this period by 76 bopd.

Netback per barrel of US$16.72 achieved in 1H 2019 (1H 2018: US$13.13 per barrel). During this period in 2019 oil roughly averaged $50 per barrel, with a peak of around $66/b.

Group sales in 1H 2019 were 92,154 barrels. Using the netback per barrel for this period gives c. $1.5m (c. £1.1m).

BPC are paying c. £25m for CERP, assuming all of the above goes to negating BPC's outlay that's around a 20 year payback.

So, the question again from us loyal, paying shareholders is the same: Where is the low hanging fruit within CERP's portfolio that can significantly see a ramp up in production? The great man, dynamic leader and energetic Mr Koots only managed to squeeze another 76 bopd out of these assets in 1 year, what hope does the lethargic Cheech & Chong of BPC (Simon & Eytan) think they can do here?

We are in a climate of suppressed oil prices, what does oil need to reach before this operation is self sustaining? How long can new group carry losses for and where is this money coming from? No one has the crystal ball for when oil prices will recover and this is an uncertainty for everyone world leader, no one can predict this. We must have a buffer to sustain this storm till the good times come and take losses on the chin - where is the new groups buffer for this?

How much money do CERP need (in addition to buffer) to grow there production? Are they looking for $1m, $5m, $10m...? Where is this money identified PRIOR to drilling P#1 as if this is a duster then raising will be a joke.

If the plan is to take on debt after 'merging' with CERP to fund P#1, or negate some of the CLN shares, how is this really possible when CERP aren't generating real positive cash with oil around $40/b. The price of oil, and therefore the ability to leverage production ain't really going to change that much between August and December. What is a little insight into the plan please? If there is a plan!

We are not averse to voting Yes it is simply the metrics don't add up in these current times. CERP may be great when oil is $70+/b but that is a pipedream and no more at the moment. No one has the first clue if and when those days will return - pure speculation!

This is why this is a BAD deal as it stands. BPC could have had CERP at a 0.5 ratio if it had waited 3 months, it could have had it at 0.25 in December. It could get it for virtually nothing in January 2021.

This is bad, sloppy business as it stands.

I await responses from the Politburo about spreading

Don’t fear the enemy that attacks you, but the fake friend that hugs you.