Member Info for jimtheknow

Couldn’t disagree more. Some very good support being shown on the drop.

Jeff, Other than the sp being where it is, what makes you think that?

Lint, I think I agree with what you say, I think it is coming to a head. For good or bad, we will have to wait and see but my opinion is still that it will come good. We’ve had so much bad luck in the chain of (major) events up to this day I think eventually, after all this time, things are aligning for BPC. The price of oil, the industry cycle turning, the Bahamas looking for other revenue streams, the global financial situation, the time elapsed since Deep Water Horizon, the political instability in large producing countries, the region being viewed as the next new frontier, etc etc. I feel there’s a good chance we’ll know before year end, hopefully much sooner. Good things come to those who wait.

Lint, any reason other than a gut feeling? My feeling is news will come late Oct, early Nov. However, I will continue to be hopeful as long as MQ are still involved. If they don’t renew in January then I would agree the dynamics have changed. However, should they renew I would see that as a very positive step forward.

Bryn, Yes, a lot of this does seem futile and I do try and take a back seat from time to time. However, I’m not going to stand by and let untruths fester and build momentum, I’ve seen it happen before and it spreads like cancer. It needs reigning back in from time to time and keeping in check. Anything I put on here should either be easily checkable from open information or if further support is required then I will provide it. I spend quite a bit of time reading a lot of Bahamian publications, government website, etc. If I throw something out there for discussion and opinion I hope that is made clear also. Let’s all hope for one of those good Thursday/Friday 7am RNS’s to put us out of our misery ;-)

Nep, Sorry for slight delay, we’re not all Scully. Approx volume traded on day of crash = 205.6m. This equates to roughly 13.5% of total shares in circulation. Closing sp day before crash = 6.35p Closing sp on day of crash = 1.98p This equates to roughly a 69% fall. I’ve just quickly grabbed them figures from an open source, not verified or checked in detail. Seem to recall this being about right though. I agree, we need to call a halt to this. However, expect to be challenged if you continue to spread inaccuracies about our state of play. Everything I state is my opinion based on the facts available and I think I do a pretty reasonable job of explaining my reason or rationale where I think required. I don’t go around saying things like the major has walked if I can’t back it up. I have an open mind and will change my views as and when new information becomes available and that view may be contrary to my previous beliefs. This is the nature of the game we dabble in. GLALTH

You obviously haven’t understood what I said because I’m not saying a small investor base holds a large volume of shares. You don’t understand. My correlation is between volume traded and sp movement. I’m saying the 10% volume, which was overwhelming Sells, resulted in a 70% fall in sp. Somone once told me this is because it’s all about supply and demand, now who would that have been? I have absolutely no idea whether that 10% volume relates to a large investor base or small, by number of people invested. It would be silly of me to speculate on that as there isn’t much info available to deduce that. Having a Buy opinion at this price and calling it a good punt is absolutely appropriate. No one should ever invest more than they can afford to lose, certainly not in penny shares, they are high risk by nature. They are also potential high reward. There is often only a binary outcome. I think my choice of words is very apt. Anything else you need explaining?

Neptune’s. I explained my rationale to the 90% comment in a previous post to you. If you can’t work that out then go read it again. Same with a lot of things you repeat question.

Davie, it does though and I’ll say it again. The Cessation of Exclusivity Agreement (24/8/18), the first sentence... “....that it will not extend the exclusive nature of negotiations...” You can not change the nature of something that has ended unless the nature of that change is for it to end. If this had stated “...that it will not extend the exclusive negotiations....” I’d agree with you 100%. The use of that one word ‘nature’ is the crux of it all. I’m leaving it at that. If you don’t understand then that’s not my problem and if you have sold everything and are sick as a chip post any good news because you misunderstood then that will be your burden to live with.

Nep, If you want to believe even the most basic negotiations never got underway that is your right and that is something we may never know. If that is your thought process you could apply the same thinking to not knowing a proper evaluation of the licenses ever got underway. The oil major may have started looking at things and then their companies executive made have made a decision that no matter what their findings this was not to be progressed further. I find all this highly unlikely but I’m just trying to go with you. We can only go on what we are told and they said they would be working towards a commercial transaction, you can only believe they stuck by their word. As for the 90%. You (continuously) imply that because the share price lost 70+% then it must be true the major walked. You have stated this over countless posts. I was equating the loss of 70% to an approximation of shares sold which resulted in that 70% loss. If you attribute a share price movement as verification of a process (which I most certainly don’t) then surely based on your logic which should look at what didn’t happen. People held on to 90% of the total share volume that day, they felt no reason to sell. Applying your logic means the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of a positive outcome to all this. The truth is the share price is verification of nothing other than investor sentiment, this sentiment is based on people’s own knowledge and experience in life. c. 10% of the volume on one day for this company will be hugely significant to its sp, it was hugely oversold that day and will not recover unless the sentiment changes and this becomes overbought. I think today’s sp offers huge value with an obvious element of risk. As I have stated previously, it’s difficult to see how we could have more information at our disposal which points towards a positive outcome, other than another exclusivity deal or actual deal. The danger now is whether we get news out of the blue, which I would say is the more likely scenario. I also don’t think there’s that much for us to fall either as if we get bad news these will just go in bottom draw for people - again. However, we get good news and this will multiply many times in a flash. News of a deal would see this c. 15p with ease. Not a bad punt for me I’d say if you only put in what you are prepared to lose. We know they’re working on a deal with someone, we all know this, no one denies this. We bicker about whether the major is involved, I’m sure the major is involved in some capacity based on RNS. My opinion on this is a BUY, I see it as a great punt. I see it as a great punt at double this sp, it would easy 10 bag as they say on news of a deal. Past history on this sp is a misguided way to look at this at this point in time as the variables in play are not the same, everything about what is required to see a deal done has streng

Davie, it does though, its across two RNS’s. The Exclusivity RNS stated we entered negotiations and the Cessation of Exclusivity RNS stated the nature of those negotiations changed. It’s there, it’s right in front of our faces. To flog a dead horse (again). It never says negotiations ended, it only says the nature of negotiations changed - the nature of them. If negotiations had changed with the effect they had ended it would be incorrect of the company to word a sentence the way they have in a regulated document, this would not be telling the truth. It’s there, in plain and simple English. Tell me how it says negotiations have ended and we might be able to help you.

Neptune’s, couple of things. I agree completely that the period of exclusivity was no guarantee of a deal. Not sure why you think I have implied that or think that. It obviously doesn’t. My point on whether we should be told of a deal is based on the following. When we signed the exclusivity agreement we entered into a process that was very material to the sp and potentially future existence of this company. It is therefore incumbent on the company to divulge this information and make it public knowledge. Having done this, made it public we are partaking in a very material activity, we are then obliged to be informed this process is no longer relevant and material to the future ongoings of this business. If it had never been made public, via an RNS, then I would agree that it could be considered beyond that which we need to know. However, this was and is not the case. We have been updated that there has been a material change in these negations, this is confirmed by the RNS which stated the negations changed from being Exckusive, to that of being a non Exclusive nature. This is verifiable fact, it says so in a market regulated document. The market has not been informed negotiations are over. If they were over this would be material to the sp and after having been informed a negotiating process is underway, we must be told it has finished. As for the 70+% drop, this can easily be explained. Our sp dropped because of the actions of what is only a small percentage of holders. The volume of shares sold on morning of the Cessation RNS represented c. 10% of total share circulation. The actions of these few are not confirmation of an event, they are confirmation only of how they understand business, the oil & gas industry, our operating environment and what they perceive to be our prospects. They are not a verification of what the oil major has or has not done. We only know what the oil major has done from what is stated in regulated news flow. To use your argument, c. 90% of the market think a deal is still on. Problem is they roughly have the amount shares they want and won’t be buying more. I’ve bought a few more in this dip and have taken my exposure up to a level I’m comfortable with. What we need to know is all there in regulated documents. The rest is what people add themselves. It’s simple

Davie, I do understand what your saying and like you I have followed the discussion on this very closely on here. However, I would go so far as to say it does say, it is only when you start to 2nd guess what is said do people draw the conclusion the major isn’t still around. The regulated news flow regarding this matter has been quite straight forward, very black & white. We were told we entered into an Exclusive NDA with an oil major with a view to completing a commercial transaction. We were told the exclusive nature of negotiations had ended and would receive no further money in that respect. We were told BPC & Maq would recommence discussions with third parties, which we have had had further confirmation this has happened. We know we can’t be told about the details of any ongoing negotiations because of the NDA and we aren’t being told anything. It doesn’t get any more simple than that does it? How much more in plain English does anyone need? In any other walk of life, if you were to go on and assume anything more than what had been said from an information source that is regulated, people would question your sanity or credibility. Just because we haven’t been told a deal has been concluded should not be assumed the oil major has walked. Given we operate in a regulated environment then it would be required to inform the market if a deal was, or was not concluded. That is very much price sensitive information, to know the result of any discussions, we would obliged to be told a deal could not be reached. By us not knowing the result of this process it is therefore clear negotiations, non exclusive negotiations, are continuing. We are being told everything we need to know. People may add their own suspicions and doubt to paint a picture of what has not been stated, but what is being stated is very clear. Crystal clear. I’ll say it again, where does it say anywhere that the major is still not involved? I challenge anyone to show me. The truth is, they can’t and won’t be able to, because it’s simply not there. This may change but it is not what is in the public domain now. A deal is very much still being worked and from what we are told we have every reason to believe this still involves the paying oil major.

It seems difficult to believe the constant dribble of low value trades is from anyone who is serious about this company. You get the feeling it’s from a person or persons intent on trying to build negative sentiment and fill the trades boards with red. Anyone else noticed or thought this?

They haven’t though. Show me where it says they have walked. Show me how can prove it and I’ll believe you. You can’t back it up, you have no evidence. It shows how little you know about the company and about proceedings if you are saying it’s because there is no EA. Everyone who follows the company in detail knows the answer with the EA, we know this is not the issue. The company stated this and we know the EA won’t be finalised until every variable about the drill is known. You are picking up on words but you don’t know what you are really talking about, you are putting little bits of information together in your head and talking nonesense. Come on, tell everyone on here how you know for a fact the major is no longer involved. We’re all waiting for this wisdom and we’ll adjust our investment strategy accordingly.

Before people start ordering the headstone for BPC’s grave and organising the wake, I would suggest people have a read and understand what is written in the now infamous ‘Cessation’ RNS. Please remember when taking the time to properly read and understand every word, the constraints imposed by an NDA and the regulated nature of such a document. I would draw particular attention to our CEO’s (regulated) words “...having demonstrated interest...”. ‘Demonstrated Interest’ can have a particular technical meaning, it generally means you are in possession of information from someone or something that strongly indicates a committed intention, and you can demonstrate this. Please do your own research here. There is a very good reason to believe these two words should not be read in their singular, past tense. Understand? With the risk of sounding very basic and simple here. The word “having” obviously means to be in possession of, to hold, to own, etc. Now, read all this in the context it was written in the RNS in a technical nature. “having demonstrated interest from an oil major”. It is not saying we have had interest in the past from an oil major and it is now gone, it is saying we are in possession of ‘demonstrated interest’ from an oil major. What was the RNS telling the market? It says: The Major did not want to be exclusive. The Company has gone out to speak with other companies armed with ‘ having demonstrated interest’ from an oil major’. We are now talking to other companies. Our board is bound by the NDA not to disclose any details of negations. Penny dropped yet for anyone? Our CEO is telling us within the bounds of what he can say what we want to know. It’s there in writing, regulated writing. The major has not walked, we would need to be told this because it is material to the sp. He can’t say anything about any negotiations as he is bound by legal contract. I believe our future does require another partner, another in addition to our major. Here lies the risk. However, the potential for a deal is very much still on and we are now many weeks down the line talking to at least 4 other companies, other companies who can be shown ‘demonstrated interest’ from our paying oil major. We could get news at any time.

I struggle to understand why people put so much effort into proliferating unsubstantiated negativity on here about the Company unless they have some personal agenda. Let’s (once again) remember the facts and why this still stands as pretty good punt, although not without risk. 1) We have independently corroborated world scale assets. As big and comparable to the very best on this planet. 2) We are (technically) drill ready. 3) We require funding for a drill. 4) We entered into an Exclusive NDA with a major oil company who paid us $1m. 5) We were specifically informed that no details of negations, nor the name of the Counterparty, would become public unless a deal was concluded. 6) A market regulated news bulletin was issued by the Company, after consultation with their Nomad, which specifically stated the oil major did not wish to continue the “exclusive nature” of negotiations. That’s all, let’s not pretend it said anything more about the oil major, it didn’t. 7) The Company stated it was opening up discussions with other parties. 8) The Company has stated it has now resumed discussions with previous and new companies. 9) The price of oil has hit 4yr highs. 10) It is well known oil companies enter Joint Ventures for oil exploration and production. Which of all of the above facts says the Company is over? Or even remotely suggests it’s over? If someone reply’s to this post and says ‘well why did the major walk?’ then the only thing they are doing is publicly demonstrating they have a low IQ because there is absolutely nothing, nothing, to substantiate the major has walked. At this moment in time there is nothing. Information may come out in the future which does state this but as it stands now there is nothing. As far as low market cap shares go, how much more information are you going to get that something may actually happen? The only thing you can have more than what we have is actual confirmation and if that happens we’re a £250m+ company in the blink of an eye. Everyone is perfectly entitled to their opinion and their choice of investment decisions but please don’t embarrass yourself by saying the oil major walked and the Company is over because you sound like you have access to information you can’t possibly have and that would either be illegal or require some form of clairvoyance powers. Someone is also doing a bloody good job of protecting market sensitive information about our situation, surely this can only be viewed as a positive. The game is very much still on until we hear some facts that state otherwise.

Jay, out of interest, if you think it is overpriced at today’s sp and your buy in price is going to be lower, surely you don’t think anything good can come from the company to get back to this level. Where’s your margin going to come from? Surely you are just wasting your time and money on this share if those are your beliefs. Surely your outlook and therefore your money would be exposed to ultra high risk, according to you. You don’t make sense.

Bob, as a company we have had the misfortune to have experienced what some people may call ‘Black Swan’ events. We haven’t just had one Black Swan either, I’d say we’ve experienced at least two and possibly three: 1) the financial crash. 2) deep water horizon. 3) oil price crash. Some may say the oil price crash could have been reasonably predicted, however, it was a very deep crash and maybe few foresaw that. Any one of those globally reaching events would have tested most companies, but three! Some credit has to be given to our mute BoD for us surviving to this point. Given an RNS is a regulated document one thing we can be absolutely sure of is is that we are in contact/discussions with at least four companies. There is more than one ‘old company’ because the RNS stated “resumed discussions with various parties” (i.e. more than 1) and “new companies” (i.e. more than 1). Let’s be pessimistic for a change and say it’s only 2 + 2. :-) To add to our frustration I feel we will never know anymore about these discussions unless we receive remuneration and/or a deal is done as any process is likely to involve an NDA. Not good I know and the company should have smart enough people on board to figure out how they can communicate something in a reasonable way. They’ve kind of made a rod for their own back over the years by their relative silence as any crumb of positive news sparks hysteria of £1+ sp’s! Without an Exclusivity in place news, good or bad, could land any morning. This is why hope kills. I’m in it till we get put out of our misery as despite what the share price says, we’ve heard nothing that can be verified that says we are over. If you read things in black & white we should actually still be quite positive. GLALTH We are out of

Bob, trust me, I feel and share your frustration. However, we must accept that if the rules of business are adhered to we will not know the answers to your questions and we were told this in the Exclusivity RNS in may. It specifically stated the name of the Counterparty will not become known unless a deal is concluded. Maybe we have to give our board a degree of credit for running an AIM company by the rules. It’s a strange concept and thought that this may actually be true. If they are running it by the rules, which we have to believe they are doing, then maybe we should take the RNS’s literally, we should only read what is said. I’m absolutely convinced they’ll be in discussions with the NOMAD prior to releasing an RNS, I’d put my life on that. They will will be aware of their actions and tip toe around everything. On the 10yrs of pain you have no doubt been let down and disappointed on many occasions. But remember this, the industry is cyclical and it has just come out of one of the biggest and longest troughs for a while. The industry is without doubt on the upward slope of the next cycle, that is not s BPC thing, it’s an industry thing. Comparing today’s chances are not the same as that of 2, 3 or 6yrs should. We must remember that, it’s very important to our story.