Member Info for JP2000

11th & 12th Jan, approx 3 weeks after start

Icemax moving off site will be a clue.

Results are most likely to give net pay, API and possibly a 24h flow test, but this drill will not definitively provide a 2P.

Any ideas why the selling as dried up during last two days?

Whilst there is nothing negative in the rns, FFS when are they going to give some real answers; 55k, divi,KRG?

If you go to flightradar there’s a large chopper on site now.

Could mean absolutely anything.

Proselene, what’s your investment strategy for BPC?

TLW currently out or favour

A bit of volatility wouldn’t be a bad thing at the moment.

But I agree re RNS

One thing to consider is the cost of capital, Genel are paying 9% & GKP 10% for debt which seems extortionately high if reflective of the risks of Kurdistan. I don't mind debt in the short term or for temporary working capital but given the cost of debt then I'd prefer management kept things simple with no net debt which is currently the case.

Its not clear what the road map is to 55k BOPD or the costs though we're led to believe they were 6 months from completion so it can't be mega bucks to finish.

My big concern is the next development phase from 55 to 75K BOPD and looking through old presentations it could be of magnitude +$400m which is an eyewatering amount because it involves gas reinjection. I hope I'm wrong or there are other alternatives.

A progressive dividend policy such as 30% of incremental earnings would turbo charge the share price but given the cost and risks of debt financing in relation to the 75k expansion then I have some doubts over how generous GKP should be.

Page: bear in mind the "well result" is not a single event but 10 sizeable targets within a 3000m range and 3 geological time zones. They should be on the first target about now (plus or minus 2-3 days ) but they will be only have reached 30-50% of targets by the 13th.

Re funding: what we don’t know are the drivers for extra cash? A duster and its last chance saloon or success and they want to go deeper to complete the geology.

Royalty is slightly below Gulf of Mexico but then this is virgin territory so higher risk.

Outonmike: see what the RNS says on Wed and be careful, it could be a sucker rally followed by a flood of sells in the afternoon. Good luck whatever you do.

Did you buy before 2016?

Gulf of Mexico has 3000 rigs, the North Sea c175 rigs. Nobody is that bothered to be honest.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court justice allowed the applicants to make amendments to their application to add an affidavit.

On the request for leave for an extension of time, Weekes said the court considered the matter carefully, including the timeframe and broader context on the reason for the context.

She said it was clear the applicants were clearly engaged in monitoring the process of approvals.

She said there were “sufficiently good reasons” for the court extending the time and granted the extension of time.

“The respondents have failed to demonstrate what prejudice they would suffer… for an extension of time,” Weekes said.

Weekes, who delivered an oral ruling this morning, said she expected to hand down a written ruling this afternoon.

Security

Counsel for the government Franklyn Williams inquired as to security for cost of the judicial review proceedings.

However. Smith said the security for cost matter was the government’s attempt to “pull the rug out of a meritorious judicial review hearing”.

He asked Williams to take instructions again, and suggested it was not appropriate to use the procedurally “undermining tactics”.

Smith said: “Let’s get on with the hearing on the merits of this.”

Williams said he was inquiring to do just that.

Smith has said the government is seeking security for cost in the amount of $200,000.

https://ewnews.com/granted-supreme-court-grants-leave-for-judicial-review-of-exploratory-oil-drilling

GRANTED: Supreme Court grants leave for judicial review of exploratory oil drilling
LocalJanuary 5, 2021January 5, 2021 at 12:58 pm Royston Jones Jr.

GRANTED: Supreme Court grants leave for judicial review of exploratory oil drilling
The Stena IceMax drillship. (PHOTO COURTESY OF BPC VIDEO)
Test well drilling to continue
NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Supreme Court Justice Petra Hanna-Weekes today granted applicants leave to seek judicial review of the government’s approvals for Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) to drill an exploratory well in Bahamian waters, ruling that Save The Bays and Waterkeepers Bahamas Limited have “an arguable case”.

However, Weekes denied the applicant’s application for a stay of the ongoing drilling exercise — a process that began on December 20.

The drilling exercise is expected to be completed within 45 to 60 days and does not involve extracting any oil if found.

In court, Weekes said while the court has the discretion to order a stay, it is tantamount to an injunction and such an order should be to stay the “decision-making process and its implementation”.

She said: “…The decision-making process has been completed; the decisions have been implemented, and subsequently the joint exercise to which those decisions that were made has commenced. Therefore, to my mind, under the circumstances, there is no decision-making process to be stayed.

“I, therefore, accept the submission of Mr [Aiden] Casey, QC, is this regard. Further, as all parties have agreed this exercise is of great public importance, albeit for different reasons, I do not accept counsel for the applicant’s submission that the respondents at BPC would suffer no [ ] if such a stay was granted.”

The applicants are seeking to have quashed the respondents’, namely the government, decisions to grant environmental approvals for BPC last year.

In court documents, the applicants made the case that the approvals granted to BPC for drilling an exploratory well in southwestern waters of The Bahamas was procedurally wrong, unfair and unlawful.

Fred Smith, QC, represents the applicants.

BPC applied to the court to become a part of the proceedings, though the company was not named as a respondent in the judicial review application.

The company has argued that the judicial review application was without merit, and relies on the affidavit of BPC CEO Simon Potter.

Aiden Casey, QC, counsel for the government, has argued that the applicants to not have a strong prima facie case and the application for leave for judicial review is without merit.

or perhaps there are some issues such as the EIA and the change of drill ship might not be explicitly covered in legislation/BG process and hence the review. It was certainly a notifiable event and the BG had the right to refuse the change but was it material enough to warrant a new public consultation otherwise you would paralyse any progress everytime changes occured.

Are there any advantages to FXPO being domiciled in Switzerland when the listing is in London?