Member Info for Kooba

I have far more knowledge of the whole restructuring and high court goings on than you might imagine and did watch all the court appearances ..i still believe that disgruntled pi’s alone would not have in any way succeeded . So that remains my informed opinion. Thanks for the limited and flawed shout out but you should also be correctly informed before making such comments i reckon. Anyway we won and the oil price made us right up to a point ..hurrah . If you remember some of the main arguments were around further wells and further licences having value..not sure those arguments really panned out!

‘His appointment marked the demise of the company.”

I would imagine folk who believed Trice might beg to differ

The main reason the company's forecasts in the past were wrong was the oil price rise..well ahead of curve and market expectation they were using..that same market expectation you use to justify higher value now…so financially the financial result was far better than forecast, on actual production they have been conservative and it tends to come in top of the range.but they have not been much out and you can go back to the old anticipated future production from the. Court case to see that. Being conservative seems sensible in managing expectation with this counter.. The oil price is currently struggling ..but if it should manage to surprise on the upside again to natural cessation then the 17.5% revenue share also goes up..to a large extent it mirrors the interest net that shareholders currently have..though operational gearing kicks in at around $90 in favour of standalone i reckon.

There you senseman…for openness ..but you keep your response from CRS private..I’m sure there is nothing inside during and offer period.

I think RB’s point on communicating the deal and engagement is a good one…hopefully Hurricane and Prax make a concerted effort , they have convinced the two largest shareholders that this represents the best option..they would appear to need to do a fair bit more to convince pi’s whose expectation was largely far too high.
I have had a look on LSE. Quite a bit of negative comment before today mostly just emotions running high and little substance save for a few interest points around the revised CPR..i don’t think this extends production beyond the mid 2025 mark but if it does the DCUs share to end 2026 unless the 12.5p already met.
I am interested how they think they can vote this down…and if they do..then what? Same management , same draining the well same outcome according to the company of payout 8.19p with cessation of production august 2025 ( or less if production issue or BW takes the AM away) and final payouts to shareholders 2026 once the decommissioning done and company wound up but during that period there are still overheads. The funds held in escrow are important , if the well carries on to natural economic exhaustion its possible Hurricane gets the escrow back from BW..its unclear what might be owed at that point. Obviously if there is an early cessation then those funds are forfeit.
The decommissioning monies themselves were probably reasonably provided for but with cost increases in Nth Sea , seasonal weather conditions and potential shortage of rigs to do the work they probably do need to make further contingency..some on the other board just seem to think you can move money out of restricted..nope not the case it is legally binding with NSTA and BW as far as i am aware.
The other figure that RB points out is that if for any reason there is an early cessation of production on an operational issue ( this being the main reason nobody wants to pay upfront) then we could end up with less than the current cash as we would have overheads again until the decommissioning done and company wound up. That is why the company would have to retain a large chunk of cash on balance sheet on a standalone basis for this contingency and not pay more out.

I thought that was your job senseman ! I think the same about the nonsense posted on other boards too..lots of **** and wind. But i get accused of being a charlatan on here so all is fair and as always i am allowed an opinion.

On CRS they have one obligation to shareholders ..and that is to their own shareholders. That is why they risked capital and acted to successfully prevent the restructuring and other shareholders in Hurricane benefitted..without CRS legal council there was not really going to be a hearing so it would likely have gone through i guess.

I have no reason to believe that will not be the timetable..should i?
Anyway please confirm you speak for 100m shares or its simply a complete bluff isn’t it and undoubtedly not the first time this company has seen that. Not sure it really concentrates anyones thoughts ..but its nice to think it might i suppose.

If you do not have a firm group representing 100m shares they might see the alluding as a bit of a bluff i reckon ..and even if you do they know they have the irrevocables to get it passed before a GM can be held. Just guessing really.

Company has stated scheme document anticipated early April GM anticipated late April in the presentation https://stream.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/64107f37f866e2102a4e9acf
I guess them having 45% hard irrevocables would give them some comfort that they have sufficient shareholder support to weather any allusions .

If and lets say it is quite a big if folks can demonstrate the have 5% of the company's shares acting in concert and requisition a general meeting ..and it is accepted as bona fide by the company. The company then can ( as has before ) string along quite legitimately to past when there is a shareholder vote on the scheme. The GM approving scheme anticipate end April. Timescales to requisitioned GM.
1)Directors required under section 303 to call a general meeting of the company must call a meeting—

(a)within 21 days from the date on which they become subject to the requirement, and

(b)to be held on a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice convening the meeting.

As you are probably aware i am not as optimistic in the cash generation ability of well 6 ..i think costs remain high and are getting higher. I note the company and CRS today are both indicating a potential payout from well 6 standalone of 8.19-8.5p that is if it produces to economic limit August 2025..i haven't redone any modelling because i don’t have the exact costs just historics and the likelihood that as with the current industrial action in the North Sea that there must be cost pressures. So i see the estimates made as realistic.

So you do speak for 100m shares being 5% of the company as you alluded to? The requirement under company's act 2006 to call a GM. I would be fascinated what the plan is and how you think you can get 50% shareholder support for any resolution.

I think the irrevocable would rather stop CRS from engaging in anything that could hamper the progress of the transaction such as supporting a GM whose intent was to scupper the deal! If CRS wanted to just change the management they could have..but they made clear they wanted and exit..this seems the best exit that can be mustered.
Section on signed irrevocable

..accept or give any undertaking in respect of any other offer or similar transaction in respect of any of the Shares which might frustrate the Proposed Transaction or any part of it (whether it is conditional or unconditional and irrespective of the means by which it is to be implemented);

You can speak for 5% of the company to call a general meeting ?
What are you going to propose exactly?

You think? Why would you say something like that?

When was Maris an accountant exactly?
Previously, Mr Maris worked in a variety of engineering, commercial and management roles with Consort Resources Limited, LASMO plc, Monument Oil and Gas plc, and Phillips Petroleum. He holds a B.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering and an MBA.