The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
SC "The only major financial gorilla in the room is the legacy Stena debt. $7m of the $14m is disputed. On 31/5/21 we knew CEG had $10.7m cash, probably including $4m due to LOL in June. If the matter goes to court (which will take ages) and the court orders CEG pays $14m, then there may be a problem if S2 failed and S3-S5 never spudded."
Delaying tactics, including sitting on S2 results/progress, seems to be a prime weapon in the CEG arsenal. Luckily September 30 is a deadline that can't be dodged for filing late accounts, which will shed some light on the true financial position. The only way to avoid filing would likely be to sell the company in a similar transaction to the CERP/BPC merger, but at what cost to current holders?
TWO leading environmental groups have filed a Supreme Court application to discontinue a judicial review of the government’s approvals concerning Bahamas Petroleum Company’s exploratory drilling in Bahamian waters.
Earlier this year, Save the Bays (STB) and Waterkeeper Bahamas (WKB) jointly launched the challenge to confirm whether BPC had received all of the necessary approvals and permits required to carry out exploratory offshore drilling. The action also sought to have the courts establish the “proper and lawful” procedure for projects of a similar nature going forward.
The recently filed consent order seeks for the judicial review action to be discontinued and for each party to bear its own costs. The environmental groups said despite the government’s and developer’s efforts to “price advocates out of justice”, their legal challenge has proven to be a “huge success”.
In a statement, STB and WKB said oil companies could “consider themselves warned” since their judicial review challenge not only “sparked global awareness,” but also relayed a “strong warning” to those that would seek to pursue a similar venture in the future.
STB legal director, Fred Smith, QC, said he lamented the fact environmentalists continued to be priced out of justice by the government and developers who “ganged up” on environmentalists and small business owners.
“Whether you are Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) or any other entity, consider yourself duly warned: The Bahamas has a strong, outspoken environmental activist community that will aggressively challenge any project if it appears that the procedures mandated by law might not have been followed,” Mr Smith’s statement read.
Full article ...
http://www.tribune242.com/news/2021/aug/16/activists-new-court-filing-over-oil-drilling/?news
Mon, 8th Feb 2021 07:00
RNS Number : 2382O
Bahamas Petroleum Company PLC
08 February 2021
"Drilling has now ceased, the well having reached a depth of approximately 3,900 meters without incident, and the well will now be permanently plugged and abandoned"
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/BPC/perseverance-1-completion-of-drilling-sncufu07dqurx69.html
I think that CEG would have been shouting from the rooftops if LC is a game changer and the well would be fast tracked for production with little or no need to test UC and MC (90-95% water) which are already well understood from the S1 drill. My gut feeling is to fear the worst and hope for the best. ATB
A Friday RNS after close of play would suggest the news is not good IMO. There are a lot of unknowns of which S2 results is just one on a long list.
"Secondly, a considerable amount of non-productive time (and hence additional cost of approx. $7 million) was added to the overall drilling program as a result of mechanical debris in the hole lost from the Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) system requiring side-tracking."
https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/bahamas_petroleum_company/news/rns/story/xeq3lnx
Does the above contradict "BPC drilled the Perseverance #1 well safely and without incident" or is it semantics?
We are led to believe by a certain poster that costs amounting to circa US$7m are disputed with Stena who drilled the P1 well in the Bahamas. Strange then that there is never anything in the news to that effect or comment from Stena. Has Stena been paid in full?
"Drilling has now ceased, the well having reached a depth of approximately 3,900 meters without incident, and the well will now be permanently plugged and abandoned," the company said.
Simon Potter, CEO of BPC, said: "I am proud to say that after many years of diligent effort we did what we said we would do: BPC drilled the Perseverance #1 well safely and without incident, testing for the presence of hydrocarbons in the Southern Seas of The Bahamas. This was the very specific objective of the well - not a scientific or geologic experiment, but to seek hydrocarbons in commercial quantities."
Was there or was there not an incident? If there was then why is nothing reported by Stena about a dispute?
https://www.oedigital.com/news/485124-the-bahamas-bpc-completes-drilling-of-perseverance-1-with-non-commercial-oil-discovery
Srdoddy - back in LGO days, before the company was renamed CERP, Honest John was in contact with Neil Ritson. He posted daily bulletins and built up a following, such that he was later described as the pied piper. We now have another pied piper who states on 16th June, "Furthermore, I have and do continue to email suggestions to senior CEG execs and have spoken confidentially to two BoD members and one senior exec over the last few months.". Make of that what you will.
The budgeted total cost for the Saffron-2 well is $3 million, with an anticipated drill time in the range of 25-30 days.
The Saffron-2 well was spud at 7:30pm on 23 May (Trinidad time).
The final section of the Saffron-2 well (at 8 1/2") is currently being drilled out, to a final target depth of 4,557ft. This hole section will include the primary reservoir targets of interest in the Lower Cruse, which will be logged and (assuming positive results) sampled via MDT (a wireline formation testing tool). This process, which should be sufficient to provide an indication of the aggregate resource and production potential, is expected to be completed on or around 23th June 2021, which timeline remains consistent with an overall 30 day expected drill.
Thereafter (and assuming positive results), the well will be lined and readied for production testing. It is expected that the process of preparing for production testing (including perforation) will take 2-3 weeks, such that initial production could occur in around mid-July.
Drilling is continuing to target depth of 4,557ft, at which both Lower Cruse sections - the primary reservoirs of interest - will be logged, and thereafter the well will be production tested; the inclusion of an intermediate casing string has extended the schedule for completion of drilling and logging by approximately 7 days to 30 June 2021, with production testing remaining on track for mid-July.
Prior to intersecting the first of the Lower Cruse reservoirs, at approximately 3,890ft, a mobile shale zone was encountered as prognosed, starting at a depth of 3,630ft and continuing to 3,770ft. As compared to Saffron-1, the impact of this zone on drilling has been significantly mitigated by the use of synthetic oil-based mud. However, based on conditions encountered while drilling, the decision was taken to set intermediate casing at 4,118ft before drilling on to TD. This will serve to better secure the already drilled horizons of the Middle and upper Lower Cruse for production testing, whilst at the same time allowing unencumbered drilling of the remaining Lower Cruse reservoir sections.
The impact of this decision to set additional casing (and associated additional logging runs) is expected to be an additional 7 days of rig time, and associated additional cost. Accordingly, drilling and logging of Saffron-2 is now expected to be completed on or around 30th June 2021. Thereafter (and assuming positive results), the well will be lined and readied for production testing. It is expected that the process of preparing for production testing (including perforation) will take 2-3 weeks, such that initial production is still expected to occur in around mid-July.
Eytan Uliel, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
"The objective of the Safffron-2 well is to understand the production potential from the various reservoir units identified by both the Saffron-1 and Saffron-2 wells, starting with the Lower Cruse intervals. "
Could Starchild be the reincarnation of onceatrader aka Honest John?
Selected lyrics from Lionel Bart's Oliver. Fagin's philosophy of life which still rings true to this day.
In this life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts,
I'm afraid these don't grow on trees,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two.
Robin Hood, what a crook!
Gave away, what he took.
Charity's fine, subscribe to mine.
Get out and pick-a-pocket or two
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two.
Two days after S&P Global Ratings announced it had changed their economic outlook to negative from stable, the agency has said its view on Trinidad Petroleum Holding Ltd was not affected. S&P said “Our rating on TPHL continue to reflect our view that there’s a very high likelihood of timely and sufficient extraordinary support to the company from its owner, T&T, in the event of financial distress. This is because TPHL holds a very important role in the country’s energy and infrastructure policy and a very strong link given it’s fully-owned by T&T.”
S&P continued, “ Therefore, ratings on TPHL continue to benefit from a four-notch uplift over its ‘b-’ stand-alone credit profile (SACP). The negative outlook reflects our view that TPHL will remain highly leveraged with adjusted debt to EBITDA above 5x for the next 12-18 months. This, while the company completes the divestment of Petrotrin’s non-core assets and reduces short-term debt pressures, which also continue to impair its liquidity position.”
The agency said it could lower the ratings on the company “in the next 12-24 months if we lower the long-term local currency rating on the sovereign, and/or if we conclude that TPHL’s leverage metrics weaken to the extent that the company’s capital structure is unsustainable or its liquidity position weakens beyond our expectations.”
https://www.guardian.co.tt/business/tphl-rating-unaffected-by-sp-outlook-change-6.2.1364180.1e133d0ceb
MANY people are looking at the almost daily increases in the prices of the global oil and natural gas benchmarks and are expecting that those increases would have a positive impact on the national balance sheet at the 2022 budget, which is due to be delivered in a couple month’s time.
Those who follow the economy closely would know that the prices of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent crude oils have been above US$70 a barrel for the last few weeks, while and the price of natural gas sold in New York rose to US$4.10 per MMBtu on Monday.
In delivering the budget for the 2021 fiscal year last October, Finance Minister Colm Imbert projected that the Government would collect $41.36 billion in total revenue comprising: non-oil revenue of $31.19 billion; oil revenue of $9.26 billion and capital revenue of $0.90 billion.
The projected oil revenue of $9.26 billion, which includes revenues from the production of natural gas, was based on the oil and gas price assumptions of US$45.00 per barrel and US$3.00 per MMBtu.
Based on those oil and gas assumptions in the 2021 budget presentation, and the prevailing prices of our energy exports, some people would have assumed that the Government may be doing better than it expected to in the 2021 calendar year.
Do higher futures prices for oil and gas necessarily mean that the Government will collect more revenue from the energy sector for the 2021 calendar year?
Not necessarily because both the oil and natural gas prices that are quoted by the local media daily are FUTURES prices, for product to be delivered in August or September.
Secondly, most times the oil produced in T&T is sold at a discount to both WTI and Brent.
Thirdly, T&T’s energy revenues are a function of at least three factors: price, production and taxes.
It would also be useful to recall that, in presenting the 2021 budget, Mr Imbert announced an upward adjustment in the supplemental petroleum tax in an attempt to boost economic activity and increase oil production.
“We propose to increase the threshold for the imposition of the Supplementary Petroleum Tax (SPT) for small onshore oil producers to US$75 per barrel, up from US$50 per barrel, for fiscal 2021 and fiscal 2022, in the first instance, subject to a review in 2022. This measure will take effect from January 1, 2021.”
That means that Mr Imbert decided almost a year ago to leave more of the profits of elevated oil prices with the small, onshore oil producers, hoping thay they would reinvest some of the money in new exploration.
It is hoped that our minister of finance reports on the efficacy of the SPT measure in his 2022 budget presentation.
Full story ...
https://trinidadexpress.com/business/local/do-high-energy-prices-mean-windfall-revenue/article_5015474a-ef36-11eb-a99e-ef97dca0e064.html
Personally, I don't have high expectations for S2. The LC is the great unknown but the sentence ...
"Thereafter, the other 200ft of net pay identified in the Upper and Middle Cruse zones will be perforated and tested, to give a full assessment of the well's production potential. "
... doesn't inspire confidence in LC being a game changer.
If S2 becomes a producer from MC like it's twin sister, we must remember that S1 produces 90-95% water.
With State-owned Petrotrin having not taken the advice of its attorneys to urgently file an action in the High Court to defend itself against A&V Oil and Gas, comes the revelation that the company has already spent more than $5.5 million in legal fees in both the arbitration and on the very advice it has so far not accepted.
Petrotrin, which sent home all its workers in 2018 after it went bust and was replaced by Heritage Petroleum, is at risk of having to pay A&V hundreds of millions of dollars after it lost the arbitration against the south-based company in what is popularly called the fake oil scandal.
The A&V Oil and Gas issue first came to light when Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar read on a political platform a report that alleged A&V Oil and Gas, which is owned by Nazim Baksh, a man Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley describes as his friend, was charging Petrotrin for oil his company did not actually produce.
Petrotrin would subsequently investigate the issue and discontinue its contract with A&V drilling for crude from the Catshill field in Rio Claro.
Peake, who represented Petrotrin in the arbitration, argued that unless moves are made now to stop the arbitration, the company could find itself paying out significant sums.
“Unless the award is set aside, there is a high probability that in any further hearing on the issue of the quantum of damages to which the tribunal has decided that A&V is entitled, the tribunal will award substantial damages, particularly since it has decided (remarkably having regard to the evidence) that all A&V’s witnesses are credible.”
A&V has asked the tribunal that it be awarded US$119,409,000 or the equivalent of $808,398,930. This does not include issues of cost and other money which Petrotrin is said to be holding in escrow for oil under dispute.
The arbitral panel is yet to make a decision on the final quantum it will award A&V drilling as a result of the termination of its contract by Petrotrin, but Peake noted that on Tuesday, A&V had already made an application for a $75 million part payment of the money that would be owed to it due to the award.
She insisted that the ruling placed Petrotrin and its successor company Heritage at serious financial risk and the possibility of other companies taking advantage of it.
The arbitral panel is yet to make a decision on the final quantum it will award A&V drilling as a result of the termination of its contract by Petrotrin, but Peake noted that on Tuesday, A&V had already made an application for a $75 million part payment of the money that would be owed to it due to the award.
Full story ...
https://www.guardian.co.tt/news/petrotrin-attorneys-paid-over-55-million-6.2.1361721.6dabe6b571
CHRYSAOR HOLDINGS LIMITED is based in Cayman Islands
CONYERS TRUST COMPANY (CAYMAN) LIMITED, Cricket Square, Hutchins Drive, P.O.Box 2681, Grand Cayman, Cayman Ky1 - 1111, Cayman Islands
Similarly ...
CHRYSAOR E&P LIMITED
Next accounts made up to 31 December 2020 due by 30 September 2021
shal1000 - "So I guess the results are as at 30 June 2021 to be released on 23 Sept 2021. If so seems like a big gap to release results given bp/shell releasing 30 June results this week. "
Regarding a recent Companies House filing ...
07 Jul 2021 Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2020
This was in relation to Premier Oil accounts. This is but one strand of Harbour Energy PLC.
CHRYSAOR E&P FINANCE LIMITED ...
Next accounts made up to 31 December 2020 due by 30 September 2021
The above (probably) explains the apparent delay in announcing the first combined results for H1/2021 which will occur on September 23.
Hope that helps.
shal100 - as regards your questions ...
The financial year starts on January 1st.
The company was incorporated on 31 July 2002 and this is unchanged as a result of the reverse takeover.
Some recent filings at Companies House ...
29 Jun 2021 Memorandum and Articles of Association
30 Jun 2021 Registration of charge SC2347810004, created on 25 June 2021
07 Jul 2021 Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2020
Upcoming events ...
23/09/21 2021 Half Year Results
Hope this helps clarify things for you and anyone else not sure of the way forward.
According to Government sources, UK military forces are carrying out drills on the Falkland Islands, also called the Malvinas. It comes after Argentina issued sanctions to two British companies for the alleged illegal exploitation of hydrocarbons in waters north of Falklands.
Argentina's ministry of external relations issued a statement condemning the exercises "in the strongest terms".
It comes after the Argentine secretaries of Energy, Dario Matinez, and of the Malvinas, Antarctica and South Atlantic, Daniel Filmus, issued sanctions to three companies for commercial activities in the disputed waters.
The oil companies are Chrysaor Holdings Limited and Harbor Energy Plc, which are based in Britain, and the Israeli company Navitas Petroleum LP.
Argentina claims they did not have the authorisation of its government, who claim the British Overseas Territory as theirs.
Mr Filmus said: "These companies are not authorised to operate nor have they requested any type of authorisation."
The secretaries said they "were committing a crime in Argentina" and the three companies continued to participate in exploratory and exploitation works.
Full story ...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/don-t-you-dare-argentina-fires-warning-to-uk-after-british-military-exercise-in-falklands/ar-AAMv76D