Member Info for leew

Trujack, incorrect IMO give the recent RNA, with this statement.

the senior lender is unwilling to further amend or waive the terms of its Senior Credit Facility.

This implies the current waivers agreed are still in place and it is FURTHER waivers / amendments have not been allowed, hence the need to then put the RNA out.

Redhammy, there is no real arguments today and actually some sensible conversation, coming at it from different angles.

What we can all agree on is that to reach the point we are all assuming and making analysis of potential contractual situations is that the management have really mucked this up to date plan and simple.

I think they will continue as I believe the fall out to fail at this stage would be horrendous, but equally I fully see why people think that time will be called.

No point discussing further as time will tell us what will happen.

Yes I can read that in isolation and understand the savings that provided as this was 1 part of the RNA.

The other part in the same RNA was this.

Their collective impact is to fully fund the business through Q1-2024.

It does not say that the collective impact (if the SL provides an additional waiver on 1st Jan)

So if them savings collectively pushed COPL through to end of QTR 1 what’s changed? POO is the one clear point of change from what I can see.

AJEP, if that’s how you felt then a great decision and really hope it helps you going forward. I have done the same in the past and been great for my mind and basically never look back as i recon it’s been 50/50 in hindsight on what actually happens but still when i lot out i maintain i made the right decision.

Good luck in future investments.

Why did it depend on the waivers?

My assumption is a little different but I am assuming the end of QTR 1 funding at 1100 bops was based on the POO on that day now given the temp fall it’s equivalent to less bopd in real terms and that has caused the issue.

However again all assumptions and unless COPL actually start to give PI’s information then it’s all guess work.

The reason I am positive something will be sorted is that this is a temp issue until injection rates can be increased so to fall at this point will create a hell of a lot of questions if people benefit from this going forward, while the PI base is destroyed. Even with what is in the public domain there would be significant scope for questions.

I think the best thing to agree is anything can happen. It start to imply the SL wants to do xyz, or the BH is wanting ABC is irrelevant.

Yes and the previous waiver was granted on good progress for funding moving forward so one would assume if the company makes progress the SL would again be supportive. Finance companies don’t want assets, it’s a last resort.

Anyway time will tell, it’s ok to say it will go under, it’s ok to say it won’t but the art of being balanced seems to be lost. People either need to be negative or positive and can’t be balanced.

Trujack, yes that’s why I said any M&A deal can be what ever is agreed. That does not automatically mean the existing terms for all parties are maintained and all ent is repaid. It means all key players involved that really influence the company sit and talk and agree what is acceptable to them. I assume with the knowledge you portray means you understand agreements are rewritten if it suits all involved, like the SL already in the past changing terms to support COPL, as no doubt it suited them as well.

Steve, not necessarily and that was an extreme example anyway to demonstrate a point on debt repayment not being a prerequisite to buy a company.

Why does any buyer have to cover the debt, continue to service the debt yes, pay it off No.

Since when does every buying company pay off all the debt from the company it’s buying. The M&A agreement can be anything everyone agrees to hence some multimillion pound companies are purchased for a £1 as the purchaser is taking on the debt liability.

With the new GGS the production rates will largely be correlated to the injection rates, which has been proved in the past.

Now the question of why we have not increased production is certainly valid but to suggest the production is just going to continue down and down is incorrect.

Again though we can all speculate because the company don’t provide updates that take the speculation away.

Llywelyn,

This is an honest question but do you actually believe that COPL will be able to provide a detailed and concise update for once that answers the questions obviously being posed, and has the ability to provide PI’s with the clear route forward from this point,

I don’t buy into the administration option and think different will certainly be found. If that solution is all the bonds are again reset to 0.3p and a load more issued that would be an issue and unless there was some positive news and the SP trend changed they would never get liquidity so again I don’t think that will be the answer.

I just want clear, concise, answers and solutions going forward but although that should be the absolute min anyone should get on past experience I not sure they can/will do that.

Burrenboy, because some people are able to read the terms of the contracts.

Illewyn, they have threatened detail in the past so let’s see if anyone has the ability to produce and RNA that does not open up more questions than it answers. The issue with the CEO question is the service I use online did not have John in the contacts section like normal. It’s fully obvious he is there given no RNA but some like to create confusion over above the actual confusion :)

There is certainly failures in COPL management from what they tell us but the failure won’t be the JVP wanting it cheaper. If COPL goes to the wall then the administrators look for best value and that opens the door for many other parties to be Interested.

Treefern, yes the RNA’s could be good for future use as if this goes down, then the level of questions in them alone would be interesting for the people who supported writing them and sanctioned them.

Couple of larger trades today bigger than I have seen since I took a small position after the placing.

Stas, if there was no CEO, even with immediate effect they would have to announce it without question so he must still be there.

Illusion, yes literally $1m it seems !!!!

What’s the betting on a poor RNA tomorrow lacking in and substance at all or to be honest until the finance is resolved there is almost no point now saying anything.

So unimpressed with the management communication it’s unreal.

Bigbear, that’s like a Jan sale tactic, drop it low then double to back to where it was.

If that’s the case it does completely go against what the RNA said they were doing / have done so that is a very bold RNA to put out as it was past tense so there is some serious explaining to be done as that is significantly misleading investors and that optimism presented an environment for the BH to sell down a lot at the end of NOV and then once that’s done we get a no JV RNA and then the RNA from yesterday.

Just the information available from the company seems to require a significant explanation and if this goes lights out and / or diluted into oblivion then the fall out for some involved could be interesting.

Stats, I believe the same website that shows the recovered bopd for the period. Not even bothered to check myself so would need to do that later to check, but the main reason for believing the conclusion without checking is increased injection would lead to more bopd so given Nov figures it’s a logical conclusion