Member Info for moneyhawk

Hopefully a good sign, but there are other services they provide as well which may not be as positive.

Perhaps their involvement could be as simple as they are preparing a research note? That would also be very good news as it'd mean more coverage and an independent assessment of our asset value and potential.

TBH, I don't really care what someone else's average is, when they bought or how many shares they claim to hold. All I'm really concerned about is my own average and holding. And I do remember seeing 88e when the prices where around 0.3p and below, roughly around 4 years ago, but chose not to invest at that point. With hindsight, I wish I'd made a different decision.

However, there seems to be a good opportunity here for all current holders to make a decent profit, what ever their average is.

Any reason the link provided by Crumble doesn't show the prices for the whole year in question?

As always, best to DYOR.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/88E.L/history?period1=1420070400&period2=1451520000&interval=1d&filter=history&frequency=1d

But if some says they bought at 0.4p, and it was actually more like 0.45p, are we really that bothered by 5 one hundredths of a penny?

I'm looking forward to the day where we can look at price movements in whole pennies rather than fractions of pennies.

JLP has joined the 21st century and now has a twitter account. And it looks like we've also now engaged a marketing/PR company.

https://twitter.com/Jubilee_Metals

Only one tweet so far. Looks to be the work of these people:

https://twitter.com/StBridesP/status/1146736649067515904

That's my thoughts on it as well, the signing of the agreement has to happen first before any action is taken with regard to the CPs. No signed agreement = no conditions that have to be complied with.

Cowboysteve 12.27, thanks for the link, very interesting.

A useful definition of conditions precedent in there:
"… [conditions] go so directly to the substance of the contract or, in other
words are so essential to its very nature that their non-performance may
fairly be considered by the other party as a substantial failure to perform the
contract at all"

Bdogg, agree with that as a possible scenario.

Although I'm wondering if we may actually have a deal that looks a little different. Normally farmout deals involve the farmee earning their WI share by completing an agreed works program, so if that program isn't carried out they don't get their WI share.

So why then would we be dealing with conditions precedent to transfer WI before the agreed farmout works program is actioned? Possible there is also a sale of some WI involved for cash up front, in addition to the points you've listed.

Spike, yes we haven't drilled a well for the conventional, but there are a couple of historic wells on the acreage showing the presence of hydrocarbons in locations where the 3D says there could be oil.

I don't know the significance of this in terms of the current value to us, but I should imagine that its something that has been looked at very closely by the parties who were in the dataroom.

Flipster 7.16 - just wondering how you've calculated the farmout value for us will be 1p a share when virtually no details are known?

It didn't go unnoticed. It was about as close to saying its a done deal as DW could go without actually saying it.

Quite prepared for it being a company few have heard of or considered, but really doubt it will be a small company. We're not talking about the typical size of prospects normally seen with junior explorers, we're talking about multiple large prospects that are significant enough to be of interest to the largest oil companies in the world.

I'm not complaining, happy to take those odds :)

If I was setting them though, I'd take the 0 off to be the same as BP at 5/1

The odds for Exxon seem very generous to me :)

Brom, if I were big dave I certainly would not transfer ownership of working interest before I had a signed contract in my hand, in the same way as I would not begin to transfer ownership of my house until I had a signed contract stipulating how much is to be paid and that sum has been placed in escrow.

I read it slightly differently, but the wording is open to different interpretations on when we might expect to be told the details.

The RNS said:
"Farm-out deal now subject to:
* Execution of closing documents
* standard conditions precedent, mainly related to transfer of working interests"

And

"Additional details will be provided post signing"

I'm taking execution to mean signing and document exchange, which is listed before the conditions precedent for WI transfer, and once signed it's then subject to those conditions before the deal is in force. So details to be provided post signing doesn't necessarily mean after WI transfer. And logically we must have a signed contract in order to transfer away our WI. Although the RNS doesn't say details will be provided before the WI transfer takes place, only that we'll be told post signing.

There’s a definition in here for tier 1, 2 and 3. Not sure if that’s what DW would have meant though.

Page 9:
https://www.agcc.co.uk/download-file/98

I would assume any on that list would count as a "Tier 1", Conoco well down the list, is the favorite for quite a few. So who's to say that there aren't other companies not on the list that would also be categorized as "Tier 1"? Still haven't seen a definition of what it means.

Just to throw a wild card into the mix, Vedanta could be an example of a company with massive ambitions, maybe also a "tier 1"?

Recent very bullish interview from the Founder:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/expert-view/in-next-10-years-vedanta-will-be-another-exxon-anil-agarwal/articleshow/69824727.cms

" Q - Tell us about the next 10 years for Vedanta. Where do you see it and the group companies headed over the next decade?

A - Vedanta will be another Exxon, an anchor from India. It will be one of the large and environmentally conscious companies to produce the largest quantity of oil for the country. As an anchor country, we will be another BHP model which will be looking to explore and produce the maximum natural resource out of our country and other opportunities wherever we get."

DW has spoken of his intention to target Tier 1 one companies in the first instance and grant them more time if they need it before moving on to other companies. While we've had no confirmation who the FO partner is and no reference to tier 1 companies, we've had repeated references to high quality parties being involved and requests from them for more time being granted.

So the signs point to a tier 1 company. It may be that our new partner is a relative unknown, we'll just have to wait and see.

Appears that we'll need the FO terms released to really break through the 1p level and put it behind us. No idea how long it will take, but would guess that the lawyers have a date they're working to for the document exchange. Could be any day. May also depend on whether transfer of WI has to take place before news is released, I'm guessing not, but the RNS wasn't that clear on it.

Tweet from BMR yesterday:

https://twitter.com/BMRGroupplc/status/1145711251970019334

"BMR has its accounts and circular in final form but BMR awaits confirmation on certain key items from Jubilee Metals before BMR can complete, hence the delay and so BMR changed the financial reporting date to allow for more time to report"

No idea why they should be waiting on us for something to release their accounts. Just a delaying tactic to avoid publishing accounts? Hasn't their reporting year date already been put back once?

If not just a delaying tactic, the only thing that would seem relevant would be us buying out their royalty. Would help tidy up the arrangements around Kabwe and Sable and where earnings should sit between the two, and give BMR some cash that they will need if they really are going to make an acquisition and relist.