Member Info for NGR1616

whoops wrong board

interesting post on BUR today. You tube link, it's describing NANO.

If we win the case and are awarded damages then they will get a bonus of 1.05x of the money loaned which when added to the original amount is approx. £10m. Sounds like a reasonable deal to me although I share the frustration.

Let's just hope the sum awarded is more than £10m!

HFC, So what do you conclude will happen to CA when the resolution isn't passed?

HullFC read the RNS on CA and SABA

HullFC......CA will not exists in its current format for much longer.

I've persistently not claimed the bonds can't be purchased. I've only made one comment on it. Maybe the board are buying behind the scenes.

Edison previously guided lost revenue in the $200-$250m bracket. There's been a lot of sales since that guidance was issued. A modest award would for me be below this bracket at the $100-$150m mark. However I expect [hope] an award to be much higher than this and potentially over $1bn or more. As I've said many time if there is a licence agreement as part of the judgement then more sauce for the goose. If we get good news on sales between times then transformational will be just one word to describe the effect on Nanoco's share price.

The question for me is would existing investors provide this loan if there wasn't a likely ROI?

In the best case we have sales and we win the IP dispute .

Worst case we are so poor at commercialising product and our IP is not robust and we lose the case in which case we will struggle to repay the £4.5m loan in 3 years and the share price will be so low opportunities as a result to raise equity will be limited unless they are highly dilutive.

In that scenario the lenders will effectively end up in control of the company, but it'll be a company that can't sell anything and has no IP value. I don't believe that is the reason they invested and I favour the 'best case' scenario is the motive.

The bullish tone in the RNS is no coincidence either in my opinion, that the lenders will likely have insisted more colour is added to the message and I expect some decent PR to follow this. It's just a shame we can't name the co's with roadmaps directly and whilst we can all make some educated guesses, they can equally all be incorrect.

Oil_Beast can you explain how HUR are able to be buying the bonds in the background?

Unless previously converted, redeemed, or purchased and cancelled, the Bonds will be redeemed at par on the fifth anniversary of the Closing Date.

The Company will have the option to redeem all, but not some only, of the outstanding Bonds:

· at any time on or after the date falling 3 years and 21 days after the Closing Date at par plus accrued interest if the value of the Ordinary Shares underlying a Bond (calculated over a specified period) shall have been at least U.S.$300,000; and

· at any time, if 85 per cent. or more of the aggregate Principal Amount of the Bonds originally issued shall have been previously converted, redeemed, or purchased and cancelled (the "Clean-up Call").Unless previously converted, redeemed, or purchased and cancelled, the Bonds will be redeemed at par on the fifth anniversary of the Closing Date (as defined below).

????

This RNS is very bullish in tone in my view. Pure speculation, but I expect those providing the loan have been given visibility of the roadmaps of Nanoco and the unnamed customers under NDA's in order to make these decisions. It would be interesting to know if there is a restriction on shares being purchased in the open market if they have been provided what could be considered to be market sensitive information therefore potential for insider trading. Who cares. I expect new investors to start buying once they've completed due diligence. Worth noting Nanoco is not an AIM listed company.

What is clear is the IR sensing market is about to take off. There are so many applications in Short Wave IR sensing one might see demand outstripping supply in only a few years which is no bad thing. IR sensors on phones, Cars (both inside and outside) time of flight, SWIR, medical, military, manufacturing sensing (production line), warehousing, 5G, IOT.......

To be clear. I am neither a shorter nor dreaming of buying in on the cheap. I have zero shares and no intention to buy any ever again. I used to hold and know this company very very well and remain interested as a result.

TC81 you and anyone like you who seriously thinks there are people paid to post opinions is a twat.

Oil_Beast can you advise me how it's "being managed"? I just see a steady increase in WC? That's a fact, not a deramp. (I'd argue that you are the more dangerous person here than me)

People need to be aware that the projections for the forward production curves are not fantasy and their money is at risk. I am merely pointing out that all factors should be considered. Unless a new CPR is produced that refutes the information presented in the most recent then production will decline over a shorter timeframe than is necessary to pay the bonds and redevelop the field with in-fill drilling and more tie-backs, or work over the existing wells.

That said, I believe there possibly is still some upside in the price especially with the backdrop of tightening oil supplies and increasing demand but at some point physics will win out unless there is an intervention of some kind in the reservoir to alter the current two well set up and the current architecture.

and yet not one person mentions the 32% water cut............

someone sold 13 shares at 19.05p just before close.

I'm cool. I just wondered what was irking Amica1.

The RPS CPR was correct in so far it was using the available data provided to them and using industry recognised techniques to arrive at the resource data assumptions, and that's all they were, assumptions. These were based on some logging data obtained during the drilling and brief well tests. In that data there was a conclusion arrived at in relation to the Oil Water Contact and the volume of oil in place was extrapolated from there along with PI etc. showing the field was viable and no one would argue that it wasn't at this stage. What wasn't fully appreciated was the risk of the OWC being incorrect. At least not by some.

The purpose of the 'Early Production System' ("EPS") was to validate the field so that the plans for future full field development could be engineered. The EPS was essentially a long term test, or you could say an experiment.

Unfortunately whilst the logs showed OWC to be deep, the wells themselves experienced water break through far earlier than anticipated. This meant that the assumptions from the drilling data were incorrect and needed to be reviewed. Trice was unable to accept the water was coming from the aquifer and instead postulated that the water was 'perched' which has been proven to be incorrect as the hypothesis suggested that the OWC should start to decrease over time when in reality it has been steadily increasing. This was the purpose of the EPS don't forget.

In the face of new, long term reliable data including the ability to alter the production profiles to further test the wells, it ended up at the inevitable conclusion that the OWC is far shallower than first thought and subsequently that a new CPR was necessary to be commissioned to accurately reflect the reservoir based on new data. Not doing so would be a dereliction of duty.

Now whether this new CPR is correct or not is clearly going to be subject to some conjecture on here, but I recommend caution making accusations that somehow the data has been made to fit the narrative of the BoD and/or the bond holders as I'm pretty sure ECR wont be too keen on having their reputations questioned in this manner.

Amica; what is it that you feel is missing here that Burford could be doing better? Communications?

look at the charts. Buying makes a price go up not down. The buy has been reported late and was responsible for driving the price up on the 7th until it as filled at or around 14:30. Since then there has been no volume buyers so the price has dropped.