Member Info for PageofCups

As stated before, I believe they have found oil and need another week of drilling to test the deeper zones, before deciding the extent of funds that will be needed for the evaluation work, whether they need the extra funding for evaluating all the zones, both shallow and deeper, or if it's just the shallow zones. Of course, it could be the other way around and they have yet to find any oil in the shallow zones, and need another week to drill deeper in the hope they find oil, but I don't really see how this can be if BPC have already offered an extension to the reconciliation payment date beyond the well result. That would be a huge gamble and irresponsible. The $5m for the 'put' can only be used for the evaluation oil and nothing else. The 'call' option is at the discretion of Lombard. All speculation of course.

And a 4m late trade.

I'm sorry for some of my incorrect spelling. I am dyslexic.

Hello JBT2207 you need to red point (iii)

and (iii) in respect of any shares issued pursuant to the exercise of the Put or Call, the date on which BPC may be required to make a reconciling payment to the Investor is extended from 60 days after the date of spudding of Perseverance #1 (which would be 20 February 2021), to 16 April 2021, this extension allowing a considerably longer window for the determination of the need for a reconciliation payment (if any), which BPC considers to be to its advantage.

harryoffdock, I think you misunderstand that in the case of success, owning 100% of an oil discovery at 1-2B barrels of oil, with running room for multiple super giant fields across the licences such as in Guyuna, is far better and will yield a higher value than if BPC had farmed out, and only had 10-20% of the asset with not as much equity dilution. The power comes from proving oil exists in large quantities so BPC can extract a premium from oil majors.

Carscoffee, I'm afraid in order to have flexible financing on tap, in this environment, risk situation, it's as good as can be achieved. BPC still have 100% of the asset In a success case, this will outnumber the financing and equity dilution to date by a serious order of magnitude. BPC could have farmed out at 90% dilution of the asset with a 10% retention, but would lose control of the licence and likely not likely be in the position now of actually drilling Perseverance.

My feeling is the upper horizons in the Albian have yielded results, and they are drilling down to Aptian prospects to find out if these are charged and then they will now how much evaluation work is needed. Pure speculation. I wouldn't be surprised if the heli has not already flown to Miami to have samples tested at the University of Miami. Again pure speculation.

I have seen situations like this where the market frustrates you out of your shares only for price to go on and multibag. not saying this will happen here, however there is enough newsflow coming that could make that happen. Ask yourself why has BPC given Lombard a free shot at the well result? There is only one answer.

'Unreasonably withhold' a production licence falls under the auspices of political reasons. In other words, the government cannot withhold a production licence for political reasons. Therefore, so long as BPC adhere to all legal obligations of the licences and act responsibly in regard to the environment and do not pay bungs to any official etc, then legally there are no reasons to withhold a production licence, otherwise the government will be in breach of the licence agreements.

CarCoffee, rossannan, the 12th February date is when Lombard option for doubling up on BPC shares expires. Whether they do or not is up to them, but it is likely they will, if BPC exercise their option by the 13th January. It will mean BPC already have something to evaluate.

Bespoke, Yes I agree, that's how I read it too. The well is a tight hole. BPC cannot give Lombard any info on results while drilling, particularly when receiving finance, insider dealing. Extending the date to April 16th is another way of saying hang in there, wait for the well result. Extending the 'put' option to the 13th January for a further $5m and if BPC take up the option, then this gives Lombard their option for even more BPC shares for the 'Call' $5m, which I am sure they will be very grateful of. The money that BPC can access up until 13th January is for evaluation work only, and not for any other funding purpose, so it's extremely restricted, as it should be when issuing equity, but of course will be very beneficial in adding value to the asset through the more comprehensive evaluation work and data gathered. In turn this gives Lombard added confidence in doubling up on BPC by exercising their 'Call' option.

Just to correct posters CarsCoffe and rossannan, the assessment date for the reconciliation of payment to Lombard has been extended to April 16th. This is the date after which BPC pays no reconciliation payment on shares held by Lombard. Before the date BPC will pay the difference between 2.3p per share and the average sale price below 2.3p. So, if Lombard wished to sell before April 16th, then BPC will be obliged to make up any difference for sales Lombard make below the average price of 2.3p thus guaranteeing Lombard a return of 15%. This extension guarantee period is deemed advantageous to BPC despite, the longer liability. Questions to ask is, why is this extended period advantageous to BPC. The advantage BPC get with the April 16th date is Lombard have the benefit of holding all their shares without dilutive selling until after the well result, assuming the well results are announced before 16th April, safe in the knowledge that after the well result, prior to the 16th April, Lombard are still guaranteed 15% return on their funding at 2.3p, whether they sell below. Draw your own conclusions. BPC have effectively advised Lombard that hanging on for the well result will be beneficial to you and us.

Key takeaway from todays RNS is that the assessment date for reconciliation payments has been extended to 16th April, which falls after the results of Perseverance. Lombard are now inside the date for the Perseverance well result, as opposed to the original assessment date being 60 days after spud, 18th February, and Lombard not knowing whether to hold the shares before the well result and risk not being reconciled . This actually means they can now hold for the well result, and not be concerned. Please draw your own conclusions.

You may find that WEN farmin to Kiliwani North/South and Nyuni PSA.

The press headlines are jumping the gun. The judge has not granted a judicial review. It is just a judicial review hearing.

The judicial review hearing is set for February 17 and 18.

Yes the market will agree. The drill can be completed and the threat/uncertainty of all financial losses from stopping the drill has been lifted. There is no more uncertainty. As for the judicial review hearing, whether it will go to full judicial review depends on whether the government can convince the judge all procedure were followed correctly. The judge is allowing the environmentalists to be heard in this regard. If the government convince a judge that all procedures were followed correctly, and have evidence of that, then the case will be dismissed. If not, then whatever the government needs to change in order for future drilling to take place will have to be incorporated and implemented as directed by the court in future. However, under the Petroleum Act 2016, which the EIA and EMP were submitted all laws have been followed, so it is unlikely that any laws or procedures have been broken unless Fed Smith has evidence under this act. Fred Smiths arguments relates to Town and Planning and The Subdivision Act, which are periphery.

Rossannan, the activists have a date for a hearing for a judicial review. The judge has ruled that BPC can carry on drilling. This is all BPC ever wanted to do, and now they have the judges approval. Effectively the judge has said to Fred Smith, you were out of time. Whether or not the activists get to proceed to judicial review after the hearing is of no importance to BPC as the matter is now between the environmentalists and the government. The shouting is all over as regard whether BPC can continue drilling. It's a great outcome, but this was always going to be the case. imho

My own feeling was that BPC were always going to be allowed to continue to drill. The argument now is between the Government and the activists. Thankfully, BPC can now just get on with the job and make a discovery.

Thanks Brynjon, yes Justice Petra Hanna-Weekes is ruling.

Hi Yonny. Thanks, and I agree, the arguments made by the environmental groups for their case for a judicial review just don't seem real or genuine. These groups watch BPC and the Government like a hawk and most certainly have never been ignorant of the Governments or BPC's intention to drill a well. I am sure that the timing of this application will be perplexing judge Clare Montgomery. It is extremely hypocritical of these environmentalists to claim that proper procedures have not been followed in the granting of the EA for drilling, when it is clear they are not following proper procedures by filing their application for a judicial review out of time, and in doing so have no regard for the judiciary process. I am sure this does not go down well with the court, hence the decision to refuse the application for a judicial review on the submitted documents alone. This refusal has raised the bar for the environmentalists to make coherent arguments about their case, however it would appear Fred Smith is hoping that a reverse psychology tactic by attempting to influence the judges mind by saying this is a very simple case and therefore the judge should have no problems in granting a judicial review of whether or not proper procedures were followed in the granting of the EA and then goes on to reference that required permits were needed to be obtained from Town and Planning and the Panning and Subdivision Act, when this is not the case . These are frivolous and false arguments as it is clear that the jurisdiction that the EIA and the EMP have been submitted under is the Petroleum Regulation Act 2016, which is the act and law used to grant the EA for drilling. I'm quite sure as a result, Judge Clare Montgomery will not be misled by Fred Smith and will draw a line through this, as minded to have already decided, and with it an appropriate dressing down of Fred Smith for even attempting such a poorly argued and misconceived application. This will need further investigating once the application is refused to find out who is behind this nonsense, and whether or not there has been collusion with other actors with the explicit aim of damaging BPC commercially. If it is proved hat this is corporate espionage, then the appropriate follow up action should be taken. As a suggestion it would be prudent to start with Fred Smith and a challenge to where exactly his fees are being paid from. If I was BPC, I would be suing him and these actors/environmentalists for corporate damages. Aimho.