Member Info for PageofCups

I look at ADVFN. A lot of buys reported at 0.6p are in the question mark column (?) A few buys this morning are in the sells column. Totting them up there's about 5.3m buys. Buys are being reported correctly in the buy column at 0.599p

The buy/sell ratio is 5.3m/3.5m
Buys now in front so price should tick up.

I just bought some for 0.589p
Bit of a bargain really.

Come back in a year.
Still shocked at Q1 2022. Shurley Shome Mishtake.

Where is Robert Ambrose??
No interviews or communication with shareholders via the media other than the RNS today. Scirocco have done a quick interview. Surely Mr Ambrose can find half an hour?

Perplexing ARA haven't gone for the Chikumbi drill in Q1 21. The gas is there and needed as part of the FFD. Early gas production and revenue is the way to go. No doubt of Chikumbi hitting the sweet spot updip. Doesn't need 3D to drill Chikumbi due to the previous results at NT1 and NT2. The data from the well logs is better than 3D. The 3D survey will confirm and better define the locations for further wells and the size of the field, with confirmation tied back to previous wells, NT1 and NT2 but alas no Chikumbi 1. Chikumbi was the big one. Why they can't drill a well and do the 3D survey is astounding considering the time for preparation that ARA have had. I guess they will blame the Tanzanian Government for the delay in approving the farmout.

Must be a typo error. The well pad as already been constructed, so it's not like they don't know where to put the well and they don't need 3D to locate the well. The RNS states work programme and budget for 2020-2021.

Just to clarify, the Icemax will NOT be stood down. The claimants will need to be able to cover the day rate of the rig for the number of days that it is delayed by any legal action. Hence if the judicial review took 30-45 days then the claimants would need to cover the costs for the time the Icemax is on standby. Should the claimant lose their judicial review (highly likely), then they will need to cover the costs for the Icemax. This is partly why they have asked BPC to volunteer that they stand down. The farcical claim that if BPC proceeds, then any consequences will be at their own costs, does not release the claimant from the responsibility of any financial costs or damages as BPC are going about their lawful business.

The claimants need to demonstrate they have enough funds to cover the costs of any failed injunction/judicial review. That's even if they have grounds, which on the basis of the allegations, they don't have grounds. At least the cost of the drill would need to be demonstrated is available.

Hello Mr Linton. Yes I bet they had a chuckle in Nassau at the letter.

I expect a full rebuttal from BPC and a statement of the facts which will set the record straight.

The problem for the environmentalists is that what they are asserting is not true. They have no case or grounds to take legal action.

Lots of holes and inaccuracies in the reasoning behind their judicial review. If that's what they are relying on, then good luck with that.

Most certainly, however the main legal argument that is being made is that the EIA is flawed and that procedures and processes were not followed and that as a result there is no legal basis for drilling. Unfortunately if this were true then such arguments should have been made earlier when the granting of the EA was passed. An injunction cannot be used in retrospect. It has to be used promptly if there is a clear illegal activity. In this case there has been no illegal activity. The Minister for environment is cited as promising that oil drilling will not take place, however this promise has no legal basis.

The injunction should have been applied for when it was known that approval for oil drilling had been granted. The time limit for applying for an injunction has lapsed.

It's not unlawful to drill for oil. The Bahamas Parliament has passed all relevant legislation into law to allow for drilling. What the environmentalists are upset about is that the Government have applied and obeyed the law, despite the political controversy around oil drilling. The processes are legal and have been stringently followed not only to Bahamian standards but also international standards.

Guys and Gals, there will be no legal action. The merits of the case would be dismissed. The QC that wrote those letters is just earning a fee for writing the letters and keeping alive the hope his client will spend more money, under the false assumption BPC will voluntary cease operations.

It's too late for any judicial review or injunction. A review and injunction must be applied for promptly within 3 months of the issue. Assuming the objection is to the granting of the environmental authority for drilling, then the closing period for any review and injunction was end of May.

I'm sure representatives from certain major oil companies will be invited on board the IceMax to observe results should the MWD tools experience hydrocarbons and that the well is a positive result. Nothing like the smell of hydrocarbons to get
the big industry heavyweights excited with a sneek peek. However, this may need to be decided by the highest bidder as obviously the data will be highly sensitive and exclusive. Exclusive invites only.

My betting is WEN buy Sciroccos 25% of Ruvuma gas and then merge with Aminex. Merged entity, AEX and WEN, will own 50% of Ruvuma.