Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Ed, from what I understand of the plant on site, each well will have it's own heater-treater for initial separation of the produced fluids. This will separate the gas and liquid phase - gas returning via the gas gathering system for compression and reinjection, liquid phase returning via the oil lines to the processing plant for retention separation in the larger vessels then stored in the storage tanks, before being tankered off site for sales. The heater treaters local to each well use heating process for separation which will also be used to heat above the WAT to mitigate issues with wax deposition in the oil lines (we have issues downhole, but not in the pipelines).
LM, your estimate doesn't appear to be too far off. From 10th of May, commencement of welding, to the progress RNA on 23rd May, they welded and laid 2352ft of pipe - so around 180ft per day. There may be some efficiencies to be gained as they get fully up to speed.
Stas, if the process is followed correctly, it shouldn't matter. All registered shareholders are emailed or contacted directly 3 weeks in advance of the AGM by their nominee/broker, including information on the circular and the resolutions up for vote.
AGMs have always been held in Calgary, being the registered headquarters of the company. However, I agree, it would be preferable for it to be in the UK, however the BoD / senior management and the office is in Calgary - objectively, it makes sense to be there.
Agreed Jiving - suspect if there is any wrongful process here it is with the brokers. My broker didn't send out proxy vote registration last year - something the company picked up on and went to length to resolve it with their corporate secretary. This year, I did get the automated email for proxy vote via my broker.
Regulators require the transfer agent, being Computershare, to send information to the nominee or custodians. It isn't the company. This they must have done, however whether every nominee or custodian followed through with that process is a question for the nominee or custodian (e.g. brokers).
By regulation, Computershare, acting as the transfer agent, sends coded proxies to all registered shareholder and their nominees. The nominees are to send coded proxies to the beneficial owners. This way only shareholders on record on the record date can vote and the anonymity of the shareholder behind a nominee is preserved. So, questions A & B, unfortunately will never be solved. That leaves C as an avenue shareholders wanting to question the process should follow, in my opinion
You realise that the votes are counted by a 3rd party independent? Computershare Trust Company of Canada.
Unless of course, there is suggestion that Arthur is cohorts with a multi-national organisation who service literally tens of thousands of Clients, to swing a vote on a COPL AGM resolution.
Maybe more realistic and plausible is to question A. the amount of shares allegedly held by investors who have publicly posted that on this board. B. the way in which they have allegedly voted. C. whether brokers have messed up their registration of proxy votes - but that is with the brokers and Computershare. The company are at arms length of this vote.
It's not out of the realms of possibility that people on here are untrustworthy - in fact, I find that more plausible than the conspiracy that Arthur has rigged the vote, via a 3rd party independent.
I’ve posted some of this in the Telegram group so at risk of repeating myself, but I thought it is important for shareholders to really understand the effect injection rates have on production. It has certainly helped me grasp the criticality of the GGS upgrades.
This was explained in the AGM on slide 33 in the presentation but worth re-iterating. There is a close and direct relationship between gas injection and production. The reservoir requires that propellant/solvent to produce through the wells. You can see the drop off in production from peak primary oil before MF.
Injection rates were ramped up and production follows, albeit with a small lag. The company have intentionally backed off injection due to safety concerns and under-designed topside infrastructure. Peak injection rates were 8.5mscfd, current is 3.3mscfd, hence the low production currently.
As Arthur has mentioned several times, the reservoir response is excellent and has exceeded their expectations. Look at the relationship between injection and production in slide 33. The response is rapid and indisputable, both up and down.
Injection into the field has continued, albeit at lower rates, which will continue to charge the reservoir. This means the response in production to ramping up injection again should be quicker.
The GGS upgrades will allow for the company to ramp up injection again. Simply put, injection = production and the response should be rapid based on known data gathered. Target injection rates of 12mscfd following installation of a new compressor, however no reason they can’t hit previous highs before then and also for a more sustained period than before.
Essentially, GGS is the key for the BFSU. Once it’s complete and higher injection resumed, I’m expecting a sustained increase in production surpassing previous highs before year end.
Those despairing at the production this year, understand that plot and you will see once GGS has been completed, it will be a different picture.
Ed, thanks for clarifying and a fair enough view, albeit I disagree on how much of a negative impact consolidation will have especially with the BH having approval over future funding - I feel we are stuck, for better or for worse, with them being the main source of funding going forward. I wouldn't expect there to be the typical bucket shop equity placing and my view is that a higher SP, less shares in issue, is more attractive to sticky hands and prospective institutional investors. We can disagree on that.
The SP "should" reflect on the MCAP so I completely agree that the focus should be on the underlying business.
Ed, that's not my point. You're alluding to consolidation making dilution more likely - I disagree. I think the chances are equal because if funds are a requirement, then it is a requirement - what the SP is doesn't influence that. Also, I don't think consolidation is a precursor to dilution, I think notice of consolidation is precursor enough. Whether that is approved or rejected is irrelevant - just means the institutions / options available may be more attractive with a higher SP.
Vote it down to show dissatisfaction in that method of funding, fine, but the method won't change. That is the point.
If anything Doug, I'm of the opinion the company is in far stronger position than they were when the BH first came on board because of the funding they now have and the progress being made at CC. Production has stagnated and declined, but I fully believe that is temporary because of the solutions and workovers/drilling that are currently being worked on.
I am also very confident the JV will happen because the environment for it is almost perfect - the asset is very attractive even for large E&P companies, M&A activity is high especially in US, commodity prices and forecast still really good and crucially COPL are in a position which that they can't exploit the asset effectively. It's all the right ingredients for a partnership. As you say, it's been covered in detail, but personally I think doubts are borne from frustration over the timeline more than anything else.
Possibly Doug, assuming the BH is wanting to offload, doesn't believe in the project and in it for a quick buck. However, from the evidence available, it appears the main BH is supportive of the project and comfortable with the long term objectives / plans
Ed,
Respect your view but it's misleading to suggest consolidation is a vote on dilution. It isn't. If the company need to raise funds, it will happen regardless of consolidation. The number of shares in issue is irrelevant to that requirement. To think Art will not raise via placing just because the SP is 5p instead of £5 is fundamentally flawed.
So why do it? Open more doors to potential financing options but in my view, the more likely reason is to hide the disastrous dilution of the bonds and make the stock more attractive to investors. The bonds dilution can't be changed regardless of the outcome of the vote.
"BUT why 1000:1. Current sp of 5.5p at 1000:1 is £55. 100:1 would be more than adequate at £5.50"
Unless you can only trade in £5 increments, does it matter? What does it change? There has been suspicions of manipulation of the share previously, something Art himself has alluded to. If this is also aimed at tackling that problem, then I'm struggling to understand the uproar about the consolidation.
For those that have said there is no information on the resolutions, there is a 48 page circular on the AGM and the resolutions...
Thanks Eazy - In principle though, what in your view is so negative about £50 per share if they proceed with a 1000-1 share consolidation from the outset?
If the company are really setting their sights on institutions to drive momentum in the SP, 5p per share won't get us there. Is there a net negative to consolidation at 1000-1, all things considered? Whether it is 100-1 or 1000-1, I don't really think it matters and if anything, may even remove it from the sight of scalpers trading for £20 profits.
Taking the shares out of the penny stock market, in to the hands of institutions when this project really kicks in to gear, in my view is net positive.
The consolidation is being made out to be way more than it actually is. All I am seeing here is if shareholders vote no to consolidation, it will prevent dilution. That is not the case. It makes no odds whether the stock is consolidated or unconsolidated when it comes to raising equity, there's no ceiling on the amount of shares that can be issued.
If the company want or need to raise via placing, they will do it regardless and having 1 billion or 100M shares in issue is irrelevant. Having an unconsolidated stock may even prevent certain institutions from participating in any future fundraises, and you end up with bucket shop institutions.
If consolidation can bring on new institutional investors that have certain pre-requisites in stock purchases, reduce penny stock traders and pave the way for listing on a more reputable market, then why not?
What's with the hysteria this morning regarding JV/RBL? It's in the annual report and in previous releases last month...
The Company's short-term operations will focus on:
• continuing and increasing production of its Wyoming assets;
• refinancing the SCF to reduce the Company's cost of capital;
• further developing the facilities to handle gas injection and increased production capacity at the BFSU;
• recompleting up to 6 existing cased wells in the Cole Creek Frontier 1 sands to increase oil production;
• drilling new wells in the BFSU, CCU and BFDU pools;
• concluding a joint venture with a large oil company with operations in Wyoming to appraise and develop the
Company's deep oil discovery; and
• maintaining the Company's environmental, social and governance ("ESG") operating credentials
Completely agree Ed. They are low cost and very quick in comparison to traditional drills from scratch. Art appears more interested in completing delineation of the field and booking reserves than in optimising every new drill. Fraccing would obviously take more time, effort and cost. This first well pays for itself within a month, allowing for progressing drills to take place without a significant outlay in capital. It may be he wants to prove up the field quickly and increase it's value further, before finalising JV partnership terms.
Assuming there is availability of the materials / equipment they require, results from each drill should be known around every 4 weeks. So steady newsflow over the next 6 months.