Member Info for RNSTranslator

Golden B; The CPR is simply an "independent experts" analysis of the reserves and resources, using SPE categorisation criteria.
Its neither definitive or legally binding. There are get out of jail verbiage in all CPR's , but folks don't like to read that bit.
It was originally done by RPS Energy .
Roy Kelly who left on the same day as Dr T was previously a Director at RPS responsible for reserves and auditing, before he joined Kerogen. - Not sure if the two things are linked to just coincidence?? but make of it what you will,
The current CPR is being done by, I think Equipoise, who have a pretty good reputation. - given the high visibility nature of the evaluations they'll be especially careful in what they say.

dflynch: Didn't suggest that the current ones are not yes men (or women), excluding those who came late to the party, they appear to have been rather asleep at the wheel or unable or unwilling to question the executive ( the main role of a NED).
They're already suffering tarnished reputations by association and there will be an almighty desire not to smear themselves in more cr@p by mismanaging the go forward plan, in part they want to be seen to have taken the safest path for whats left of their remaining reputations, and especially having given adequate risk warnings ahead of time if it all goes t*ts Up..
CEO Maris is inexperienced in public markets having left Soco previously as a non Board COO, he may be technically and operationally astute but I suspect thats about it from an experience perspective.
CFO: Chaffe, late to the party stepping up after the previous incumbent left the scene of the crime!
Chairman: Should have some public markets experience from being SID at Tullow, took over from Arnott who left abruptly, you'd think he'd have asked Arnott why he left?
Jenkins: joined BP in 1960/61... 8 years on the Board - Chair of the Technical Ctee... just what was he doing on that committee?
Van Der Welle: 8 Years on the Board: Old mate of Trice from their Enterprise days, hardly challenging to bring your mates on.
Sandy ... Late to the party, I'm sure she'd not not taken up these positions if she'd realised what was really going on technically.
Bev: Fresh out of BG, technically and commercially astute, but perhaps lacking in experience of the public markets and the prospective reputational risks that go with the £70k a year for 25 days work...
CA should put up a roster of new Directors and include some of the CA directors on it... then we'll see some fun and games... possibly.

CA want to play hardball with bond holders, something management are probably very reluctant to do given they’re liable if they make the wrong call and breach covenants. I’m not defending them, as this is mostly self inflicted, but that’s what they’ll be thinking about.
Easy as a shareholder to talk tough, if CA want to fight the bond holders they should put up their own folks to run this... somehow I doubt they’ll do that, activists prefer to put tame “independent” yes men on the Board to do their bidding... finding ones to stand will be the issue they have.

Planted said” To also suggest the well is too difficult this year but we’ll attempt it next year ... is also BS...” read what they actually said which was “...without operational and cost risk” The issue is that it’s more technically challenging and that comes with a greater cost risk...that’s the key message..cost risk... the covenants don’t allow them to borrow more so if the operation goes pear shaped and they spend too much then they can only raise money via a placing...

"Looking at the positives, RNST was/is being paid to help suppress the price here and at UJO (IMO)"
I notice the IMO as your cop out...Because thats all it is, In your opinion rather than you being prepared to say its a fact in a forum that would leave you liable , because of course you just can't accept that pointing out the risks and misstatements of information is done for any other reason than to "steal someones shares"... Quite why you really care I don't really know because as you've said the share price will rise (a F of lot) REGARDLESS of the test results... although that seems to have changed tack slightly with your statement below "... If they don’t and continue to dilute with more promises of jam tomorrow then their credibility and the share price will be at a point that it would be difficult to make the gains that they have eluded to."

Planted, - you missed this one from the bottom of the latest RNS...
"1. Further information on the stakeholder engagement process, including as to risk of dilution and potentially limited or no value to existing shareholders, is contained in the Company's announcements of 18 December 2020 and 14 January 2021."

So, according to them there is “ significant value”
No what they actually said is : "we continue to believe there is significant value", belief can often be different to reality, especially the case when its said by folks who previously "believed" there were billions of barrels in their discoveries.

No Mr I

A simple apology would save you much more time than defending what was probably a unfortunate, and probably unintentional phraseology.

It may well be a commercial no brainer, but it’s more a case of is it commercially practical to buy in any volume, assuming they have the right to do this, which it would seem they do, at least to a certain extent. There may well be Bondholders who will sell at the current discount. if you think about this as a bond holder rather than a p*ssed off shareholder what would you do? The company is generating a lot of Free cash flow and it’s looking like they may be in a position to pay up if things keep going in this direction..you have covenants, (some of which we don’t know) which gives you a degree of control over what they can and can’t do (such as borrowing more money), so why not wait? The company may be able to buy some in the market, but the price will rise once it’s known they’re a buyer. We don’t know who has the bulk of the bonds but you can be sure they know more about what’s going on than we do. Shareholders do own the company, but by borrowing money to increase your returns you’ve invited other folks stand in the queue ahead of you ...

GoldenBadger - indeed, thats the critical issue here can they get to a place to deal with the CB and still have enough left over to undertake the activity before the field production falls to a point that is uneconomic on a go forward basis. If they play their cards right they could make an offer to the CB holders to settle for some large enough % of whats due later 21, and hope that the remaining uncertainty pushes them to accept and leave... then its a case of finding more funding to undertake the programme which is unlikely to be debt and almost certainly equity...

Ricardo
As you rightly point out the Bondholders hold most of the cards here, because they do.
There is a summary of some of the CB covenants on the website one of which which forbids HUR raising other debt.
This means that they have to be particularly careful in committing to activity that might overrun as the only option they have available to raise cash is via an equity raise. So the Board are in an especially difficult position (in part their own making for letting it get so bad in the first place). I take this to mean that they need to have sufficient internal funds to:
Undertaking new operational activity. (Sidetrack/Injections etc)
continue to Pay the lease/charer rates for the Am
Other obligations and costs etc etc

This needs to be sufficient for the Auditors to approve they are a going concern. I don't know, but expect any audit qualification will probably trigger a covenant breach. Of course the higher oil price will be helpful in allowing this stuff to happen more easily, but the Bondholders will also see it as a way to potentially increase the chance for getting their repayment in full....

"Fracking is banned in the UK, Acidization is not" - this is what you said...
"Thats not true Persimmon. High Volume fracking is currently not allowed. Low volume (Prop Squeeze) is allowed subject to approval on control." - this is what I said.

... do you read what you write, and do you read the answers??

Thats not true Persimmon.
High Volume fracking is currently not allowed.
Low volume (Prop Squeeze) is allowed subject to approval on control.

"Whoa! RNS.
That is close to the bone!"
Why? He said clearly in the video he'd done it 5 times before (debatable as to whether he meant £100mm or £50mm)
Just wondering which 5 they were, whats wrong with that??

Planted, I think you know a lot about the mechanics of drilling and very little about the commercial and legal risks associated with bond covenant breaches, which is what this is really all about.

"Union Jack Oil: Proactive extended interview with chairman David Bramhill
Proactive" After talking about how your market cap needed to be £100mm to attract institutions he did say he'd done it 5 times before...I'm struggling with this one to be honest. If I recall Wessex was made an offer from Total for £71mm but turned it down, so thats reasonably close...
Here's a list of his previous and current companies where he's been a director...:
Cambridge Mineral Resources
Hereward Ventures
Pan Andean
Oil Quest
Nighthawk
Osceola Hydrocarbons
Wessex Exploration
Bluebird
Navy Avian Energy
---Current---
Union Jack Oil
Bearcat Operations Ltd
Corby Limited

Which of these got to a market Cap of £100mm (or even £50mm) whilst he was there??

"This is business now, and David has done this many times before"
Really Heid, could you point out where he's done this many times before?
Still waiting for your response... or would you prefer me to do it for you?

Planted: " With a sidetrack ... current drilling tools can get where you need to go.. period ... you don’t know that then your not oilfield "
Of course they probably can, but what they need to do is difficult to achieve from where they are with respect to the optimum location of any sidetrack and its orientation wrt the fracture system.. read higher risk, not impossible. I am oilfield but I understand that the issue is about risk vs potential reward vs the implications of debt covenant breaches and not simply a drillers "yeah, course we can do that".

Stock market is awash with money right now... your not telling me with the income we have currently we can’t get finance ... don’t believe this ..
They already have a hardly sustainable debt pile debt and a low shareprice, where exactly do you get finance from, equity markets?, more debt?? - uh really. The stock markets may be awash with money but its not for investing in over leveraged under delivering oil and gas companies.

If they had any b@lls at all they would come out and tell the shareholders what has been going on with the bond holders and comms generally ... but they don’t .., why?
Because that would scare the cr@p out of shareholders and undermine their discussions with the Bondholders who currently hold the whip hand... as Directors they cannot knowingly set out to breach covenants. Although I have to agree that many the Non execs who appear to have been previously unwilling or unable to challenge the previous CEO are probably not going to deliberately pick a fight with the Bondholders. The new CEO may know something about FB's but to be honest has no experience in managing shareholders and public markets, and its not in the best interests of their own reputations (to the extent some have any left)and legal obligations etc etc.. I suspect CA are prepared to do just that, as an activist, losing their entire investment here is not helpful in terms of it will undermine their their own reputation ... its only a £100mm fund, microscopic in the broader scheme of things, so they have a lot to lose, they must go going down fighting rather than just letting executive management just follow the rules and protocol.

"This is business now, and David has done this many times before"
Really Heid, could you point out where he's done this many times before?