Member Info for rossannan

http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/aug/27/drilling-oil-bahamas-would-be-disaster/

Tiburn

You didn’t come back to me on the Bahamian private family office arrangement. Is it correct to say that it is CLN-based?

Tiburn

I do not disbelieve the information about availability of funds but I do find it hard to believe that the former CERP assets could be developed at this stage without substantial CLN drawdown. I think maybe where we are at odds is my understanding that the Bahamian private family office investor arrangement also involves a CLN. Is that not correct?

Tiburn

But I did acknowledge the potential $39M - that is why I specifically accepted in my post that, in theory, they could start on the former CERP assets tomorrow. The point I was making was that, as you say yourself, CLNs are not ideal - so why take more CLN debt on than you absolutely have to? The big drill has to be drilled but the former CERP assets are not time critical. Indeed there is a lot to be said for leaving them be until the oil price improves significantly and the promised reform of the T&T fiscal regime has actually been enacted.

Tiburn

Well you can forget surplus cash generation from T&T for a start. Even the most ardent former CERPers would agree with that. And then would you not want to be minimising your exposure to CLNs as far as possible? In theory they could start tomorrow but in practice the big drill is surely going to be the sole focus until its results are in, even in the perhaps unlikely event of a Stena subscription/farm-in.

Tiburn

When is BPC going to have money to spend on the CERP assets?

All passed, and pretty overwhelmingly.

So it is time to bid farewell to CERP. Whether you loved it or hated it (or a bit of both), it was continually educational.

Starchild

The timing of the PRD offer was really interesting though as it gave CERP shareholders, at a point prior to the deadline for submitting their crucial Court Meeting votes, a potential go-it-alone scenario. The original $4.2M never really rang true but the prospect of $1.75M in the hand had the ability to increase the “determined minority” (since funding the pre-June 11 road map had long been an issue). Doesn’t look as if it worked, but we will know for certain very soon.

Starchild

I take your point about the potential trading opportunity. That of course depends on the post-merger picture (re funding, timing etc.) being as painted by BPC, on what the likes of Schroders and Trafalgar do with their new BPC shares and on the point at which retail investors who are not up for the endgame start opting out.

But crucially it will all have stopped in any real sense being about the former CERP assets. This is a pity given the amount of time and capital that has been spent on them. Whether they would have begun to deliver some kind of return for CERP’s long-suffering shareholders was probably largely down to the oil price and the T&T fiscal regime, but many of those shareholders clearly feel that the CERP BoD has quite shamefully chucked the existing, albeit heavily revised, road map out of the window and taken the wrong exit.

If the merger goes ahead, as it seems it will, it will really all be about the BPC assets. The long-suffering BPC shareholders have spent many years getting a feel for that situation, but the CERP shareholders now have to start all over again as new BPC shareholders. Meanwhile the clock is ticking.

Starchild

CERP is small because it has an appalling track record, but as you suggest it is nothing like as risky as BPC - it has always managed to trundle on somehow by tapping its shareholders or the likes of LIND and it benefits from having a retail following that will seemingly put up with almost anything. There was at least a plan, even if it was not entirely credible.

How does the proposed (and probably now inevitable) switch into basically piggybacking on BPC’s big gamble make sense for CERP shareholders? Does it not seem to you that the CERP BoD are just giving up and taking a punt rather than doing the hard work of following through on what they had previously committed to?

Starchild

So you see this as win / win for CERP whether the Court Meeting vote on the Scheme passes by the necessary majority or (unlikely but not impossible) does not. But which outcome do you prefer?

willec

“yet we are producing”

You might want to check that with the Company.

Starchild

Thanks. So it’s down to the determined CERP minority now...

Starchild

Yes, it will be clear to them by now whether the minority was in fact large/determined enough. With the likes of bigmj towing the line (as far as I am aware), it was always going to be quite a mountain to climb. It looks to me as if the CERP BoD have successfully sold CERP’s shareholders down the river. You can either buckle down and do the work or punt it all on the 5:30 at Kempton Park. It seems that Leo and Co. are off to the races. With other people’s money.

CERP-84

“Right to Appoint a Proxy; Procedure for Appointment
Holders of Scheme Shares entitled to attend and vote at the Court Meeting may appoint another person or persons, whether a member of the Company or not, as their proxy or proxies, to exercise all or any of their rights to attend, speak and vote at the Court Meeting. We recommend that you appoint the Chairman of the Court Meeting to be your proxy. It is strongly urged that you to follow the UK Government instructions in respect of the evolving situation regarding COVID- 19 and the restrictions on social contact, and public gatherings. It is expected that the Company’s attendance at the Court Meeting in person will be limited to the number required to satisfy the requirements for quorum. The Court Meeting will end immediately after the formal business. Any Columbus Shareholder that attempts to physically attend the Meetings will be refused admission in order to comply with the UK Government public health instructions.
A pink Form of Proxy, for use at the Court Meeting, is enclosed with this notice. Instructions for its use are set out on the form. It is requested that the pink Form of Proxy (together with any power of attorney or other authority, if any, under which it is signed, or a duly certified copy thereof) be returned to the Company’s Registrars, Share Registrars, The Courtyard, 17 West Street, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 7DR, by post or (during normal business hours only) by hand, so as to be received by the Registrars not later than 10.00 a.m. (London time) on 23 July 2020 or, in the case of an adjournment of the Court Meeting, 48 hours (excluding non-working days) before the time appointed for the adjourned meeting. However, if not so returned, Forms of Proxy (together with any such authority, if applicable) may be handed to the Chairman of the Court Meeting before the start of the Court Meeting. However, as physical attendance at the Court Meeting will be refused in order to comply with the current UK Government public health instructions, you are strongly encouraged to return the pink Form of Proxy by the time noted above.”

Is it correct that 75% or more of the votes cast at the Court Meeting are required to approve the Scheme? And if that is correct, is there not scope for a determined minority to defeat the Scheme (though BPC might then try the takeover route) and at least try to reinstate something more like the original road map, perhaps addressing funding issues by giving PRD what they so obviously want? Presumably most of the BoD would in that event do the decent thing and resign so that they could be replaced by directors who would commit to the original road map (or something like it).

Would it be worth trying to tally on here how many votes have already been cast against the Scheme?

I was hoping for a penny or two on BXP this morning, but no such luck. I thought they might RNS to remind the market that they manufacture dexamethasone (in the same way that they did with remdesivir). BXP is a decent sized company, it is a low priced drug and it will only be of use to a smallish percentage of Covid 19 sufferers, so the financial impact of the news yesterday was never going to be huge, but it was a chance to remind the market yet again what a significant and dependable generic drug manufacturer BXP is.

Yes, that does appear to be the case:

http://m.theindependentbd.com//home/printnews/248401

LLL

You’ve got me bang to rights there.

willec

“remember IreneKrapp predicts 0 bpd - She is complete wrong and does not even hold - laughing stock of the board.”

Yet she was a lot closer than the vast majority. And who won? Modesty forbids...