Member Info for rossannan

ab76

“from memory though SPT is much less of an issue for our offshore production due to various exemptions/tax benefits”

Can you expand on this?

*going back to the original news reports

edgar222

“The BPC announcement is (to a lawyer) unambiguous. The JR is over.”

Looking at the BPC announcement on its own, I can see why someone, lawyer or not, might come to that conclusion. Looking at the BPC announcement in the context of all the available information, you start to wonder if it is slightly misleading. The court was always unlikely to open up decisions that were prima facie time barred, just as it was always unlikely to stay the drilling once it had already started. But going back to the original news, the ones setting out the case as filed, it is clear that not every decision that is being challenged is prima facie time barred. There is scope for these elements of the JR application to rumble on. Whether they do and for how long and to what effect is another matter, but it seems overly simplistic to claim that the JR is over. The bulletin board lawyers (and perhaps the person who drafted that BPC news release) would clearly like the JR to be over, but let’s wait and see what the judge has to say.

*effect not affect

ab76

Thanks for that. TRIN’s “and is also expected to apply to small mature offshore fields” does appear to have been incorrect.

Interesting “Cairn” affect this morning.

If we see $50 WTI in Q1, I hope that TRIN will issue an RNS to confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that this no longer puts it in an SPT “death zone” (and perhaps in this way TRIN will regain the market’s attention).

I know that in the 15th October update we had:

“o The threshold for the imposition of SPT will be lifted from $50/bbl to $75/bbl for fiscal years 2021 and 2022;
o This increased threshold will apply to small onshore producers (understood to be where the asset/licence produces less than 2,000 bopd) and is also expected to apply to small mature offshore fields;”

but they need to firm up on this and confirm that their current production at least, both onshore and offshore, will get the full benefit of this lifted threshold.

offerman presumably has me on filter as a so-called “troll”, but why are others on here whom he hasn’t filtered not trying to help him with the obvious mistakes and misconceptions in his most recent post? Or do posts on the bull tack just get a free pass and recommendations in double figures, whatever mistakes they contain?

I’m afraid BPC has reached the “look away now” stage for me.

Oultonmike

No, it is not a great post, for many reasons. For one thing, it is so wrong to say something like “Saffron alone covers our current market cap”. The root of that particular problem seems to be offerman confusing psi and bopd.

offerman

“THE NATURAL FLOW AT SAFFRON 1800BOPD for two years before requiring a pump! according to Leo”

That is nonsense. You need to fact check yourself.

Spiritefan

“Their interests are aligned with all other shareholders”

Are they though? No matter how many shares have been taken in lieu of salary, add up the cash payments received over the years. They are not in the same boat as other shareholders and are behaving accordingly. For all my arguments with the local rampers about the inevitability of dilution when they were bandying their nonsense share price predictions around, I did not expect this much dilution at this stage and I certainly didn’t expect the BoD to flirt with death spiral funding.

Matt0410

The potential for BPC to start racking up liabilities on the back of the new funding arrangements.

Noviceinv

I’m sorry, but saying that BPC is a sure bet is just nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that.

bigmj

“I’m here for the end game and believe the COS is far higher than 35% (I have many well placed connections in the industry and they assure me that that’s the case”

If they are saying that the up to 35% figure (the Geological Chance of Success) is far higher, what is their basis for that and what percentage would they therefore put on the Commercial Chance of Success (which is by definition significantly lower than the Geological Chance of Success)?

Noviceinv

“BPC in my opinion will be a sure bet, even regardless if they found oil”

Are you serious?

Noviceinv

“I don’t need to fall into your trap”

No trap. What I’m saying is simple. The MMs are bookies, not gamblers and are not to blame for the lacklustre response to today’s RNS. BB rampers tend to blame the MMs when a share price is not doing what they think it should, but the reality here is that your BoD have done this to you with their funding arrangements. If you think that is wrong, please explain why you think it is wrong.

Londonwhale

In the meantime, the triggering (or not) of the Option Agreement will be significant.

Noviceinv

Okay, give us the benefit of your industry experience and explain how they make their money.

Noviceinv

No, the MMs are bookies, not gamblers. They make money by not having a view on the share price.

countdemonet

“MMs at it again manipulation or what”

No, it’s your BoD and their funding arrangements that have done this to you, not the MMs.

Not come across him before, but while the funding arrangement is pretty awful and has taken the shine right off the pre-drill excitement trade, OMJ seems to be making the funding arrangement sound worse than it actually is.