Member Info for rossannan

Noviceinv

“Anyone that’s promoting this share always provides backed up knowledge and facts.”

I saw your post before I went for lunch (my MM paymasters do allow this). I love your use of “promoting”. In defending the “research” done, and shared on here by, the local rampers, you seem to have taken my last post as an attempt to belittle the “research” done by the local rampers.

That was certainly what I was attempting. No matter how many links they provide or sources they cite, the local rampers are only ever looking to back up whatever rosy scenario they were envisaging before they even started their “research”. Anything negative is ignored. Zero objective analysis. Zero critical thinking. Zero insight.

Okay, I am exaggerating for effect. But really not that much...!

TRP-BPC

The injunction application may never materialise. The point is that the market takes this threat more seriously than the rampers on here ever did. Those rampers are now largely discredited. The placing they didn’t expect duly happened. The Stena farm-in/subscription they expected never happened. You get my drift. This is where talking your book gets you - you mislead yourself, not just your readers.

Yes, Fred Smith.

Jdam

Through $46.

Significant breakout.

themuir01

I wish!

icemax

Were you trying to link to a different article?

elland

But the quality, profitability and potential of those assets are constantly exaggerated on here, just as they were on the CERP BB. If folk are going to set too much store by those assets, they should expect to be challenged by anyone who has had a proper look at them. The truth is that BPC will have very little going for it if P1 does not come in, however the BoD may try to spin it. It will just limp along as a kind of CERP tribute act, hoping for an oil price boom to stem the otherwise inevitable dilution.

GG

That is not the immediate question though. The immediate question is whether the threatened injunction will be applied for. Not whether it will, or should, succeed.

I have asked those who are assuming that the cost implications of the threatened injunction will prevent it even being applied for to back this assumption up, but they have now gone very quiet...

ZagEgypt

It’s your call, but if you are not prepared to back up your claim that the cost implications of the threatened injunction would be prohibitive, your claim has to be discounted.

Since you are not, is anyone else on here prepared to demonstrate how the cost implications of the threatened injunction would be prohibitive?

ZagEgypt

Great, you have done research on the basis of which you are able to reassure us that the cost implications of the threatened injunction would be prohibitive. All you now have to do to put our minds at rest is share that research with the BB.

Go ahead.

ZagEgypt

What is the basis for your assumption then if you are not even prepared to check it against the relevant rules? Wishful thinking?

ZagEgypt

It might be worth your while having a look at the relevant rules rather simply assuming that the cost implications are prohibitive:

http://laws.bahamas.gov.bs/cms/images/LEGISLATION/SUBORDINATE/1978/1978-0046/RulesoftheSupremeCourt_1.pdf

ZagEgypt

Of course, based on the way that the article pretty much takes it as a given. If you are assuming that no injunction application will be made, I would be interested to hear what you are basing that assumption on.

Robbla

Presumably they geared up to submit the injunction application at the end of the 14 day period, so it should appear any day now, as reflected in today’s price action. I would imagine that, for good or for ill, it will be turned around very quickly and that the market’s response to the Court’s decision will be very lively!

icemax

Good spot. Does suggest that the injunction application is expected to materialise.

TRP-BPC

“The herd is coming”

The folk on here need to consider the possibility that they are the herd.

You need to consider the possibility that next time you change direction you will be trampled.

Chriskerr100

Easily spooked? As I said, all I have done is taken a profit on roughly 20% of my holding, specifically the bit with leverage attached. This is against the background of the threatened injunction (which is unlikely to succeed but could still make it into Court).

How do you think breaking news that the injunction has been applied for will affect the share price?

Chriskerr100

Common sense tells me not to ignore the impact that the threatened injunction has already had on the share price and the impact that it will undoubtedly have if the application makes it to Court - even if it is subsequently thrown out (which seems likely unless BPC or the Bahamian Government have ****ed up the approval process). All I have done is taken a profit on roughly 20% of my holding, specifically the bit with leverage attached. Seems eminently sensible to me.

Robbla

Yes, but they forgot to uproot the Dutch Elm...