Member Info for saintnick

Probably a good idea to find out what the interest rate is on these CLN's, when payments would be due, what happens in a default situation and finally where the money is coming from to make the payments.

No income stream means repeated equity raises via shareholders (share dilution) or worse. The MOU looks sound, I have questions about the CLN's based on very bad past experiences. They should be treated as a last resort, not a go to, as they're used to legally transfer larger portions of the co. away from pi's.

Expect a share consolidation clause to be slipped into the AGM as well. Lots of repeatable patterns in the O&G minnows, shareholders rarely come out on top. In fact I can't think of any positive outcomes where CLN's were involved.

No, I wouldn't. Personally I think its the scurge of our markets and should be banned as they did back in the 00's.

Anavio didn't have the moral high ground of being able to say it was all within the rules. They were the main lender of fast money and threw more at COPL with the approval of their inside man even after the JV was pulled. Who lends to a 'failing' company without an alterior motive?

My real question would be what date did Arthur and Tom first contact Kravitz? There in lies the tale.

Lend with one hand, whilst shorting with the other. I don't know the precise technicalities of market manipulation but if you can prove that's all above board then i'll happily educate myself via your links.

Https://shorttracker.co.uk/company/CA13643D8008/

Nearly double that number Shouston, 106. Shameful.

And they all acted like they didn't know. They knew.

BurrenBoy - the biggest shareholder is what, COPL?

Or did u mean in:

Goldman Sachs

Exxonmobil

Jefferies LLC

Jefferies LLC might seem an odd inclusion but if you see who's running the Avanio fund now you'll see why they're included.

It'll be interesting to see who Summit eventually sell to, I have a feeling that Co. may connect the dots.

SpikeyJ - thanks for your concern, its truely touching to see a fellow forum member looking out for another.

I'm not entirely sure what you're on about as my intent, and explicit direction, was for others to read about the family histories and connected relations around Goldman Sachs. I've not read anything in the section called Doria Sachs, the only part of the blog I have read or directed people to, relating to 'cannibals'. In that respect it is you who have now highlighted those particular sections of the blog that I have not read.

As i'm sure you know given your breadth of knowledge, intent is a factor in such legal cases, as is the need for verifiable proof of harm or loss. The blog in question is 5 years old, I happened upon it whilst researching the background to both Anavio and Goldman Sachs and that particular relationship is both true and evidenced. You, not I, have since promoted any clearly conspiratorial nonsense that may be contained in the rest of the blog, that I have not read.

Now, I see you also threw me under your imaginary bus and reported that post. Thanks for the attempt at intimidation but may I politely suggest that instead of posting 26,500 times over 12 years (that's 200 posts per month every month for 12 years) you instead leave the keyboard and the kleenex alone for a while, given your right hand a rest and tell your mum you're popping out for a bit of fresh air. She will be pleased.

It's wet out there today so don't forget to slip on those comfy jackboots and let the neighbours admire your spandex. You never know, you might not be the only authoritarian in the village.

For any history buffs out there, I found a disturbing if true blog about the inner workings of our nearest and dearest world bankers - Goldman Sachs. Anavio also get a memtion which is nice for them.

I take it all with a pinch of salt and do not endorse the views of the author but given our situation, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

https://worldcrimesyndicate.blogspot.com/2020/03/?m=1

Click the search box top right amd type 'Anavio', it should take you to a section called 'Doria Sachs'. Bit of a long read but interesting in its detail, hopefully a few names and institutions might help connect some dots for others.

I should've included the links:

https://irtools.co.uk/40/story/7240a3fc-15bd-4846-92b1-590092605ea3

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CORO/convertible-loan-bjrc7igocwwszl9.html

At the time of the above he was Chairman at Fenikso and non-exec at Coro, just before xmas he became Chair of both and increased the loan.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CORO/convertible-loan-increase-and-vietnam-update-cwj7p43ms3oph73.html

Will wait to see what happens in Feb but I think I can guess, option b).

Dilute the ordinary shareholders into oblivion and take full control on the cheap which probably means the company has something worth taking. Sounds familiar.

Yes Maidit308, I used to think that with enough research, a side of caution and some luck you can navigate through and make some money. To be fair, you still can but 'investing' has now exited via the window.

On the topic of companies repeating the patterns of treating shareholders as an after thought, have you been following Coro Energy?

Richardson played another blinder over there. He again ousted the Chairman, James Parsons (history should be checked), but this time put up his own cash at 40% p.a. (via Fenikso) to slowly take over the co when they can't pay the loan back. Partnered 50/50 with River Merchant Capital - you should look into their employees and past connections.

All in all, very much the wild west with repeatable patterns and the same outcomes for shareholders.

Agreed and as you'd expect Rodney, there is no concrete evidence. If I had it, we'd have our money back by now.... or i'd have gone missing!

At best its a dotted line, curious shared histories and a bit of chin scratching. I wasn't expecting to find any links at all given the millions of people and businesses in finance.

I take it nobody else has made a link, however insubstantial, so I will at least share my findings with the address provided. Make of it what you will, its not evidence and you might have already researched and concluded its nothing but its odd to me.

I'll say no more on the subject publicly apart from this, if the Global Witness investigation referenced in that Guardian article is accurate then anything is possible. I don't have any answers, just lots of questions.

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/exxon-complicit-oil-sector-corruption-liberia/

RodneyT - that Liberia article got me thinking. They obviously followed the rules laid out in order to get what they wanted. No laws were broken, well done them.

If they do end up owning our assets, as the contractor on site strongly indicates, then they again will have ended up getting what they wanted, well done them again.

But how might go you about making that happen from a position of zero holdings and a first lein lender potentially in the way (or maybe not in the way), buy it all at a seemingly fair price?

That would be the easiest solution but the site would need to be properly audited and a low ball offer wouldn't do, plus the competition might get wind.

I'm not saying that anything nefarious happened at all, just to be clear, but have you (or anyone else reading this) found any arms length links between the Major and the Bondholder?

I thought there'd be none, it's a very big world after all. No details needed, just curious what others may have stumbled across, it took me a while as I've been down a few blind alleys!

Possibly but does the timing fit?

1 week after the bond holders were onboarded he was gone. Liberia was years before, in fact when DC was in office, plus DC was out of politics in 2021.

My focus would be on the immediate nature of him quitting as soon as Tennyson launched, and 3 days later successfully completed, the $8m bookbuild. He'd been there 8 years, then left the very week it was announced. No Exxon or other major was mentioned around this time, it was July 2022 we first got word. Why the rush to head for the door in Dec 21?

Have you researched our fabled bondholders? Not quite the outfit one was led to believe. A tiny start up in 2015 with less than £1m, yes on paper.

Ever wondered where the funds came from to lend to COPL which were then not secured properly in the contract terms so apparently in their favour against COPL, or why they didn't chase as BP did through Court amemdment. Seems naive, somewhat surprising given the founders backgrounds. Also very risky if the exit strategy was always to hedge.

I suspect VC knew exactly who he was dealing with and wanted no part of it, possibly due to the previous scandal but perhaps something else.

Well he's still listed on companies house with his other interests, along with his son's, but yes odd that the links to COPL have been removed. Google can tell you all you need so it seems a strange move and one that he would have had to request.

My issue isn't with his removal, I do question the timing of his departure though.

Joins March 2013, then 8 years later COPL announce a bookbuild Nov 30th 2021, completed Dec 1st.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/COPL/completion-of-usd-8000000-accelerated-bookbuild-ll72jc1ta6anfqb.html

Resigns Dec 6th 2021, 1 month before the 993mbbls were discovered. 8 years the leaves before the 'transformational' news which would have been known by ALL involved long before the announcement Jan 2022.

Maybe he didn't want to be associated with the new lenders, old money pushed out by older money so to speak. They both have family history but differing reputations both here in the UK and in New York.

There does appear to be a repeatable pattern escpecially, but not exclusively, in oil companies listed in the UK.

Their high risk nature is perfect cover for any games that might want to be played and shareholders aren't normally able to fight back.

Corporate optics.

And a couple of years of planning by others.

If I'd have rocked up with £100m and a letter from God I still wouldn't have got the assets.

Due diligence doesn't take 18 months unless you're actually looking at something. I bought my house after 20mins admiring other people's furniture and a surveyors report.

It's down there and one day we'll know how much we could've won.

When you say 'they' would you be suggesting more than one party?

Anavio, Atlas, Tosca, ....??

The only co listed as shorting COPL in over 2 years (106 times) was Anavio, so how did the others make thier money when the share price was in free fall.

Oh, was it that rally on the morning of Jan 12th, 0.0038 open to 0.095 finish with a speeding ticket issued at 11.30am to reign it back in?

That was very good timing, especially as that was the day Anavio closed out their 49.3% short, but how could each of them possibly have known, and what was the market maker up to at the time. The mind boggles.

Totally unrelated to the above, I found a good read on another quite separate financial topic.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/collusion/

Did they?

I might suggest TR1's would be the least of their concerns, you can dot the i's and cross the t's but all the while....

Jan 12th

https://shorttracker.co.uk/company/CA13643D8008/

Jan 12th

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/COPL/share-price-movement-wfynaxvymjadykr.html

RodneyT - I agree, CO2 specialists from Denbury may certainly have had better insights into the different methods and associated results, if only someone would have thought to ask them.

Makes you wonder if the old GGS system with plastic pipes would have been sufficient for any type of traditional injectant but if you wanted to use high pressure CO2 then maybe you'd need to upgrade to expensive steel pipes.

Risky though, as you'd need to borrow a lot of money and what if it all went wrong, you might need to hand back the newly upgraded company assets to the only creditor with a first lein.

All hypothetically of course and no 'Director' worth their salt would be so splash dash with other peoples money. Unless of course there were no consequences, then maybe some might.

Unfortunately the FCA appear to now be gatekeepers rather than regulators.

This is what our Senior Managers/Directors should have followed:

Senior Manager Conduct Rules

The Individual Conduct Rules apply to almost all staff at firms, including SMFs. In addition, there are four Senior Manager Conduct Rules which apply to SMF holders:

1. You must take reasonable steps to ensure that the business of the firm for which you are responsible is controlled effectively.

2. You must take reasonable steps to ensure that the business of the firm for which you are responsible complies with the relevant requirements and standards of the regulatory system.

3. You must take reasonable steps to ensure that any delegation of your responsibilities is to an appropriate person and that you oversee the discharge of the delegated responsibility effectively.

4. You must disclose appropriately any information of which the FCA or PRA would reasonably expect notice.

And yet we are where we are. How and why is what turns people inside out, it can't happen, it shouldn't happen etc etc and yet it does.

Taking a step back, if the regulators in all countries followed and enforced their own rules whole sections of the financial services industry would collapse and the big players know it which is how this continues.

RodneyT - to your point, AM addressed this in July 2023 so they had months to work on that particular issue

"The Company's Reservoir Engineer and its specialist reservoir engineering firm are developing a revised miscible injection strategy for commencement late in the third quarter following the upgrades to BFSU gas gathering system and production facilities...."

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/COPL/operations-update-9cxgaujee3633k9.html

Do you know if the firm used was in house, so SWP, or did they get external experts to look at the issue? Hard to tell due to the misdirectional word salad often used in these updates.

So if COPL didn't use the $3.5m raised via Anavio for the Q4 NGL, ended the BP swaps deal saving $k's in monthly costs, and all the 'Directors' stopped taking their pay, then where did all the money go and why was COPL so keen to run straight back to Anavio once the JV was 'pulled'?

Or rather, why was Anavio so keen to lend, after the JV collapse, without a 1st tier lien on the debt? $25m down the pan but no claim against COPL in Court, very odd.

Un_Known, am I correct in thinking that if the production had gone up then the additional $20m lending option from Summit would have been activated, thereby removing the need to go back to Anavio?

No Anavio, no problem or maybe not. My real concern, having dug further into this than's probably healthy, is that the same names, London and New York office addresses, and some rather large coompanies keep popping up. The employment, educational and family backgrounds of certain individuals raise more than an eyebrow as well. All arms length, obviously, but the dotted lines can be easily made.

A very complex situation on the surface, but perhaps a little closer to Occam's razor than I first thought. Time will tell.