RE: the rns was simple4 Sep 2018 20:59
The reason why I am 100% convinced that the major is still in negotiations, can be found in the following part of the RNS contained in Potter's quote:
"The company with which we have been in exclusive negotiations has elected not to extend further the period of exclusivity, which means we will receive no further exclusivity payments."
The predicate:
"The company with which we have been in exclusive negotiations has elected not to extend further the period of exclusivity..."
Followed by the outcome or consequence:
"...which means we will receive no further exclusivity payments."
Please note: the outcome or consequence is not that the major walked. And this would certainly have been stated if it was the case, as it's market sensitive.
Notice keywords "have been" and "exclusive negotiations" in that sentence. Now remove "exclusive" and read the sentence. This shows the negotiations are still ongoing and that exclusivity will just be removed after today.
If negotiations had ended the sentence would have read something like:
"The company with which we have been in exclusive negotiations has elected not to extend further the period of exclusivity, which means we will receive no further exclusivity payments and negotiations have ceased."
Or
"The company with which we have been in exclusive negotiations has elected not to extend further the period of exclusivity, which means we will receive no further exclusivity payments and the major oil company and BPC are no longer in negotiations"
Therefore, the only NEGATIVE outcome of exclusivity ending is "...which means we will receive no further exclusivity payments."
The RNS portrays the ending of exclusivity as a POSITIVE because it allows a 3rd party to join existing negotiations between BPC and the major (SHELL) IMHO.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
