Member Info for Scully12345

MonopolyGuy - I agree we really need that RNS. If the market was convinced that the RNS was 100% major walked then I'm sure share price would be around 1p (pre-exclusivity SP) now IMHO. It may happen next week - we may drift to sub 1p on mo news who knows. But I don't think so based on price action I've seen this week. Do you think there was something stopping a further RNS in the exclusivity period? And from from tomorrow there's a good chance of a further RNS? I would hope so.

Troajan - exactly. What I've been saying. But shot down for it.

Neptunes I challenge you to have a respectful and intelligent debate with me as Monopoly Guy is able to. Instead you resort to personal insults as is awash in your posting history with others.

MonopolyGuy that's your interpretation of the RNS and not the only interpretation...it isn't fact and it isn't clear. To claim that I have taken the RNS out of context is a sly dig isn't it really. I repecr your opinion as a possible outcome, you should in turn respect mine. I read "freely engage" as free from the restrictions of the exclusivity agreement not free from the negotiations of the major. Why must discussions with the major and discussions with others be mutually exclusive and why can't you entertain the idea of a JV / consortium, major led with over 50% share. It's commonplace in O and G company deals and surely the best way of mitigating risks with Bahamas drilling in BPC's case.

Parpaing that's a good point and it could certainly happen...let's hope not hey

Kev I agree - we need a clarification RNS. It could be tjat the major walked. It could be that the major didn't walk and negotiations are still underway. Or a plethora of other possibilties. You know what my views are. I've taken my position and put my chips on the table. Everyone needs to do their own research. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I only take exception with posters like Neptunes who taunt and goad people. He says my opinion is invalid, well, because it's just wrong lol. He's yet to say why he thinks I cannot have my viewpoint. Besides because I haven't been invested in the company long enough lol

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

Kapkina - it's clear that Neptunes and Davie clearly don't want this company to do well. In fact they've said I'm stupid to have invested on Tuesday. If you read between the lines, they're really saying we've been here longer than you - you have no right to come in after 8 or 10 years and potentially swoop the rewards within a few weeks/months. Well, I'm sorry, that's how it sometimes works. You guys seem to have confirmation bias because it's been so many years you just can't see a deal happening...after this "final blow". It seems to hae become a self-fulfilling prophecy for you. If I'm stupid for investing in Tuesday then you're stupid for leaving the remainder of your capital in at 17p if that's true - if it's a dead duck as you claim then why not take everything out. You said you top sliced at 7.305p but I notice a few weeks back you wrote 7.26p - can't you remember your own lies. I think you didn't top slice or sell any at all. I challenge you to analyse my following post and let me know why you think it's wrong or misleading people. How can I mislead people when I clearly state it's ny opinion and not fact. You haven't presented a cogent argument as to why you think I'm wrong: 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." Th

Investor1111, Brainer and Degsy if you're still in here - this has been mentioned in today's Sunday Mail - top AIM loser 30%+ down. So might get some interes for the recovery play. I sold entire holding last week at just over 5p for small profit after averaging down at just over 4p. Only had £1k in near 7p so easy to average down. Thinking of getting back in for tranche in the morning if can get 4.15p. IMHO

MisterPositive let's get something straight I'm not hoping this goes back to 7.5p again..I'm hoping this goes to 20p+ with a downside risk I see as 1p so 50% potential downside and 10 bagger minimum potential upside. I.e. a big consortium / JV deal. This is ny opinion, I may be wrong, I may be right. But it's oart of the basis of my investment case. Those who say I am clearly wrong to have in invested here on Tuesday must have access to a crystal ball or be insider trading. Because I do not know if this will pay off or not. But it's about paying your money and taking your chances...it is AIM casino after all. I draw your attention to Neptune's post from 10.18am this morning where he says I am stupid to have invested here on Tuesday: "...because you deemed your stupidity to be clever when you bought in on Tuesday."  By the way, anyone who says "the major walked away based on technicals" is delluded as the data as been independently verified.

Tiburn - good post and I agree with you.

Investor1111 - have you looked at BPC (lost 70% of shareprice so I'm in for £12800 for the recovery play). Also, I'm not in them but alot have just got in TOOP which went up about 300% this week then dropped a bit. I'm not convinced but might do some more research and watch the share next week and may enter if it drops a bit more.

"...it will not further extend the exclusive nature of negotiations beyond 31 August 2018."

What is the opposite of exclusive...inclusive, open or shared.

Therefore the opposite of "exclusive nature of negotiations" could be "shared nature of negotiations"

The RNS states: "...it will not further extend the exclusive nature of negotiations beyond 31 August 2018."

This is stated in the RNS. In other words, the negotiations no longer have an exclusive nature, they now have an inclusive, shared or open nature. If that sentence that is stated in the RNS is true then the opposite of it is true. The negotiations have 2 states in this context, it's binary, if one is on and other is off.

This sentence from the RNS states the nature of the negotiations is no longer exclusive. Therefore the following statement also must be true (not from the RNS but the exact opposite of the statement from the RNS):

"The negotiations (with the major) will be of an inclusive/open/shared nature from 1st September 2018."

For anyone who is struggling with this please look up how inverse statements, negation and declarative sentences are used in the English language.

The bit of the RNS that really makes me think the negotiations with the major are still ongoing is: "...it will not further extend the exclusive nature of negotiations beyond 31 August 2018." This to me means that it's just the exclusive nature of negotiations won't be extended but the negotiations will continue. None of the derampers have even tried to explain why they think this means the major has walked away. As it logically doesn't...they just say I'm talking rubbish. This is because they've sold their shares and have confirmation bias that their decision was correct. They no longer want the company to do well or any other investor to do well out of it.

Kev - Not walking out of a deal (as in deal agreed) but walking out of negotiations towards a deal. I think the negotiations are still ongoing but they are just no longer exclusive negotiations. The only consequence being that the exclusivity has ended not the actual negotiations, hence the major hasn't walked away (they're still in negotiations just not exclusives ones IMHO): "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." Furthermore, I think the exclusivity was no longer required because the major has outlined a joint venture / consortium in principle and 3rd parties are being sought to join in on the deal. I also think we haven't had a clarification RNS because the RNS stated what it needed to state. It feels like the very final stages of deal making. I believe that more investors than the derampers would have us believe actually subscribe to the viewpoints I've highlighted. This can be evidenced by the share price not dropping to pe-exclusivity 1p levels so far. This means there's a good proportion of the market that can understand the true meaning and nuances in the RNS. Next week will be very telling. We may not see a RNS until post AGM. Someone made a point on ADVFN bb that the Bahamas press are quiet and perhaps they'd been asked to keep quiet - could this possibly be because of the sensitive nature of the talks? Could we even receive a clarification RNS tomorrow? I don't know. Maybe BPC aren't so concerned with the short trm share price because a deal is almost complete and it's just short term nouse anyway. This is AIM after all and the market often overreacrts and underrects.to news and events. All IMHO and my musings.

I see this has having the potential to give a 50% downside from these levels and a potential 15 bagger. IMHO obviously anyone do your own research.

Kev - there are two separate aspects...the exclusivity and the negotiations. The two aren't mutually exclusive because you can be in negotiations outside of, or without having to have, an exclusivity agreement. So some of us on this board believe walked to mean "away from the deal making table or negotiations". You wouldn't say walked away from an exclusivity agreement as that wouldn't read as good English.

Or am I?

For example; Total-led consortium signs $4.8bn South Pars gas deal with Iran https://www.ft.com/content/6d8ddb89-cdd8-3c4c-94a5-ca4de6f5160b Total was the operator of this consortium with over a 50% share. Edgar - I would love to hear your reasoning why you think major led consortium is unlikely?

Edgar, no I have never said that, someone is a lying deramper if they pass their opinion off as fact with no factual basis. It's deceitful. Such as saying "the fact that the major walked". It isn't a fact and if the major had walked it's market sensitive info hat would have had to be RNSed. I hope I'm right as I have a lot of money at stake here which I put in on Tuesday. This is the first time I invested here and trust me I did a lot of research before I did. I have never claimed that my opinions are fact. I have been accused of being deceitful by Neptunes and I would challenge anyone to copy and paste one of my posts that they think is deceitful. I have not twisted any facts and simply used my knowledge of the English language to interpret the nuances on the RNS. It seems that many here haven't bothered to read the RNS properly or aren't capable of reading and understanding the RNS, or have read and understood the RNS but chosen to twist the truth anything for their own agenda. Many major led consortium deals have been done so why do you think this major wouldn't do one in this case? This major could take the lead with a 60% stake for example. What'd your reasoning for saying a consortium would be unlikely? Because it seems.the most likely outcome to me.