Member Info for Serif

That’s interesting history - presumably a long time ago cos I can’t remember it in the years I’ve been here. I can’t see them winning an EGM under these circumstances - so it looks like a non-starter to me. If they get the farm out it will be interesting if they can win the AGM special resolutions as most of us like the fact that they can’t rush off into a fund raise! But never say never on AIM. Still the best day on here in terms of potential progress for a couple of years - as the months slipped by I thought it was never going to get to this stage - at least there is something in the pack that might now bring us some return.

Aimshame - as someone who follows the company closely I presume that you voted with the rest of us to prevent them doing a “pre-emptive” or “non preemptive” raise last year - so how can they do a raise before the next AGM vote?

If they could do a fund raise they would have already when they needed cash earlier in the process - but they are restricted by the AGM vote. Not sure why this keeps being ignored, as it’s one of the few victories for shareholders in the past year until today’s news.

Itsawrap - likely scenario is that they deliver a farmout - get positive votes on the back of that at next AGM end of year and then do a raise to pay for Wressle which if it gets the go ahead will presumably happen next spring. Just my best guess.

We could wait for the SP to soar before spreading this fear! Didn’t they lose the vote on being able to do a placing at will?

Agreed. A long way to go and there will still be those betting against the company - so will take time for it all to unwind. Key thing is to press ahead with the deal and keep us informed. Still very relieved that we voted down their ability to do a “discretionary rise” - perhaps for once we will see the benefit of any deal in the eventual share price.

I don’t see it as a cracking deal - it’s going to take them 19 months to break even - even if there was no decline on Wressle - which there will be, so probably at least 2 years before they start to get any return (and carrying a risk of a greater Wressle rate drop) I’d be looking for at least 10% p.a. on this kind of a loan (probably higher with the risk) which would then probably take another year to cover with ordinary decline rates. I think there must be something else going on to interest them in this deal. Mind you don't see what’s in it for shareholders whatever the economics - cos they haven’t told us otherwise I’m presuming it’s mortgaging our assets to pay high salaries.

Thanks for both AGM updates. Good questions Lovelife - especially pleased to hear that the Petros relationship has remained good, whatever their precise role in the process it’s helpful to have everyone onside.

Looking at our partner’s woes - anyone want to guess what our SP would be by now, if we hadn’t denied our great leaders the freedom to raise at will?

Voting against Cloughton isn’t the only thing Scarborough Town Council is in the news for this weekend

“Farage was also challenged over spending decisions in Scarborough, where the town council has approved a 600% increase in the Reform mayor's allowance, from £500 to £3,500 a year.

The mayor has defended the move, saying the allowance helps to cover his expenses and allows him to carry out his duties efficiently”.

Sounds like he could fit right in as an Eog non- exec - have we missed a trick?

If Ujo or perhaps more likely Heyco took 10% of Eog Wressle licence for c£2m, eog could then finance costs of their 20% of development with the cash and hopefully still get a decent revenue from Wressle 2 oil and gas - which if there is no EG farmout before AGM might allow a new CEO to do something more positive next year.

Itsawrap - none of those bodies are responsible for the permits etc, and their response was predictable - including reform acting like all the other political parties. But what the environment agency said does matter and will guarantee refusal - unless Egdon/eog have a cunning plan.

Not disputing your numbers Itsawrap- just real breakeven for an investment needs to take into account loss through inflation and foregone interest etc. personally might be confident lending money against Saudi production rates but predicting Wressle decline rates in 2.5 years would be too high risk for me!

Agreed CCF - every penny spent on Cloughton is just stealing more of current and future revenues from Wressle.

Itsawrap - Not sure if your figures included continued decline, but not sure I’d been jumping for joy if I was the Canadian company on that. I’d been waiting a long time for a proper return once you allow for inflation and loss of potential interest on the money lent. Looks like a lose/lose deal - if Eog have just squandered it in running costs.

Personally no interest in Cloughton always been irrelevant - but don’t think that a populist town council objecting is exactly a shock or particularly influential in terms of planning law - and the rest is all just the usually anti”it’s fracking”distortions. More important is what the environment agency had to say and whether Eog/Egdon are planning to do anything about that - not that they bother to tell shareholders anything anymore - we are clearly off their Xmas list.

As I see it there are only two explanations for current behaviour. Either there is a farmout to be finalised in July which is why the £500k was needed to tide us over and keep things moving - or we have both the worst CEO in the company’s history combined with the worst Chariman - who has bizarrely allowed the CEO to asset strip to fund his inflated salary although it damages his own shareholding. I truly hope they are not that bad.

Have you got a suggestion CCF?

Its just the same article being recycled from last year! Its based on the same information from July 2024 and provides no update beyond that - even though some of the activities its says are to take place should have been completed by now on its own timeline. All the hallmarks of a space filler.

Actually if you look closely the article is from May, the week after the signing of the resolution. As far as I can find they produce no evidence for their assertion of a continuing feud and no one will confirm it on the record. The whole article seems to be built on the pretty vague complaints of an "one O&G veteran" and then the journalist quotes a lot of data how oil production has been dropping in previous quarters - which says nothing about the resolution of the feud. Think I would wait for a bit more concrete evidence once the agreement gets rolled out in practice to see if there is a continuing feud likely to affect progress on mainland Sarawak.