Member Info for ShouldveSold

What's happening here?
I thought we had buried the hatchet and agreed to refrain from any more head to head? Or was that offer rejected?

For the record I have only ever labeled one posters as a trolley; 22Betamax.

With current production circa 450bpd & projected production of nearly 10x that at 4000bpd based on successful execution of 30 Wells. What reason is there to suggest the SP would not be 5x higher than where it currently is?
Unless of course one is suggesting all that revenue would then be reinvested & deployed in Capex in drilling more off-shore wells leading to the company posting a full year net loss.

Well I am not here to troll or pick fights with ones that are here to do just that.
I do acknowledge them for what they are though.
Once you address their logic you find there is no substance to their posts, only empty aspersions & derisory remarks with no reasoning or explanation.

The 2018 statement I am reading is inconclusive as to actual or approximated total renumeration of the entire board and senior management team.
What I can read is:
•£7.57m generated income
•£1.4m profit
•BOD renumeration £272k(+ £390,235 in shares/options) totalling £622,235
•Senior Management team no information
This could be +/- £ 350,000. Let's round it up to £1m.

Income of £7.57m compared to a renumeration of £1m equates to approximately 14%? Forgive my maths, is that in the ball park?

PI this did not come across preachy lol your heart is in the right place
:)

May I ask you to provide the link to the 2018 statement as I am having trouble googling it.

I certainly would never suggest anyone work for free. Maybe Jeff Bezoz, Elon & Buffet should though. I mean how much money does one need?

I appreciate the research and response.
I will not ask you to look to see if the CERP board & senior management team also equated to 50%. I shall do this myself.

From memory; didn't L.K agree to take £40,000 salary with options & shares.(I don't recall what his renumeration package totalled)
Thus my surprise.

Forgive my ignorance; is 50% pretty normal?

Just to get in front of this. I have not expressed an opinion on how I feel about any renumeration or if I think do or do not think the salaries are justified by any performance or lack of. The numbers are the numbers. I am just surprised at them.

Your reply to this now leads me to have to ask; what do you think I have said which is not true, false &/or incorrect? (not including sentiment or differing opinions)

Rather than post my findings I have revised it to a synopsis.
The financial statement shows 33% of income generated by operations goes to the CEO's salary. A further approximate 17% goes to the rest of the directors & senior management team, taking it to 50% of generated income is paid out on salaries.
I was hoping someone would do the Math & work this out instead of me or will now work this out and correct my maths to show that I am incorrect & its far less than 50%.

I was hoping you or someone was aware or would now be compelled to look so it wouldn't come from me as the pervasive sentiment on this board is that I am solely here to spin negativity. Regardless of whether it is fact or opinion.

Am I picking up some projecting here? To use your words:
•Do you think they are overpaid?
•Do you think they should be "sacked" because of the P#1 results?
•what are these decisions you consider mistakes?
•Do you think human error is directly responsible for the downhole issue?

Interesting to read your preconception of any inference on my part, without reading the financial statement.

Has anyone looked at the year end financial statement from 2019 (2020 due in June) & compared company cash generation to BOD & Senior management renumeration total?
:S

My dates might be a little off but hasn't Ruvuma been up for sale since 2016?

I'm sure we have all watched and continued to re-watch the interview.
What I am getting from it is two conflicting scenarios in which the CEO says something positive then undermines it immediately with something negative.
To me that suggests he is trying to show positivity to us but also being realistic.

For instance:
•the well was a success, but the outcome is not what we wanted.
•mentions successful layers then states it was deeper than anticipated.
•mentions a good reseviour seal & trap where oil IS being generated. Then says all we need to do is establish that the oil hasn't migrated.

So what I got from the Bahamas section is that he is now convinced there is an oil reservoir in the Jurassic & that is what BPC is trying to get a Farm In to drill this zone next. But the only way we will get to know if the same geological evapouration scenario is present is by drilling another exploration well to confirm.

To be honest, I want to be excited by that news but rather than letting the fantasy discovery run away with me, I am using the only evidence I have which is the results of the existing exploration Wells.
I shall wait for a Farm In RNS & the statement from whoever that company is.

Without contradicting myself from my last post; not talking/discussing/debating things doesn't help resolve situations or help reach conclusions.
It would be a different story if the Bahamas licence was not renewed. Then I would agree that the past is the past. But 4 licences will be applied to be renewed for another 12 years. I think the conversation needs to continue with each stage of progression. We all need to understand what could happen going forward don't you think?

Tiburn may I make this suggestion.
You & I agree to accept we disagree on the Bahamas licence & to no longer continue to debate it head to head. But retain the option to debate with other posters about it, without referencing each other.
So we can respond directly to a topic if we choose to but without replying or disputing one another points through our replies to someone else?
This will probably be difficult as we are both opinionated but shall we try it?

Ok help me out here :S
Where does the CPR support the Bahamas analysis?

Oooo never mind. I just found the ERCE one from Dec 2020.