RE: Looking forward ..21 Dec 2023 09:37
Tiburn - exactly, there’s something else I can’t get my head around either
The JV termination - let’s look at the possibilities of how that might have come around - if it was instigated by the JV party then why? One potential scenario is they couldn’t work with COPL management but hardly a dealbreaker for a major who would be buying the asset down the line anyway. The worst case scenario pedalled on here is that the JV partner ‘discovered’ that they couldn’t extract the oil. An oil major wouldn’t need a year to come to this conclusion if true.
So then you think about COPL and why they would terminate? If they were distressed and the GGS not working then any offer from the major to pay off the SL would have been accepted, the JV continue, COPl survives, and the asset is sold in its entirety to the major after delineation for a higher value, far preferable for all stakeholders than administration.
One potential scenario of course is this: COPL and the JV realise that Cole Creek is a bigger asset than first realised ‘a game changer for the company’ as Art put it due to oil in place but also carbon capture, the JV partner offer doesn’t match COPL’s new value. The GGS works better than anticipated and suddenly COPL could be in a position to go it alone with a single tap fund investor and RBL (always Arts preferred model as per his references to Occidental). COPL terminate the JV but the SL sees their pay back timeframe extending from before the year end in one lump sum to potentially a lot longer and the RNS is dropped.
None of us ultimately have any ideas but seeing as people are throwing out administration, delisting, and enterprise scale cons as fact then it’s only reasonable to put forward an alternative take on events.