Member Info for Spiritefan

Excellent riposte

Linton, I agree. However, shareholders needed to be made aware imo. My only concern is that in politics nothing is certain. However the AG will be making it clear that any delay will be very costly for the Gov.

The Company will obviously not agree to delay so Court case should follow. Any delay will be costly but such costs will be borne by Govt, who have provided cast iron assurances in the past. However, this is highly political so can be no guarantees as to whether a delay will occur.

http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/nov/18/last-ditch-threat-oil-exploration/?fbclid=IwAR1JtahxnFQ310rT2YhcwRUeAtQOBVqwDieQRR0kMBFQMpmVKpZrSFYUkv8
Hope this works

Of more concern than Greenpeace is the newly announced threat of legal action to suspend drilling, unless BPC voluntarily agrees to a delay while the legalities of the EIA are reviewed. Such a delay would be hugely expensive to agree to so it must be assumed court action will follow.

S740 - quite correct. I have recently posted with regards to the staffing and resources dedicated to BPC within IOMA House and while it is good of Tara to confirm the arrangements, the posting of her mobile number was not, I would suggest, in anticipation that it would be published on a forum such as this. I hope shareholders will act in a suitably respectful manner.

Only new in so much as Schrader elected to forego his cash entitlement and take it all in shares. Indication of confidence in P1.

So he’s accepted the shares in lieu of salary.

Schrader has just spent over £283,000.

I used to work in IOMA House where the registered office is located and where the AGM is held each year. I can assure you it is more than a brass plate, BPC has segregated offices and 2 dedicated members of staff.

Jim, My understanding is that the Facility has a floating price conversion and the Bizzell is fixed at 2.5p. So if that’s right, the higher the sp rises, the less incentive to use Bizzell in preference to the Family Office. Would you concur?

A bit late, but basically confirming what has been suggested by Jim and others. Bizzell money not required but being retained in case of contingencies or (My words) possibly to fund further activities? Nice to have the back up and good to know Core funding In place.

Jim - this tallies with my recent post and I’m glad to have it confirmed by someone I regard as being extremely knowledgeable. I agree that an RNS to confirm would be nice, but it could be argued it was t necessary. As it is Bizzell walk away with 25m shares. Not a bad day’s work but instrumental in providing the cornerstone for additional funds to be raised. Many thanks SF.

Morning Jim - your memory was correct. It does state “unconditional funding “.

Hi Jim, I agree that we will probably require additional funding, my explanation only related to the defined $25m. All I’m really saying is that having discarded Bizzell there must be a cheaper option pending, possibly a loan against potential 2P reserves or other assets acquired from CERP. I appreciate we disagree on the merger but I think cheaper borrowings were one reason for it taking place. In any event, there should be a cost saving other they would have taken the agreed CLN. I’m probably completely wrong!

I can’t see how any other explanation fits. The terms were clear and nobody believes there’s been a drawdown so in absence of RNS advising of an extension it must have been decided to let it lapse. A good thing imo as it was v expensive.

Robbla- if you go back to the RNS 4665 issued in March it gave a summary of funding available. If you ignore the Bahamian office money (except the $2.2m drawn down) and Bizzell CLN we had: OO $4.3m, Inst Placing $7.1, and Bahamian Fund $0.9, so a total of $14.5m. Add to that the $12m raised at last placing = $26.5m, more than required to meeting the fully funded definition of $25m. So Bizzell not required and has, by definition lapsed, as to utilise it required a partial drawdown by yesterday. I suspect next finance raise will be bank debt against 2P reserves as suggested by Starchild recently. This will avoid further dilution and be far cheaper that previous strategies. All imo and wtfdik etc

Uncas is well and in regular contact with the members of the FB group which I believe now number in excess of 1000.

Starchild- I’m surprised there haven’t been more comments on your theory. To me it sounds eminently feasible. Reading again RNS 7000 21/8/19, the terms of the CLN are expensive, but must be taken in the context of the situation at that time, ie exclusivity period terminated, no other farm in partner in sight, no real collateral. Bizzell only signed up due to long time relationships with Potter & Uliel. BPC can opt out at “minimal cost” and it was acknowledged that the CLN would provide a benchmark against which future funding options could be measured. CERP assets have assisted the ongoing development of a funding strategy which continues to reduce financing costs, aided ironically by the COVID delay.

Mike: there were 150m share options agreed at the 2019 AGM. If you read RNS 8295 31/10/19, it gives the details. The strike prices are set at different levels commensurate with progress with #P1, 2.2p, 2.4p and 2.8p. There was a move to further increase the options at the 2020 AGM but this was rejected by shareholders. It’s the only motion I’ve known to be voted down in the history of the company to my knowledge.