Member Info for Starchild

I just topped up 1,839,573 shares. (probably be shown as a delayed trade in 55 mins) Despite risk of some share dumping (but unlikely at under 2.3p), the positives:

1. IceMax arriving

2. IceMax loading and sailing

3. Court case fails to even get heard, out of court settlement, or case fails

4. Its an II, which means they may hold a chunk of their shares long-term and MAY await the result of Percy-1 and ex-CERP developments.

5. We now have funds in place for contingency/e-CERP dev

All above will help SP

DYOR. GLA
Starchild
ps...no one is compelled to take part in the Stena IceMax XMAS raffle. Yes, they earn good rates, however it is in the unique unprecedented situation of being in the middle of a covid Pandemic and Xmas. It's up to you. However I would appreciate less snide comments. Be nice!

Zag? nonsensical? why? Of course it should be higher north than it is now. It is for reasons we all know (court case and today's RNS!!!!). The possible c2.3p I opined on is based on the RNS where the II will get shares at 2p..... however this will be TEMPORARY

Don't shoot the messenger.

Read RNS again. In theory SP should't go below 2.3p to take into account the 15% profit written into the investor. However I could be wrong, especially if it is read to imply they will sell at 2p. There is no incentive to do so otherwise they make no profit.

Also there is a note about Trafalgar. It is good they didn't and can't come back for more.

Starchild

RNS good news: we have funding for almost everything including ex-cerp

RNS Bad news: the rate is 2p, instead of 2.5p (Bizzell), so some share dilution.

As I see it, the BoD didn't want to risk the conditions surrounding the Bizzell loan and acted quickly in case Bizzell pulled out.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE RECENT CASE MAY HAVE HARMED BPC SOME SHAREHOLDERS . I HOPE BPC SUES.

it doesn't really affect me, as I'm all-in for the spud

Starchild

I think it's going to be a great week for nearly everyone as the IceMax arrives, loads up and heads to the spud location:
BPC, BPC shareholders, and, the Bahamian people.

I am also of the opinion a face saving and less costly deal will be done (out of court) between Mr Smith QC's clients and the gov. They will drop their case in return for the gov agreeing to an overall EIA/safety review including public consultation in the event BPC finds commercial quantities of oil. Win, win, win.

If they refuse such a generous offer it will show their true goal is to harm BPC and its shareholders. In such a scenario, I believe the case will either (a) be declined to be heard by the court (think SCOTUS/Trump), or if heard, the worst case scenario is the court will allow spud and order EIA/consultation/judicial review over the next few years in the event commercial quantities of oil are discovered. Anything else makes no logical or legal sense to me. Under UK laws, if a party in dispute makes a 'without prejudice' offer to the other party, this communication is privileged. However if 'without prejudice, SUBJECT TO COSTS', is stated, it may be shown to the court after the case is heard. This can be used to prove a party acted in good faith and the other did not. The court then acts as it deems fit under the circumstances. However I don't know if this applies under Judicial review proceedings, or if at all under Bahamian jurisprudence.

IMHO. DYOR. GLA

Starchild
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/starchild/

Good morning all, as a reminder, this is from my last weekend’s post, with updates in [ ]. ………………..

I am pleased to have received a response from Stena Drilling senior management on our proposed IceMax Christmas whip round. The response (personal details removed) is shown below…..

………..‘Normally the crew puts on a Christmas raffle with a variety of prizes. Additionally I like to provide the crew with small awards, based on individual safety contributions. Items such as mugs, Polo Shirts, and even wireless Bose speakers are very welcome awards. We always have special meals on Christmas and New Year. Of course if there is anything you would like to do for the crew we are open to many possibilities. It could be managed by our Human Resources department, Rig Manager and / or the Captain offshore. We are looking forward to drilling this highly interesting well. If you need anything, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me.’…………

Come on folks, let’s show some festive spirit to the +/- 125 IceMax crew who are drilling OUR WELL during unprecedented Covid-19 related times. Injunction or not they will still be away from their families. A quick show of hands please over the next few days. No need to disclose the gift you plan to order online in the next week or so. A simple ‘yes’ to this post will suffice.

[On Wednesday 16/12 all logistics details such as where to deliver will be provided here] and who you should email at Stena Drilling [describing your gift, perhaps forwarding the order confirmation]. Our gifts will be picked up by the winners when they return to Aberdeen or delivered to their homes by the company. Tax efficient and great Karma.

Have a great Sunday.

Starchild
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/starchild/

Bynari: wow great find . Is it definitely him? Slightly undignified. I can't imagine a British QC doing this, however we don't know what got him so riled.

Wotitsworth: The 4.75m trade was 'late reported'. This is usually posted publicly 1 hour or 24 hours after the transaction is executed. As it actually happened at 15:02, the actual last trade of the day, after the markets closed was at 17:08:47 2.61p Sell for 155,545 shares.

On some platforms, the last trade of the day is the result of the last auction (used by traders and IIs with direct market access) which ends at 1635. This is shown as 'UT.' By coincidence this too was at 2.61p for 150k shares.

Starchild

Titanatlas: You have every legal right to post on this public BB with freedom of speech.

Please clarify one point as you re a local. Can an ordinary Bahamian citizen/resident buy shares worldwide or are there restrictions? According to http://www.tribune242.com/news/2018/sep/27/business-bites-bahamians-become-foreign-investors-/?opinion it appears a 5% tax is levied when using Bahamian dollars. It also appears, minimum deposits out of the reach of ordinary Bahamians have to be lodged. Furthermore, gambling is apparently forbidden for locals. (Source: http://www.tribune242.com/news/2017/jan/06/gambling-and-bahamas-constitution/ )

My observations:

1. Governments have the right to pass laws. If citizens don’t like them, they are voted out. If the UK or USA had citizen restrictions in place for gambling or foreign shareholding, their governments would be accused of being a nanny state.

2. I would question the decision of anyone who gambles all their life savings in a casino or a speculative AIM share. Regardless whether $500 or $1m.

3. The gov made a decision many years ago it would not gamble tax payers money searching for oil. Instead BPC were awarded a binding contract to come up with ALL the money/chips and if it won the ‘bet’, the gov and people of the Bahamas would share a huge win. This could be via a sovereign wealth fund or to pay off the national debt forecast to be c100% of GDP currently being serviced with punitive interest rates of 9% (source https://ewnews.com/dpm-defends-us600-million-bond-issue )

What is unacceptable is minority special interest groups, attempting to destroy BPC and hurt its shareholders. I allege their case has been timed at the 11th hour with malicious intent. Had BPC been Exxon, this minority would have likely lobbied AFTER the exploration well had been drilled and commercial oil deposits found. Although I agree some of these lobbyists (the majority from abroad) are concerned about environmental matters, I firmly believe a large percentage of local supporters are using it as an excuse for political complaint, including royalty sharing, general Gov grievances and/or projecting their economic frustrations using BPC as the whipping boy.

Some anti-drilling lobbyists have even posted on this BB. I find it strange and see no logical reason they should do so. Either they are (a) traders shorting the stock for personal gain, or (b) are trying to spook BPC shareholders to sell-up (lower the SP to affect BPC funding), or (c) to convert them into fellow environmental lobbyists to stop the spud. The latter I believe is a waste of time and akin to Muslim clerics standing outside Jehovah Witness churches with megaphones attempting to convert congregants, or visa versa. Such an act would be seen as antagonistic and doomed to fail. I therefore conclude (a) and (b) applies.

Have a great Saturday all.

Starchild
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/starchild/

[Updated from this morning. See end of this post]

Read http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/dec/10/qc-urges-oil-explorer-meet-us-battlefield/

To me this is a face saving exercise by Mr Fred Smith QC, to ready his supporters for failure. He knows his client(s) unlikely can afford +/- $30m security costs/bond, and he is pre-empting BPC and the Gov will seek this. So he's trying to paint a picture of big gov and big oil (!) hitting his clients' case for 6 by procedural tactics. Hey, I call the timing of this case procedural tactics, to attempt to hurt BPC and its shareholders by waiting until the 11th hour. So quid pro quo.

I believe the court MAY possibly agree to a judicial review of the overall EIA process for future drilling, but it will NOT agree to injunct the exploration well which is less than 2 weeks away.

[........or a deal with Smith QC and the Gov is done for a judicial review in FUTURE on EIA best practice assuming oil is found. He drops the case. Everyone wins and his client(s) save millions in costs/bonds. Then they can spin it as a win, and we get our spud without further harassment...... ]

IMHO. DYOR

Starchild
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/starchild/

Read http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/dec/10/qc-urges-oil-explorer-meet-us-battlefield/

To me this is a face saving exercise by Mr Fred Smith QC, to ready his supporters for failure. He knows his client(s) unlikely can afford +/- $30m security costs/bond, and he is pre-empting BPC and the Gov will seek this. So he's trying to paint a picture of big gov and big oil (!) hitting his clients' case for 6 by procedural tactics. Hey, I call the timing of this case procedural tactics, to attempt to hurt BPC and its shareholders by waiting until the 11th hour. So quid pro quo.

I believe the court MAY possibly agree to a judicial review of the overall EIA process for future drilling, but it will NOT agree to injunct the exploration well which is less than 2 weeks away.

IMHO. DYOR

Starchild
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/starchild/

A rare repost from this morning in case it was missed........

http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/dec/09/oil-explorer-fearing-500m-harm/

The article is very interesting. It mentions BPC fears it could suffer "up to $500m in economic harm" if environmental activists succeed with [the 8/12] legal bid to halt its oil drilling plans.

Key points as I read them, some between the lines:

1. $500m? I read this to mean the down payment including back costs of a FARM-OUT with a major in March/April 2021!!!! I believe indicative sums and possibly MOUs have already been discussed subject to the size of any discovery.

2. It is excellent we have Clare Montgomery QC on the team. She has a wealth of experience (source https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/member/clare-montgomery/ )

3. The activists do not want BPC to be party to the proceedings or the right to be heard. This is probably for liability purposes as BPC will almost certainly seek a minimum $30m damages bond plus costs deposit.

4. Apart from the merits of the case being highly questionable, the activists have two massive hurdles to overcome before even getting to the starting line: justifying to the court why they waited until the 11th hour to bring an action and that it is outside the 6-month rule. Covid-19 is a lame excuse and so is the allegation that BPC ‘harry, oppress, harass and attempt to frustrate the applicants with demands that they are not entitled to make’. I allege this assertion is ridiculous. It is the activists doing the harassing with an allegedly malicious attempt to hurt ‘tiny’ BPC and its shareholders. We are not Exxon.

5. There is a third hurdle activists need to prove, that their case is in the public interest. I suggest it is not, for the simple reason the Bahamian nation has the right to know if they are sitting on oil wealth, and the only way to know is to proceed with a carefully planned and already approved TEMPORARY exploratory well.

6. It will be interesting to see if the attorney general Mr Bethel QC, seeks a multi-million dollar damages bond. If he does, it is a confirmation the Gov may be liable to pay BPC’s costs if spud is delayed. Why? Because it gave environmental and other approvals, which BPC acted upon to fulfil its contractual obligations. It wasn’t for BPC to ask, ‘are you sure?’. In fact if the Gov does not pay BPC in the unlikely event the spud is delayed, it will lose all credibility for future infrastructure investments involving external parties. Eg, ‘please provide a tender to build our new airport despite a chance we may never pay you and by the way, we will have the right to change the goal posts on a whim if our courts tell us to.’

All the above opinions carry the usual caveats as I am no legal expert.

IMHO. DYOR

Have a great night. I'm going back to bed. Night night.

Starchild
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/starchild/

http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/dec/09/oil-explorer-fearing-500m-harm/

The article is very interesting. It mentions BPC fears it could suffer "up to $500m in economic harm" if environmental activists succeed with [the 8/12] legal bid to halt its oil drilling plans.

Key points as I read them, some between the lines:

1. $500m? I read this to mean the down payment including back costs of a FARM-OUT with a major in March/April 2021!!!! I believe indicative sums and possibly MOUs have already been discussed subject to the size of any discovery.

2. It is excellent we have Clare Montgomery QC on the team. She has a wealth of experience (source https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/member/clare-montgomery/ )

3. The activists do not want BPC to be party to the proceedings or the right to be heard. This is probably for liability purposes as BPC will almost certainly seek a minimum $30m damages bond plus costs deposit.

4. Apart from the merits of the case being highly questionable, the activists have two massive hurdles to overcome before even getting to the starting line: justifying to the court why they waited until the 11th hour to bring an action and that it is outside the 6-month rule. Covid-19 is a lame excuse and so is the allegation that BPC ‘harry, oppress, harass and attempt to frustrate the applicants with demands that they are not entitled to make’. I allege this assertion is ridiculous. It is the activists doing the harassing with an allegedly malicious attempt to hurt ‘tiny’ BPC and its shareholders. We are not Exxon.

5. There is a third hurdle activists need to prove, that their case is in the public interest. I suggest it is not, for the simple reason the Bahamian nation has the right to know if they are sitting on oil wealth, and the only way to know is to proceed with a carefully planned and already approved TEMPORARY exploratory well.

6. It will be interesting to see if the attorney general Mr Bethel QC, seeks a multi-million dollar damages bond. If he does, it is a confirmation the Gov may be liable to pay BPC’s costs if spud is delayed. Why? Because it gave environmental and other approvals, which BPC acted upon to fulfil its contractual obligations. It wasn’t for BPC to ask, ‘are you sure?’. In fact if the Gov does not pay BPC in the unlikely event the spud is delayed, it will lose all credibility for future infrastructure investments involving external parties. Eg, ‘please provide a tender to build our new airport despite a chance we may never pay you and by the way, we will have the right to change the goal posts on a whim if our courts tell us to.’

All the above opinions carry the usual caveats as I am no legal expert.

IMHO. DYOR

Have a great night. I'm going back to bed. Night night.

Starchild
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/starchild/

Sharescare: Your video of the TV news item was very helpful. I used a snipping tool to copy, save as Jpeg and magnify the court document. Observations:

1. it is stamped by the supreme court and has a court reference number.

2. it is dated yesterday 8/12. i assume the Gov will get ample time to review the complaint and prepare a defense. If 14 days, this means the likely last day court is open on 22/12

3. BPC are not listed, it is HM the Queen, Minister of the Environment and a senior environment civil servant.

As a separate matter the MP who was extremely angry at the original deal did state something I allege is fake news, 'Bahamians cannot buy shares in BCP'. This is not true, for example the Bahamian fund exists. Although regulatory approval similar to the USA may stop BPC or other EU companies sending prospectus etc to Bahamas residents, as far as I am aware it doesn't stop them buying shares anywhere in the world. And if there is a law stopping them, it isn't BPC's fault.

Starchild

PH81: It appears to be an attempt to get a judicial review. This is not an issue and any request to look back on a government's decisions or administrative procedures to reach those decisions may or may not be accepted by the court.

The issue for BPC and Gov, as a side point, is the plaintiffs want to injunct the Percy-1 spud until AFTER this review is granted and completed. This I believe is meritless, too late, and allegedly malicious. If we were Exxon, they probably wouldn't be asking for injunctive relief, and instead concentrating on the overall merits of exploiting an oil discovery, via judicial review (of some aspects) and political lobbying.

Starchild

As pointed out a few hours ago on this BB it is purported an injunction application has been filed. The sole source is the Eyewitness News Facebook page and was posted there at 9:37PM UK time (4:37PM local).
Source: https://www.facebook.com/eyewitnessnewsbah/photos/a.1812051465770643/2487751704867279/?type=3&theater

Commentary

1. The source appears legitimate at it is on the news channel’s official Facebook page.

2. As of this time, I cannot find this news story on the main Eyewitness website https://ewnews.com/ or anywhere else.

3. It is not yet listed on https://www.bahamasjudiciary.com/courts/hearing-list/ , however it will only appear here if (a) the court agrees to hear the case and (b) the court website is physically updated.

4. On my post yesterday at 13:13, I opined … ‘Assuming an injunction is attempted and 14 days’ notice must be given to the Gov (and possibly BPC), deadline appears to be eod TODAY because.......last sitting of the court appears to be 22/12 and then closed until next year. In fact first hearing new year is 14/1/21.’

5. Waterkeeper Bahamas Limited, one of the parties bringing the purported injunction appear to be a ‘fun group of folks’. In 2017 they ran a campaign to stop Disney undertaking a proposed project in the Bahamas. Source https://ewnews.com/stopdisney-campaign-parks-mobile-billboard-outside-disney-event . They are clearly against a sovereign wealth fund based on oil exploitation to benefit Bahamas’ future children. However I have found no evidence yet they have attempted to stop Father Christmas landing in the Bahamas in case his reindeers soil the beaches or waterways.

6. This ‘fun group of folks’, do NOT speak for the vast majority. I believe the injunction is meritless and a publicity stunt. However I am no expert on Bahamian law or jurisprudence.

7. It is quite probable the majority share Ortland H. Bodie Jr’s opinions as stated on http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/dec/08/its-right-hunt-oil/

8. I allege the timing of the last minute injunction is malicious and designed to hurt BPC and its shareholders for reasons previously stated. I hope the court shares this opinion and uses the powers at its disposal to deal with the matter accordingly.

9. Finally, it appears this BB has been infiltrated by a few environmental activists. If this can be proven it gives more credence to my allegation some of the supporters of the campaign to stop a temporary exploration well are trying to hurt BPC and its shareholders at a time BPC may need to raise a few million in finance to develop ex-CERP assets and to have contingency monies in case Percy-1 costs exceed budget.

IMHO. DYOR

Have a great day

Starchild
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/starchild/

Confucius he says,...... 'enforce a limit of just 5 posts a day on share-discussion forums, and the world would be happier and less confused. By charging £1 per post when this limit is exceeded, a lot of dross would waft its way into the everything that is nothing because it could have been when it wasn't'......

Starchild

Refer to court list https://www.bahamasjudiciary.com/courts/hearing-list/

Assuming an injunction is attempted and 14 days notice must be given to the Gov (and possibly BPC), deadline appears to be eod today because.....

1. It appears that other than emergencies which in theory are 24x7, last sitting of the court is 22/12.

2. Court then closed until next year. In fact first hearing new year is 14/1/21

This assumes it is the Supreme court, and notice hasn't already been served to the Gov.

Starchild

correction on my point 1 in previous post.....should have stated 25% not 50%

IceMax: Thanks for article. without commenting on internal politics, or the use of the word 'treason' to describe the royalty apportioning, the following appear to be the case:

1. BPC has a contract in place if oil is found. The royalties to be paid far exceed the 2016 petroleum act @ 12.5%. the amount could hit 50%.

2. The complaining MP, wants the exploration well to go ahead.

3. It's not our problem and an internal matter for Bahamas politicians to argue whether the deal was good or could have been better.

4. For points 1 and 3 to apply, BPC needs to an exploration drill as contractually agreed.

Starchild