Pasted in below is from the CEG website. If licences had been withdrawn, surely the Nomad would have insisted on an RNS? South West Peninsula (SWP) Exploration Summary Information Asset Bonasse, Icacos and Cedros Location Onshore, South-west Trinidad Ownership 100% Operator Challenger Energy Stage Exploration Asset Type Licence Recoverable Resource* 230 MMbbl P50 mean estimate* Fiscal Regime Royalty Tenure Bonasse expiry May 2039 Cedros expiry December 2039 Icacos pending formal Licence grant
RE: News flash: opposition party predicted to win Bahamas election17 Sep 2021 09:15
SC - this must be excellent news for CEG. What it means in practice remains to be seen but another 5 years of a Minnis Government would have a real-downer. Hopefully, the licence fee issue will be resolved and farm-in suitors will find an oil-friendly Government once again.
RE: How much is CEG really worth today?02 Aug 2021 15:01
As always, I am in broad agreement with posts by S/C. However, I remain concerned about the legacy of debt from P1 which has never been headlined to shareholders in detail. We know in general that the BoD are disputing or negotiating such debts. Does anybody know what is owed for the rig or companies providing the logistic support during P1 including Halliburton?
Starchild: As usual I accept the thrust of your substantive appraisal today. The only thing I would comment upon is that I think the Fred Smith threat was no more than that. The company was warned of an injunction but I think during the IceMax voyage, it never happened. BPC had to ASK to be joined in rather than sued. The threat alone had all the ill-effects to shareholders without BPC getting served with proceedings. Only the Govt was served as is my recollection.Smith achieved everything his clients needed in disruption but never could have prevented drilling. Smith is far froma fool. He would have known that no injunction would be granted without putting up huge sums for compensation PLUS something for legal costs which the enviros could not have come up with quickly even if at all.
Potter explains in the Proactive presentation now released why the board had no choice but to do the unpopular deal with L.O. 1. The rig was there. 2. Funders dropped out because of Fred Smith 3. It was around Xmas time. Pretty much a perfect storm and just what Fred Smith clients would have wanted -create economic havoc for BPC and destroy shareholder value.
How come that a plethora of naysayers suddenly emerge to trash BPC in what is an obvious attempt to swamp the good news under a deluge of negative hostility. Presumably, as ever, they have an agenda that is hostile to the company and to the interests of the long-term shareholders.
Agreed with everything you say. Makes such obvious good sense. So who will be ringing Simon Potter if there is a big find? Chinese? Exxon? Woodside? Shell? BHP - the latter saying they are in the market for explorers?
You should be grateful to the lawyers for BPC and the Govt. So far theyhave seen off Fred Smith. He asked for the war, not the lawyers. BPC is not a party |(yet) and cannot receive costs from Smith (yet)