Member Info for Tonsan

Lost your drift. Sorry! What's your point? Today was terrific.

If a commercial find, BPC has rights for 30 years.

Licence fees were not paid for a long while because BPC refused to pay them while the delays were racking up in the legal / legislative process - and quite rightly. If the Govt had passed the Regs and laws quicker we would have drilled maybe 3 years ago!

No injunction has been filed that I have heard of. If the report is correct, the activists are asking for PERMISSION to go for a Judicial Review. The judge may fling that out if he considers it has no merit. A JR is not an injunction and does not of itself impact BPC. The activists must in my view proceed directly against BPC to stop the drilling.
BPC has the licence to drill all approved. BPC can rely on that unless and until stopped.

Very sad story. The Minister is instincively pro-environment but has followed Govt policy(perhaps gritting his teeth) but that tragedy is a shocking burden to bear. Every sympathy.

It would make sense for Stena to farm in next March /April given that it would have been daft commercially to exercise options now with the litigation threat. Hopefully, Stena would have to pay much much more next year.

Starchild - agree with most of your appraisal. I thought it significant that the Govt has extended the Emergency Powers Act till late December. It could perhaps be used to cover any flaws in the Govt's handling of the licencing process. That said, I doubt they got anything significant wrong anyway.

This was posted on BPC Facebook.
https://youtu.be/JBY6cpWzbFg
For those like me who are unclear of how drilling works, the link is to a 45 min study of the equivalent of IceMax on a drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Mind-blowing how difficult and precise this operation must be. A top crew is vital.
Skip ads if you wish!

Icemax - yes there are many more shares in issue but we hold 100% of every barrel less the Govt share. Isn't that much, much better than having the wrong end of a farm-in getting only say 30% for many years?

Posted by Uncas, the moderator on FB page. He's unlikely to post unless he is sure of his facts - as below.
FOCUSING ON THE DRILL
ICEMAX:
Will leave to Commence the Drill tomorrow
The Crew boarded last Sunday and will be 6 weeks on 6 weeks off changing on or about 27 Dec.
Extra bunker fuel was taken aboard so it can go straight to location and take on the Well Kit brought from US storage by supply boat
SPUD:
As we've been informed by RNS update this is timed to occur around 3-5 days after arrival at Well location once supplied and all is ready to Spud so we looking at around 13 Dec - 15 Dec depending on travel speed.
DRILLING COMMENCES:
This is deemed to be when the Rig leaves the Port of Origination (Las Palmas) by 1 Nautical Mile.
At this point 50m shares become exercisable by Company Directors and Staff at 2.8p. They may or may not exercise them in the short term being as the legal challenge has reduced the sp to about the exercisable price. If it was me I'd wait at current sp as these shares can be exercised without closed period restrictions.
TIGHT HOLE:
yeah I know so we won't get any drilling updates until after all drilling and testing is completed, end of Feb gonna be a long time a'coming
VALUATION OF A COMMERCIAL DISCOVERY
The Investec Analysis is a very comprehensive document and values the minimum to maximum share price for a commercial discovery mmboe as follows:
200mmboe at 8p (Lowest Case)
500mmboe at 26p
770mmboe at 39p (Mid Case)
1000mmboe at 61p
1440mmboe at 89p (Upper Case)

I don't see the Govt liable to BPC (or its shareholders) unless they have somehow misled all of us. To me, that is most unlikely. BPc and the Govt have worked well together to deliver the Govt's legal obligations to enable BPC to drill under its licence. The present Govt may have been reticent about public commitment to BPC because of some powerful Green opponents but both parties know that the economic benefits of a gusher will transform the economy.

There seems to be considerable confusion about the legal position. the Judicial Review is an action against the government. Because that action will take some considerable time, the activists must get a separate injunction against BPC to prevent the drill pending the outcome of the Judicial Review - otherwise the drilling would be complete before the Judicial Review is concluded, not least if it goes to an appeal, once if not twice. To get the injunction against BPC, the activists have to show merit, lack of delay and hopefully you and almost certainly put up a sum of money against damages that BPC will suffer if drilling has to be postponed. Those damages will be put together by the BPC legal team and can be expected to be into the billions. Costs is a different matter. They are the legal expenses incurred in resisting any injunction. BPC were given 14 days to volunteer not to drill and I expect that they will not say anything in the meantime as to their intentions.

There is no pending referendum as matters stand at present. Assuming BPC finds big quantities the financial attractions would be a major plus in a referendum. Having one in a vacuum, the noisy brigade might sway enough to be objectoirs BUT a referendum in the Bahamsa is non-binding as happened a few years back on gambling. It is more of an opinion poll.

robsaunders - you miss the point they must pony-up security for the potential loss to BPC. A large sum!

I wish it were not so but the threat of litigation is far from empty. The protesters are well funded, determined with top legal representation. That is not to say that they have a good and fair argument. Their prime argument is with the Government but they need to stop BPC in the meantime. Hopefully the Courts will think that this sneaky last-minute attack is too late to be worthy of an injunction where the party seeking it must have behaved fairly. The litigation could have been started months ago

I doubt the merits but the opponents in the Bahamas have wealthy backers and are not to be underestimated. They have local clout in political and legal circles but hopefully if an injunction were granted they would have to put up a truly massive bond or security to cover failure.
Being an equitable remedy, the malicious lateness of the application for an injunction should be held against the application. These opponents have had so much time to make a pre-emptive strike, I would hope that it will not be granted.

Starchild -personally, I seen no problem with the potential £1.00 you have mentioned but I do not have the technical know-how to analyse the algorithm. I have to rely on a very few wise heads on these boards and information from experienced investors in the oil sector.

Linton - I believe he does but it was several years ago at the London event

Laalee - Consent to confirm it was Uncas who posted it. On the FB page we all know who he is and his posts always get the most approvals.
His figures endorse those I published on here on 13th Oct at 07-33 a.m. asking whether anyone could confirm getting the same figures. Now I know that my source was correct.
39p at 770 million
89p at 1.4 billion

Laalee - I'm waiting for consent to name him.