Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
As I read the two RNS there must have been a conflict, and it must have been the entity H2G that was facing the conflict not PG personally or as director (such things are easily compartmentalised/approved). The sale of shares must have been all held by H2G or the sale would not be to remove potential conflict.
There was nothing significant in the change in PG's total shareholding that would have changed a conflict position if all shares were held by H2G. Given the total held, I can't see that this sell down would remove any perceived conflict by leaving any behind.
Anything other than this and the RNS would be misleading as the reference to conflict reduction would simply be wrong, and nothing I have seen makes that at all likely.
Looking at PRD's RNS of 20 Jan 2021, its clear that PRD thought things were still going well at that point. There can't have been any litigation on the horizon then.
I can't see an overt reference to the FRAM debt, but it may be that PRD know that it is included in some of the larger liabilities outlined there. It is odd that predator was included in the glossary of terms for CEG's 2020 audited report, but as far as I can see was never then referred to.
GB has said in either a tweet or BB msg (I forget which) that instalments have been taken out and paid back already. Hopefully that will be confirmed in the investor meet as that will provide some more formal reassurance.
That isn't something the lender can choose. The lender can only choose to receive funds at a premium above the recent share price. However, if the company defaults on the loan then they can exercise that option.
That said, if a company is in a position whereby they are defaulting on a loan payment, how many lenders want to receive their shares instead of recieving at least pence on the pound through insolvency. It seems unlikely that will represent significant dilution.
Yes, and that must have happened. The point I was making is that in May exclusivity agreements were noted as due to be proposed in the future. On 29 June, confidentiality agreements were confirmed as having occurred in a backwards looking report.
This was a discussion held at the time, events occurring after the year end in the annual report are still backwards looking from the date of the RNS. So in short, the fact that confidentiality agreements had been issued at some point prior to 29 June (probably prior to 12 May too) is not a relevant factor in determining when the exclusivity period may have begun as suggested on this thread below.
Confidentiality agreements don't equal the exclusivity arrangements. If you have to whittle down the number, even to the two frontrunners noted, you will have had some confidentiality agreements in place with that larger number of interested parties.
Evening BDT,
I agree entirely and tried to point that out myself early doors. The tenses and content of many of the entries were clearly 'as announced' even where later entries in the same document then seemed to contradict it. Yet that led people to assume nothing had changed or progresses.
Crozier - it's the language used I am referring to. Much of it is written in present tense as it was when announced, which is reasonable. Where it has changed significantly, there are other entries that address that as with the Fram loan. Those too are largely in the tense they were announced in. The purchase order is the same. If the well heads were on their way or received, that would require a new announcement and so would have an update. There is little difference between preparing and issuing POs so no announcement is reasonably required. As such, no post balance sheet update is required.
What I caution against is relying on the tenses matching past announcement and assuming everything has been static since. That would not be a reliable assumption, not is it an error in the drafting. It's a style choice which is reasonably available.
I think both that and the long lead item reference will have been prepared a while ago. It has to be read with the further updates addressing the reliability of the loan receipt.
I think one needs to be hesitant in interpreting all of that as a picture of right know. Even post period events reflect a series of different 'nows' at different times when they were announced
There is no argument we are part owner of that that I can see. I don't see that there will have been any misuse of any of our assets that could be traced to that.
It means that CEG have assets from which damages could be paid, but it isn't CEG directly that would owe PRD is it. They would have to want to contribute.
BDT - I had interpreted that as relating to the success of those drills. I.e. as with MOU-1 the results of the log indicate a discovery and something worth testing there. That way, simultaneous testing can take part on all wells that have 'hit the right spot(s)'
"known" accumulations. Not predicted, hoped for, estimated. They are known to be there. There was no plan in place as to how and when it was to be developed. That is what the JV partners are discussing now.
So all that is needed to turn the known accumulations into reserves is the final testing and plan for development.
I am with GRH, the market has largely ignored the shift from estimated resources based on unknown accumulations, to known accumulations. PRD have shown there is gas there and were able to declare a discovery, that is a significant achievement
There is a possibility of news, but not a strong one. For example, the settled terms of the 60 day period. That is not what the pitch was in the heads of terms, but what the cost would be to either side of walking away after that period.
That said, whether that walk away fee is considered material is another question.
I expect the heads of terms don't need to be spelled out being uncertain and only a proposal at that stage. The same with a successful candidate. Aside from the walk away fee they are not committed to anything that requires announcement yet.
Yeah... This isn't wall Street bets.
I've done my research and I'm happier with the prospects than ever before. This JV candidate auction is the end of the beginning. It's what we have been waiting for. Yes there is uncertainty, and yes a possibility is that the potential partners will both walk away. However, that does not seem a strong possibility. I expect the usual fear mongering from the usual faces, and you have to ask what possible motives anyone would have to do that.
Nothing much more to say, I am happy to await the outcome.