GC Trader
06 Jul 2017
Re: Incredible FACTS since the original topic has moved onto disclosing factual past information here's one that is worthy of its headline mention...XEL was most definitely NOT the best buy on AIM...
tagnol
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... "genuine cases - such as Quindell - are not scrutinised and get away with it for a long time or ultimately altogether."bang on. There's a man that should have gone to prison years ago.
wikkid22
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Here's more facts Upanchors - There is no proof of any theft that you keep posting about. There was a bidding process and no one bid (assumedly no one valued Bentley or XER) over £155m and the bondholders used their legal right to not release their security and instead take ownership of the asset. There is zero proof of any involvement by Statoil (you went on about for how long?).The bondholders are spending funds that they have or have raised to do whatever they wish with their assets.Where is the wrongdoing that you keep going on about?
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Feel free to jump in tagnol or Spike I can`t remember whose turn it is.
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... So whilst you accuse me of making assumptions you assumed there was no bid of $120million you have no proof whether there was or not.Nor did I say someone values it more in 2017 than in 2014The facts not assumptions are that the Bondholders have just injected a further $10million into the newly formed company to bring Bentley to production or at least to set it on down that road.Do you think they would do that if they were not sure of a greater return?Now we`ve had it all on here i.e nobody wants heavy oil (tell that to Statoil and Enquest ) they must be making a terrible mistake , Bentley won`t be brought on line bla bla.Now thats strange because it`s obvious that Bentley will be brought on line .Now regardless as to how you look at it the bondholders got a great deal.They loaned $155million and secured a $ 2.5billion asset against it , thanks to Cole and Fairclough a loan that was not immediately required at that time , considering weeks before they tell us they had six months to run on existing loan with a possible further twelve months. also had £17.4 million in cash and a drawdown facility of over $30 million.Now tell me are you or were you ever a shareholder here?
wikkid22
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Didn't you read Upanchors? I said that I'd have expected a bid of £120m to have been accepted. Expected because that would have been a 20% haircut and my guess is it would have been acceptable after the interest payments. I am certain that there were none over £155m as that would have had to be accepted and the bondholders would have been repaid in full so couldn't refuse to withdraw their security. Now, where is your answers to the 'obvious' valuation over £155m? The bondholders valuation when they lent was at the time of lending so nothing to do with 2016 or 2017! And you say I'm waffling? You use the bondholders valuation in 2014 as proof someone valued it more in 2017?
spike501
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Even if there was an offer of $120million, what does it matter? It was still not enough to repay the bondholders so from a shareholder perspective its completely irrelevant. Either the bondholders rejected the $120million and FTI acquiesced, or there wasn't an offer of $120million - in either case there would have been nothing left for shareholders.Xcite going bankrupt and Bentley being available wasn't an industry secret - everyone knew about and that a marketing exercise was going on. 80 companies had previously viewed it, 26 were part of the process and not a single one was willing to pay enough to even redeem the bonds let alone leave anything for shareholders - do you think FTI and the entire industry is in on this scam do somehow do shareholders out of Bentley?Face facts - you took a gamble on a high risk share and it didn't pay off. There was certainly management incompetence, informal nudge, nudge, wink, wink communication from the BOD that was borderline but ultimately non-actionable and carefully crafted RNSs that could be seen to be misleading but a very hard case but thats about it and this in the end simply came down to an investment not being as gold plated as you thought, combined with unexpectedly difficult industry circumstances.As far as I'm concerned its "active investors" here that are overall damaging and prevent genuine cases of misleading investors and fraud from getting the proper attention they deserve. Regulatory bodies and MPs are just overwhelmed with investors who have made poor investments complaining about non-existent fraud because they simply can't accept it was their own poor judgement and as a result genuine cases - such as Quindell - are not scrutinised and get away with it for a long time or ultimately altogether. Its just like the boy who cried wolf.
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... your wittering again wikkid.I`m still waiting for you to tell me how you know that there was no offer of $120million or is that your assumption.
wikkid22
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Upanchors, who valued it at more than £155m, how much do they value it at and why didn't they bid more than £155m and buy it?Seems lots of assumptions from on you with zero justification.
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... You are correct Spike but I bet one pops up from Norway real soon.in the meantimeMr Warwick said: “Together, a four-year licence and sufficient capital to undertake our work programme, provide the stability for the company to establish the technical and commercial requirements to develop the Bentley field within a realistic time horizon for us to attract suitable partners and a field operator, enabling delivery of a Bentley field development plan.”our correct spike but I`ll bet a pound to a pinch of...finance appears in short order.Here was me thinking Cole et al told us all the technical work was complete and that a partner was the stumbling block...was that another little Porky perhaps.
spike501
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... The funding is the $10million that the bond holders have stumped up to ensure the company has working capital to fund a partner.
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Certainly not you spike it`s like watching a tag team here today tagnol wikkid and now spikeMr Warwick has been appointed chief executive of Whalsay Energy, which has been awarded a four-year extension on Bentley and has secured committed funding.
spike501
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Who has jumped into fund it?
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... I do not recall the figure of $120 million ever being mentioned could you tell me where it is.Cobblers wikkid some one obviously values it at a lot more than $155 million right now as they are prepared to fund it, do you think they would be forking out Say $600 million for an asset that was worth $155 million.Do you think the bondholders lent $155 million against an asset of the same value? they knew the true value of the asset . No one argued at the time when all the presentations were being done , against the $2.5 billion worth. Unless of course you knew better .Price of oil still in the $40/$50bbl range and some one jumped at the chance to fund it, because they unlike you know the true value.
wikkid22
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... I said 'I would have expected' thats because I wasn't part to any bids and BY LAW a bid of £155 would have repaid the bonds in full and would have to have been accepted. I would have expected that a bid of anywhere beer the bondholders full repayment would have been accepted. As the word of the statement said no bids would have repaid the bonds in full. So many ch for your valuation of £2bn? The oil industry valued it at less than £155m and that is why the 98.5% suggestion was close to correct. You want then bondholders to value it at something that only you felt was the value and give shareholders 20% because of this?
