tagnol
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Because $120 million would have been sufficient to pay off the bonds in full and they specifically indicated that was not the case.
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... yes tagnol but how do you know $120 million was not offered, thats my question ,
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
I`ll bet a pound to a.... That the bondholders had capital commitment for this a long long time ago, all very smooth.What would be interesting to know is where and how the shares issued at the bond deal went .my bet is they were used to drive the stock down to apoint where it would have been out of the question to raise alternative capital by dilution via PP
tagnol
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... "And just how do you know nobody offered $120million?"None of these offers delivered an acceptable return to Bondholders nor would have resulted in the Bonds being repaid in full, and therefore the Bondholders were not prepared to release their security to enable a sale to be completed.
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... I'm sure things would have been different had OPEC chosen to support the oil price at $120/bbl. Maybe a different management team might have realised the oil price wasn't sustainable at that price and tried to do a compromise deal with a major.things are little different now but this outfit can walk in all prep work done raise capital at the blink of an eye with oil at $48bbl .Cole et al could not do it at $120 something smells very badly here.
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... And just how do you know nobody offered $120million? I guess you must have been privvy to the bids , now that`s very interesting.`
tagnol
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... "The truth is that either Cole et al or the bondholders backed this into a corner then killed it."What would you have done differently?I can't now see any outcome, had they publicly been less optimistic earlier on, that wouldn't have resulted in the share price crashing through the floor and running out of cash.Like I wrote the other day, the warning signs were there for all to see for years, we just batted them away. Some people were more aggressive than others in trying to discredit those who tried to raise the red flags and they should be ashamed of themselves.Blinded by the thought of £4 a share even as the oil price had tanked, PIs looked for every scrap of good news and ignored the avalanche of bad news.I'm sure things would have been different had OPEC chosen to support the oil price at $120/bbl. Maybe a different management team might have realised the oil price wasn't sustainable at that price and tried to do a compromise deal with a major.
ash6666
05 Jul 2017
Re: New North Sea firm Whalsay to develo... Some familiar names here, Grrr.[link]
wikkid22
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... So why was the highest offer below £155m? Why did do you and the other shareholders not dig deep and buy it if it was that easy instead of just complaining that it was stolen? I would have expected an offer of £120m to have swung it but no one offered it. Highest bidder won, no theft. UNLESS you can show a higher offer?
pinkisback
05 Jul 2017
Re: New North Sea firm Whalsay to develop Be... 'Mr Warwick has been appointed chief executive of Whalsay Energy, which has been awarded a four-year extension on Bentley and has secured committed funding.'So is a partner required ? Is a guarantor required ? Is this why the 4 years was granted ?So the shareholders in Whalsay are who XER ? Have the bond holders provided the finance ?
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Ridiculous $155 million for $1.5 billion asset, 80% of the asset was still worth $1.2billion and I`m being generous on the $1.5billion more like $2billion and of course the fact that the spend on proving up had all been done along with the engineering and as far as we are led to believe OGA only awaited financial proposals to complete an FDP , guess what, they now have that for the same plan and the same field.The truth is that either Cole et al or the bondholders backed this into a corner then killed it.Now you can pontificate all you like that`s what happened .
wikkid22
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Theft and greed pure and simpleThe best offer for the asset was below £155m but you expected them to give up their £155m loan repayment in return for 80% of the company. Who's being greedy?
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... wikkid if the bondholders had made a d4e offer that was reasonable say for example leaving the shareholders with 20% equity they would have taken it.That would have left them still in control of their security and they could have voted off the incumbents put in their own guys and done exactly what they are doing now .Theft and greed pure and simple IMHO they set out to grab all and clown Cole is either complicit or more stupid than we think.
changeling
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... In addition, a subscriber in the Bond Issue has subscribed for an additional 4,302,546 Shares (the "Placed Shares"
at a price of 68.5 pence per share for gross proceeds of US$ 5 million, to provide an aggregate gross proceeds from the Bond Issue and the Share Issue of US$ 140 million. But that is beside the point. there seems to be a desire to blame the shareholders - even the article this morning makes it clear that the BH's rejected the deal the company were trying to negotiate.Are you really telling me that the BH's would have taken note of posters on a BB?My point was merely that you are wrong in saying that the bondholders offered shareholders a lifeline and the ungrateful gits didn't take it
upanchors
05 Jul 2017
Oh look That heavy oil that all the wise old owls on here were telling us nobody wanted , is going to be developed surely not , must be a misprint of some sort.Talk about grand larceny.
