wikkid22
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... You are correct changeling except that the bond holders would not have been offered a vote as they were not shareholders. Any option agreed by the company with bond holders would have went for shareholder approval. Shareholders on here were mainly saying no way, we want far more, the asset is worth far more than £155m. Also d4e would have meant the bondholders losing their security over assets and having the same rights as other shareholders so increasing their risk considerably and standing to lose all in the event of future failure.
changeling
05 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... wikkidShareholders were offered nothing it was never voted upon . My suspicion is that the request for the 10m allowed them to delve more deeply into just how far RC was really from a deal.Perhaps they found out what happened at that meeting with OGA who knows but the facts are that no deal was agreed for whatever reasonMy view is that if they wanted the structure as per the company RNS they would have had a vote on it and pushed it through. They still had the option to go the other route if it wasn't passed so if they wanted it why wouldn't they try it? The plan was put forward by the companyFollowing such further discussions, the principal Bondholders have informed the Company that they are not satisfied that the transaction is capable of being implemented in a manner acceptable to them.
Kildonan01
05 Jul 2017
New North Sea firm Whalsay to develop Bentley field The article,Written by Mark Lammey - 05/07/2017 7:36 amA file-photo of Paul Warwick, chief executive of Whalsay Energy.Industry veteran Paul Warwick will spearhead efforts to develop one of the North Sea’s largest undeveloped discoveries, the Bentley field.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.The Aberdeen-based company, known as Xcite Energy Resources (XER) until early June, was bought by Whalsay Energy Holdings (WEH) last week.Sign up to our daily newsletter Subscribe TodayPackages from £10 per monthPackages from £10 per monthCayman-Islands-registered WEH is owned by the bondholders of XER, previously a wholly-owned subsidiary of Xcite Energy.RELATED ARTICLESSale of Xcite Energy dragging onXcite liquidators confident of selling Bentley field before licence expiresBentley field sale expected to conclude this monthWhalsay said it would now look for partners to develop and operate Bentley.Mr Warwick, whose past roles include senior management jobs at Talisman Energy and ConocoPhillips, said outcome was “very positive” for Whalsay.Mr 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.”Xcite had estimated that Bentley, discovered in 1977 and located about 85 miles south-east of Shetland, could produce nearly 300million barrels of oil using enhanced recovery techniques over 35 years.Xcite ran into financial trouble after issuing £105million-worth of bonds to repay debts and pay for Bentley in mid-2014.But it was unable to secure extra funds to pay back the bonds, which matured in full in October 2016.Bondholders rejected a debt-for-equity swap and an application was filed to place Xcite into liquidation.Liquidators from FTI Consulting − who were appointed in December − said a number of parties had submitted bids for Bentley.But none of the proposals would have resulted in the bonds being repaid fully.WEH bought the shares in XER for a consideration of $1 (77p) on Friday, just one day before the licence was set to expire.Meanwhile, a loan owed to Xcite by XER has been waived.Frank Fowlie, partner at CMS’s Aberdeen office, said: “It will be interesting to see how the bondholders take forward the Bentley field development or find an appropriate partner or buyer.“The lower oil price environment proved too difficult for the previous management team and there remain significant challenges if Bentley is ever to be developed.”
krazzy
05 Jul 2017
New North Sea firm Whalsay to develop Bentley field [link]
upanchors
04 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... first of all they were not losing $155 they had received two high rate of interest payments from the loan.They had the security of 260mmbls oil with all the ground work complete and two wells ready for production.Now my assumptions are just like yours you assume they wouldn`t I assume they would .the way there was no $10 million on offer , Cole was asking for it but there was no guarantee it would be forthcoming.Statement ...The Company is also in discussions with principal Bondholders in relation to the provision of a working capital facility of up to US$10 million, which remains subject to finalisation of terms and documentation. Now I have every good reason to think the worst you just need to look at the behaviour of the ex BoD .
wikkid22
04 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... As ever Upanchors you assume the worst and justify your answer on an assumption. They may have taken it private but something little is more than nothing isn't it? Shareholders were offered something but complaining that they were shafted by the very people who were standing to lose £155m yet offered to put up another £10m to try to keep it going
changeling
04 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Is there any reason that everyone assumes the reason the bondholders rejected it because shareholders were up in arms.If it benefitted them and they were confident of extracting themselves they would certainly have been able to push it thorough and done so regardless.It was never voted uponI think the reason it was rejected was simply because they couldn't see their way clear to extricating themselves with RC and shareholders attached. Other than the fake pump and the fake article it was pretty clear that the majority of shareholders wanted out and any goodwill for the company was gone. Can you imagine what dumping a load of shares on the market would do? No matter what price they were valued at the time d4e was announced the sp would have continued to spiral downwards because essentially the company were still in the same hole trying to raise moneyWho would have bought all those shares? To trade their way out would have required RC getting a deal done - would you trust him to do that if you were the BH's? Does anyone think they would have wanted to stay invested whilst he tried?I wouldn't
upanchors
04 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... Voting you up was a mistake.Yes we did sit on the shares and lose 99% of their value the new issue would have left us with nothing anyway so what was the point in accepting it , the bondholders would have delisted gone private and offered us less again and you well know it.
tagnol
04 Jul 2017
Re: New Directors Whalsay Not the same person associated with Whalsay. I wondered how long it would take for someone to make that erroneous suggestion.
tagnol
04 Jul 2017
Re: Statoil No... I said Andrew Fairclough was now Secretary.
kidsharm
04 Jul 2017
Any chance Hi Upanchors any chance l can join your group please..cheers
spike501
04 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... "So wiikid you reckon owning 1.5% of the company was a wise thing to accept "It was that or nothing - you'd already sat on the shares while they lost 99% of their value before d4e was on the table.
upanchors
04 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... So wiikid you reckon owning 1.5% of the company was a wise thing to accept , Then once the deal was done the 98.5% decide to go private and offer the holders of the 1.5% a further pittance for there shares take it or you get nothing .That your idea of a deal? Certainly not mine .Funny how the nae sayers are clambering over everything said here.I wonder if the director under investigation turns out to be the senior bond holder , .
wikkid22
04 Jul 2017
Re: incredible... You call it being mugged, the only thing that hit you on the head was the only lifeline around but you weren't happy with it.Remember the options were nil back or 1.5% AND them inject another £10m to buy you and them more time. Doesn't sound like a muggers action to me.
Galatea
04 Jul 2017
Re: Anyway *their* word before the smart assess jump on it
