Don't be surprised by rises and falls throughout the drilling campaign. You can also guarantee that lots of new posters will turn up here with 'news'. When bluehorseloveschipfat arrives you can guarantee that the boiler crew think we're ripe for a pump and dump....
Bowleven, the Africa focused oil and gas company traded on AIM, is pleased to announce the spud on 21 May 2018 of the IM-6 appraisal well at the Etinde block, Cameroon, by the block's operator, New Age Cameroon Offshore Petroleum SA ("NewAge").
The IM-6 well is the first of two appraisal wells to be drilled in 2018. The Etinde Joint Venture partners have contracted the Vantage jack-up rig "Topaz Driller" for this campaign, Drilling and logging operations of IM-6 are expected to take approximately 100 days in total with Schlumberger providing most of the drilling services. As previously announced, the well is designed to delineate the size and extent of the Intra-Isongo stratigraphic sand traps as a primary target, with the Upper Isongo sand as a secondary target.
New Age is the operator of the Etinde field, with a 37.5% working interest. Bowleven and LUKOIL are partners with a 25% and 37.5% working interest respectively. The Company intends to announce the final well results after the end of drilling and testing operations
Eli Chahin, CEO of Bowleven said:
"We are pleased to have commenced our 2018 two well appraisal drilling programme at Etinde. This is a significant event for Bowleven, its shareholders, partners and stakeholders in Cameroon. I would like to thank New Age's operations team and our drilling contractor, Vantage, for all their efforts in achieving this milestone.
The appraisal program, for which Bowleven is fully carried, aims to further improve the already robust economics for future development of this world class asset and we look forward to providing an update on IM-6 results over the coming weeks."
Worth reading this again if anyone has already, just to remind us what a bunch
of self indulgent board they were .Unbelievable what they paid themselves over
ten years. Glad they are no longer involved in this.
Well hello, and to all those who raged against COC increasing their holdings to 29.999999999999% expecting a take over on the cheap, you must be raging against some other share right now; BLVN heading for 60p short term (offering a good price to cash out) and the possibility of £1 plus, COC can just sit pretty and make a shish load of £ without the hassle of buying BLVN outright. Happy Dayz
Suttie might be holding through a nominee, but I dont believe he is on the shareholder register in his own name.
WShak is still holding and hasnt sold any shares according to his posts on ADVFN.
Its still early days, but so far COC are doing what they said - reduce costs, focus on etinde, bring shareholder value. Granted, they might still turn out to be bad for our health as suggested by pigeon and Winnet and they might still launch a takeover before the real value outs, but the current share price is better than before COCs arrival.
Hopefully we can see the same level of rise experienced by ARG, RKH, JOG et al.
winnets 30p full company sale is looking a tad pessimistic it might be said!
crazy to think Suttie ploughed millions in at 45p via that controversial placing.........cant believe that was years and years ago!
and again worth mentioning CEO's options don't trigger until over 45p, so if any one thinks a sale will occur under that needs to give their head a wobble
I know we aren't producing yet but the rising oil price is no doubt going to help the eventual sale price......over $78 now........if think we could be around $82-$85 when reserve numbers come out and that sale price will look pretty healthy........north of 60p.........yup, I reckon so
Arg too has risen by more than 100% in over a week. Reminds me of 2010 and the fun and games then. The 30p to £5 rise was rather wonderful! My fondest memory was the near 50% drop and recovery in a single day - made a killing sat in a pub!
Hopefully the excitement will be with BLVN in the not too distant future!
........"my bank balance seems in good health"...........
...........glad to hear it, indaknow. And long may it continue to be so.Mine's ok too thanks to JOG & SQZ. I lost a packet on XEL (Cole and those pesky hedge funds, plus my own stupidity) but have way more than made back my losses. I was lucky, but it's said you make your own luck in life and there's a lot of truth in that given what happened in Trap Oil towards the end.
Despite your healthy bank account, you come across as being angry a lot of the time. It can't be good for you.
You should be assured of a good result with COC on your side. Even if they're not you'll probably make good money on a sale. There's a few decent hedge funds out there and it's entirely possible COC is one of them.
Bowleven announces that an application has been made for the block admission of 852,105 new ordinary shares of 10p each ("Ordinary Shares") in the Company to be admitted to trading on AIM. It is expected that admission will become effective on 9 May 2018. The new Ordinary Shares will be allotted and used to satisfy the exercise of options under the Company's employee share scheme arrangements for former employees and when issued, will rank pari passu with the existing Ordinary Shares in the Company.
Block Admission Six Monthly Return
This Block Admission Six Monthly Return is intended to comply with the requirements of AIM Rule 29 and Schedule Six.
You can't help but revert to type can you? You asked for a simple "yes" or "no" answer and I gave you one.
You now, once again, feel the need to insult me without knowing anything about me or my financial situation. I have been fortunate enough to make a decent return from SOLG and I'm quite happy with my lot here at BLVN.
One dimensional perhaps, but my bank balance seems in good health.
Would your answer still be 'no' if I used the proceeds of sale of my BVLN shares to add to my holdings in JOG and SQZ , both of which have performed considerably better than BVLN since I sold, from a SP perspective?
I sold a few JOG at 380p and SQZ at 70-80p last year but still have a significant holding (in my terms) in each, which I am holding for the longer term as I believe there's good mileage left in both. I might of course be wrong. I'm only currently holding 3 shares and will exit AIM altogether when they play out. CLNR is the other company I have shares in. It's a binary bet and I'm fully prepared to lose (my average is 2p). I like Algy Cluff and the fact Michael Spencer and Lloyd Dorfman each have a significant holding. Apparently they only bought because they'd heard I was invested. It's a funny old world :-)
There are companies other than BVLN out there.
Are you sure you're suited to investing? It requires a bit more than one dimensional thinking.
Eagles question is a trap! He will tell you he put the proceeds into some share that has rocketed in the last few months.
Bison I see has joined me,and many more, on his ignore list- he doesnt like his feathers ruffled!
The UK Govt proposed that all British offshore territories which allowed formation of offshore incorporated entities (Companies to you and me), would have to in future provide information on their share register holders. Currently, this is not done, and there are those that argue that this encourages, criminal money, and dodgy Govt money to be channeled through these jurisdictions.
British Virgin islands (BVI) were straight out the blocks protesting that they would have to consider their constitutional allegiance to the UK if this were enacted to UK law.
I thought it was reasonably clear I understood which relevant parties own roughly how many shares in BVLN and what happened at last years GM, when you and a minority of other shareholders (apart from COC) gave COC control of your Company. COC, then holding 22% of BLVNs shares (thank you for correcting me earlier) managed to exert their influence to the extent that the votes of 75% of shareholders (apart from COC) were overturned and COC got what they wanted (as they will continue to do in the future). The result was that a board of new directors was installed comprising entirely COCs puppets. You will know it is the directors of a company who determine how its affairs are conducted and the actions it takes.
It is not what the technical position is that is important in any given set of circumstances. it is what happens in practice that counts, as any seasoned investor would know.
I too know how to obtain a letter from my brokers (I use HL and AJ Bell) authorising me to attend and vote at meetings and, like you, I have attended many in my time. I also know I can instruct my brokers to submit a proxy vote to the Chairman of any Meeting, giving instructions on how I want the shares I beneficially own voted. Most often, I choose not to vote because there is nothing controversial being tabled and my vote wouldnt make any difference anyway. Plus, as I dont live in London, attendance costs time and expense.
You and I are among a small minority of ordinary shareholders (ie private investors) who know the rules and act accordingly. The average PI either doesnt know how to vote, doesnt know whats going on and wouldnt understand anyway, or simply cant be bothered. Thats why COC won the day last time. Had all PI shareholders voted, the strong likelihood is that COCs proposals would have been overturned. But they werent, for reasons we both understand. COC got its way. Its what happens.
A minority of shareholders (other than COC), apparently including you and Bison, were so angry with BLVNs existing board that they sided with COC to help them achieve their objectives, whatever they might be. Installing their own directors was only the precursor. To side with COC might prove to have been a wise decision and it might not. No-one yet knows how things will play out. Until they do, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what will happen. All opinions are valid.
The crux of the matter appears to have been that BLVNs former directors were found guilty of all kind of crimes, ranging from treating the Company as if it was their personal piggy bank (on which there was definitely a case to answer) to the much lower than usual price of oil (which was imo the main reason for BLVNs SP destruction, along with that of hundreds of other oil companies at the same time) for which they were definitely not responsible. Re the piggy bank scenario, step forward about 1000 other AIM directors and confess to the same thing. I was certainly not a fan of KH, but he evidently discharged certain of his perhaps more challenging responsibilities effectively dealing with Biya and the other natives for one. Please explain, if there was such widespread anger at BLVNs Board, why no action was taken by all the shareholders you now say can marshal their forces to defeat COC if it becomes necessary, to bring KH et al to heel? Are BLVNs present PI shareholders so different that they will all vote en masse to thwart COC should the latter behave improperly?
Now a simple question for you, indaknow. Based on what we know today, was I wise to sell my entire BLVN holding at 24.5p when I did?
"whether it's control or total control isn't really the point"
ok - lets just disregard the English language then "total" or "effective" doesn't really matter.......same same but different ........jeeeeeeeez!!!
"resolutions that required a 75% majority (what I call total control)"
thank you captain obvious. and no you call sub 30% "total control", don't you?
"and start paying themselves out what you regard as your money in whatever ways they chose that seemed legal at the time"
yes a possibility - but has it happened yet, its been over a year? winnet said it would have happened straight away? and how is that really any different to KH saying $15 mil for bomono and then spending $95 mil and not informing the market? where was yours and winnets faux outrage then?
"You seem to be in COC's hands (it's that 'control' thing again)but no doubt they have aligned their objectives firmly with yours and all other shareholders. Have they consulted you yet for advice?"
you seem to forget we had a binary vote, KH or COC. you keep on at those who voted for COC like we had numerous choices and we chose them because they were the mutts nuts for lack of a better phrase! they were simply the lesser of 2 evils in my eyes, I have still not completely disregarded that COC could stitch us up, I am aware that is a risk, but when faced with the facts of KH's decade of incompetence I am willing to take the risk of the unknown. and plus each week that goes past and you and winnet are still yet to string a coherent and substantiated scenario of how COC take that money, I am feeling better and better about my choice
when did KH consult shareholders? or even dip his hand in his own pocket to "align" himself with us?
"I see there are well over 100 people who regard it as worthwhile following my posts on iii. There are 3 who follow yours, after reading 2224 of them over the last four and a half years"
using that at all (let alone a meausre of senility) speaks volumes , didnt realise we were on facebook!! and you reckon most of those were before XEL........?..........i got a sneaky feeling they probably were.....LOL
p.s. why is it you post at a ratio of approx 9:1 on shares you dont own to those that you do? is that not odd?
p.p.s. how did you cope with the heatwave, those warmer temperatures can be as dangerous to you lot as the colder ones cant they? i hope you stayed cover up and hydrated?
I knew you would get there in the end. COC, by virtue of owning less than 50%+1 share, do not have control or total control of BLVN. You have misled by suggesting otherwise.
I dont think that we disagree about what happens in reality, but that doesnt change the facts relating to whether, legally, COC can exercise control. You might call this semantics, but I dont agree.
There is no doubt that COC are able to greatly influence what happens here and there is every possibility that their intentions are not for the good of other shareholders. I have no doubt their only intention is to make as much money as possible and any casualties caught in the crossfire wont be something they give any thought to. However, shareholder apathy is not COCs fault. I have attended countless AGMs. My broker (was TD, but now owned by the shower that is iii) has always been very happy to provide a letter confirming my shareholding and Ive always been able to attend and vote at AGMs. Additionally, there is no reason why a shareholder cannot vote by proxy to ensure that they have their say. Thats exactly what I did with the last vote in relation to Hart and Co being removed.
"Can COC pass either an ordinary or special resolution if other shareholders decide to exercise their rights and vote against the same ordinary or special resolution?"........
...........I assume you mean: "can COC cause an ordinary or special resolution to be passed"? etc. No - but for reasons videodawn and I (among others) have explained, shareholders other than COC almost certainly won't decide in enough numbers to participate in any vote that might take place to outvote COC (possibly COC & HSBC, which holds 7%. - COC holds 29%). It just doesn't happen. It's not the number of votes cast for or against a resolution proposed in a GM, taken as a % of total shares in issue, that determines the outcome of a vote. It is the number of votes cast for or against, as a % of the total number of votes actually cast.
Apathy and a lack of knowledge about voting procedures (and a whole lot more) rules. Most PIs simply don't vote.
Keep believing whatever you want, but you shouldn't mislead others just because you'd much prefer a situation to exist that doesn't.
The experience I've referred to has been gained in all sorts of ways - not least in investing. What I did or do now in business isn't really that important, although I do have a good understanding of corporate procedure and investing in general (not that it makes me a better investor - I just don't get caught as often these days). People can make up their own minds whose views are likely to be the more valid - I've explained mine the best I can. You appear to think I'm wrong, which is fine by me.
I repeat, it is entirely possible COC is a thoroughly reputable organisation that has every intention of playing openly and fairly for the benefit of all shareholders. It just doesn't often seem to happen these days, which is why I have doubts.
Can you not just accept that different people have different views? Everything anyone says or does is based on experience. I can't work out where yours comes from and you haven't (to my knowledge) told us. What I do know is that it's not from anywhere I recognise.
When it comes to any vote, the practical situation is that COC has control. You can call it influence if you like, but it's votes that count. It seems highly unlikely to me there would not be enough votes cast by PIs with shares held in nominee accounts to match those cast by COC (and any other friendly holders). Thus, what COC wants, COC gets. My knowledge of accounting has nothing to do with it - it's experience of what almost invariably happens that counts.
My comment about COC's holding wasn't intended to mislead anyone - the important point was that COC won a critical vote with a minority holding, when 75% of shareholders other than COC who knew how to and took the trouble to vote were opposed to the resolutions. COC now hold more shares than they did at the last general meeting, so the likelihood of COC (and other friendly holders) being outvoted in a future one seems to me to be remote.
You seem to ignore the comments I make about the situation quite possibly playing out fairly and well for all shareholders. I just have a different take on the situation than you have and see what I regard as risk, whereas you and others don't.
My personal view is that you are misleading people by inventing a situation that doesn't exist - one in which votes would be cast at a general meeting pro-rata to holdings (vis a vis COC and remaining shareholders). It simply won't happen.
I don't say there won't be a decent outcome for all shareholders. My experience, where it concerns hedge funds' ownership of controlling interests in listed companies just doesn't inspire confidence.
I have no issue with all shareholders being aware of the risks that they face. Having an influential hedge fund owning just shy of 30% is quite possibly a risk. However, glaring errors and more spin of the facts dont help anyone.
when COC held a lot fewer shares than they hold today. From memory they held about 13% but I might be wrong.
Yep, you are wrong. At the date of the general meeting called to oust Hart and Co. COC owned 22% of BLVNs issued share capital. Quite a difference between 13% and 22% and quite surprising that you coudnt spend less than 5 minutes to research this point before posting?
To all intents and purposes COC has control - of that there is no doubt. That you (indaknow) and Bison don't understand this is down to your lack of understanding and experience.
Outfits like COC rely on apathy and ignorance when it comes to corporate procedure. It's just a fact
The insults trickle off your tongue with the same frequency as the lies and deceit. Sorry to be a pedant, but control from a legal perspective is not the same as influence.
Simple question for you Eagle: Can COC pass either an ordinary or special resolution if other shareholders decide to exercise their rights and vote against the same ordinary or special resolution?
Just answer the question as posed and leave aside any diatribe about real world experience that youve gained from your countless successful years as an accountant.
Youre showing your age be referencing the 1948 Companies Act! I think you are referring to unfair shareholder prejudice (s994 Companies Act 2006 which replaced s459 Companies Act 1985)? Not sure why you believe that COCs majority is important in such claims as s996 allows the Court to make any order it wishes and specifically s996(2) allows the Court to order that the Company purchase the shares of the claimant (subject to the rules on maintanence of capital).
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.