Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Bowleven Plc LSE:BLVN London Ordinary Share GB00B04PYL99 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.25p -0.99% 25.00p 24.75p 25.25p 25.50p 24.75p 25.00p 741,587 16:35:08
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.0 -57.3 -17.8 - 81.25

Bowleven (BLVN) Latest News (1)

More Bowleven News
Bowleven Takeover Rumours

Bowleven (BLVN) Share Charts

1 Year Bowleven Chart

1 Year Bowleven Chart

1 Month Bowleven Chart

1 Month Bowleven Chart

Intraday Bowleven Chart

Intraday Bowleven Chart

Bowleven (BLVN) Discussions and Chat

Bowleven Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
01/10/201612:29Stock Holders United (man u fans auto banned)12,348
27/9/201618:15BLVN..Undervalued Assets - Troll Free31,981
26/9/201616:09blvn ripe for takeover.33
22/9/201608:54BLVN Bowleven (oil and gas) - new to AIM40,231
30/5/201610:36how do we kick hart out5

Add a New Thread

Bowleven (BLVN) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
30/09/2016 17:03:5725.0013,9503,487.87O
30/09/2016 16:35:0825.0045,00011,250.00UT
30/09/2016 16:29:3025.0020551.25O
30/09/2016 16:29:3024.751,329328.93AT
30/09/2016 16:29:3024.7540099.00AT
View all Bowleven trades in real-time

Bowleven (BLVN) Top Chat Posts

Bowleven Daily Update: Bowleven Plc is listed in the Oil & Gas Producers sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker BLVN. The last closing price for Bowleven was 25.25p.
Bowleven Plc has a 4 week average price of 25.48p and a 12 week average price of 23.86p.
The 1 year high share price is 29.50p while the 1 year low share price is currently 18.25p.
There are currently 325,008,045 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 515,055 shares. The market capitalisation of Bowleven Plc is £81,252,011.25.
leedskier: The acquisition of a further three and half million by Crown just about sums up Aim.The City firm which bought the shares for Crown likes it because it got paid for buying the shares. It probably quoted a price for the purchase, then shorted the price down daily to pick them up below the price.The MM knew it was happening and turned a blind eye to the price manipulation.BLVN may even have suspended buy backs so as to make it easier too.Meanwhile investors are shafted without knowing why.Notification is then delayed by four days plus. And the share price has to make its own way back-up without any help from the City firm which made the trade!Shocking disregard once again shown to ordinary investors.The real question is why are these Russians buying in? Do they "think" that Lukoil are about to make a bid?
le_commissaire: Fireplace The motivation of crown's beneficiaries is simpply profit. This is why as i mentioned in a previous post, there exists a situation where on one side, Macquarie want a stable - flat price to acquire the percentage for treasury, knowing that they will have the usual commission rates for the cheapest average per share. If they launched a too strong buying set of orders, the mm's would have to try and service the orders by encouraging weak sellers to sell to fill the orders. The price gets too hot for Macquarie so i would think they would use the same method we used to sell the XEL stock but in reverse to cool or even lower the average purchase price. On the other side, sits Crown Ocean who by lucky chance own almost exactly the required amount of stock but which has earned a whopping percentage profit in a very short time. They would wish to keep favour with their beneficiaries of BLVN stock. They would have had to keep a lid on their current buy trades in order to stop the book running away in the same methodology as Macquarie would be doing> Perfect possibility of them both arranging a share swap off market, but to do this BLVN would have to release an RNS detailing the changes in the share buyback. When we swapped the 9m on that day in May, i warned beforehand the exact amount we would be swapping that day but also noted that the heavy volume would NOT affect the share price in an volatile way as it had already been pre-arranged with the new beneficiaries and the mm's. If we do not have an RNS stating a change in the buyback method (on market), then obviously CO are just happy to keep hold of the stock and envisage an even greater healthy return.
tli8jaguar: Thanks to brighterlater on LSE, here is Simon Thompson's article on IC From Simon Thompson, Investors Chronicle: Clearly, I wasn't the only one who felt shares of Bowleven (BLVN:28.5p), the African-focused oil and gas exploration group, were being harshly valued ('Bargain shares half year report', 15 Aug 2016). After my article was published a week ago the board subsequently announced a US$10m (£7.7m) share buy-back programme. The company has authority to repurchase up to 14.99 per cent of the 327m shares in issue as voted through by shareholders at the last annual meeting. All the shares will be purchased on-market and held in treasury, so this in effect creates a floor for the share price given the scale of the programme. Other investors have cottoned on which is one reason why Bowleven's share price has risen by 30 per cent from 22p to 28.5p in the past week. The board have wasted no time either in starting the buy-back programme, purchasing 192,948 shares at 26p each in the market last Friday. At the current price Bowleven could acquire 27m shares, or 8.2 per cent of the issued share capital of 327m shares. The directors certainly have the funds to do so because the company had a cash pile of $100m (£77m) at the end of March 2016, and is due to receive $15m of deferred consideration next month as part of a farm-out deal on its Etinde Permit off the coast of Cameroon. Bowleven retains a 20 per cent non-operated interest in Etinde having completed a farm-out to energy giants Lukoil and New Age in March 2015. The buy-back makes commercial sense too. That's because the company's current market value of £93m is only slightly Bowleven's cash balance once you factor in the receipt of the £11.5m deferred consideration due next month, and massively below its last reported net asset value of $367m (£282m). This means around $267m worth of exploration assets are effectively in the price for free. Or put it another way, the company is paying 28.5p a share in the market to get its hands on 86p a share of net assets, so this is hugely value accretive for shareholders. If the full $10m is deployed, and 27m shares are bought back at an average of 26p each, then I estimate that it will add around 5.5p a share to Bowleven's net asset value per share. The buy back is also a vote of confidence by the board in the company's prospects and its funding. Moreover, with the oil price almost doubling in value since hitting a multi-year low of $26 a barrel six months ago, and the shares still only trading in-line with cash even after last week's rise, we are getting a free ride on Bowleven's exploration assets. That's anomalous to say the least, a sentiment the board clearly share. Buy.
tigmi: Surely if there are suitors sniffing around BLVN at the previous low prices and you (i mean the board) know that the prices that are being thrown around are way below the true value of the company then the best thing to do to ensure you are looking after the shareholder's best interests is to buy your own shares to push the share price up. Its often you see an offer put forward by the board to shareholders that states the present offer per share represents a x% premium to the average share price over the last 30 days etc... So my view with this is KH and board are saying we have looked around and found nothing that is better value than our own shares and so we want to buy our own shares rather than let someone else buy us too cheaply. IMHO
le_commissaire: Cyan Just read that Cornhill reference. If last months vine was correct, then that last sentence was spot on, specially When two brokers who shall remain nameless, take assets as they lose patience He has zero assets, not even a car and the money has never been his so they can legally go after whoever supplied the investment cash. On a separate note, looks like someone else agrees with my theory last week on the catch 22 situation with the Shale producers taking the covers off again as the oil price rises. This is going to be a constant boxing match for quite a number of years in my own opinion and why we decided as a group to invest so much in the UK Fracking companies. It is the ultimate see-saw. Fracking technology which has improved to almost killer efficiency and faster than anyone could have predicted, enables most of the larger US frackers to mothball sites at minimal costs. That is OPEC's nightmare that they will never be able to solve. The second element is that to soften the effect of rising oil prices restrengthening the non US oil exporters, the fracking companies have their own community of hedge companies profiting from oil futures at -6mth values as the PoO increases. If i am right then the minority who believe that the Rig count will rise again to Q3-4 as opposed to most who believe it will fall further will have thought outside the box once more. This may sound strange as why would i wish to resit as a BLVN shareholder with the 3m if i am such a pro fracking and Biogas investor? BLVN has a unique position mirroring VOG, Noble Glencore et al. Local, ready, developing at speed market, which when fully networked as a West African hub with Niger, will give BLVN back some of it's much dissolved market investability. Boring to say it so many times i know, but in all my years i have never seen a companies share price more or less kept in suspended animation for so many quarters. Yes JPM are so obviously playing the trading gap that a 6y old could see it and throw in the ex dragon oil spivs who are at the game again. After removing all of the wrappers that are keeping this stock at bay to almost freezing point, one cannot remove, even it's worst haters, the simple fact that the actual validity of BLVN's assets, partners in LUK and NA, envious field location to the new HUB ports and a possible 35% buy-in to a blue-chip near-producing asset mean even more simply that the current share price is, and i hate to use the cliche, totally undervalued. As for the move when it finally happens from the current stagnation, it will not be a typical XEL, RKH, PMO, type spot trade movement. It will be more a case that most traders will wait for a significant 20% sustained unsold movement before anyone takes what they still see at this time as a gamble that the run is finally on. I hate charts and never use them, but i do understand that at times they are uncannily accurate. From our favoured FM who likes his own personal AIM dabbles to support the rubbish money he says we pay him, he says that if 23p is taken and stays unsold for even a week's sessions, then it will be the very same JPM who position the algo functions to a trade up, not a trade through. This is why i mentioned the 23p sustained target. Very low, a couple of pence, but that is what i am hitting at to kick-start a sustained improvement. First in could be the EA to hit that target so the test would be to see if it is sold into. This is where Kevin's PR team need to act like a PR team for the first time in their highly paid and underactive time. Throw out reminders of actis and a possible 35% acquisition of a cash cow and there you will finally see BLVN being loved once more by the market. Obviously this is just my own simple opinion and not any recommendation to buy, sell, or position on.
wantmorethan24p: hart what have you done to the blvn share one seems interested.
hugepants: begorrah88 19 Feb'16 - 07:09 - 31080 of 31082 0 0 Another week passes with no RNS while the BLVN share price stagnates and opportunities are missed. I think many shareholders are dreading the next hair-brained scheme this lot come up with. So doing nothing is not a bad strategy. They've spent $40M-$50M on Bomono and succeeded in knocking 30% off the share price. The market obviously regards Bomono as pretty much worthless. The Aminex deal was thankfully called off. Returning the excess cash to shareholders is the best strategy and will add 30%-50% to the share price imo.
prowlersanarse: Dunno why BLVN share price moves with the price of oil as BLVN don't have amy oil do they ?
lr2: Http:// THE outgoing chairman of Bowleven, Ronnie Hanna, has said directors are acutely aware of the company’s share price level but he hopes the foundations have been put in place for it to improve. Mr Hanna told shareholders at the Edinburgh-based oil and gas company’s general meeting: “The board is acutely aware of the share price as well as you are.” The comment follows a year in which Bowleven’s share price has been in the doldrums and the firm has drawn criticism from some investors who have been disappointed by its performance. Shares in Aim-listed Bowleven closed at 21.75p yesterday, giving it a stock market capitalisation of around £70m. They sold for 23.5p on the same date last year. The fall has left investors who have backed fund raisings completed in recent years sitting on paper losses. In November 2013 Bowleven raised £13m at 45p per share. Mr Hanna noted the company has been operating amid challenging conditions for the industry following the crude price plunge since June last year but recognised that may provide little consolation to shareholders. He added:”I hope we now have got a platform for future growth and we will see some improvement in the share price going forward.” Mr Hanna, who became chairman in 2006, noted Bowleven was left sitting on a big cash pile after completing a $250m Cameroon stake sale in March. The deal to sell shares in the offshore Etinde licence was agreed in June last year, before the oil price slump. Mr Hanna said Bowleven is well placed to take advantage of opportunities that may be created during a period of upheaval for the industry. Chief executive Kevin Hart told the meeting: “There are hundreds of assets on the market.” He and Mr Hanna stressed Bowleven would be very disciplined in using the capital it had. They said the deal Bowleven agreed last month to buy into licences in Tanzania for up to $28m, subject to due diligence, appeared attractive. Mr Hart noted Bowleven has made two gas finds onshore Cameroon it hopes to bring into production in 2017. The company retains a 20 per cent in Etinde, which contains finds it hopes to bring onstream. Mr Hanna resigned as planned after the meeting and was succeeded by Billy Allan, a former chief executive of the Asco oil services group.
slipanchor3: Disclosure of price-sensitive information – FSA rules This guide is based on UK law as at 1st February 2010, unless otherwise stated. It is part of a series on the FSA and Securities Regulation . For a stock market to work efficiently and fairly, two... Company law and corporate governance TMT Banks Diversified industrial Real estate Energy Public sector Insurance and wealth management UK This guide is based on UK law as at 1st February 2010, unless otherwise stated. It is part of a series on the FSA and Securities Regulation. For a stock market to work efficiently and fairly, two principles must apply: companies need to release relevant information as soon as it is available; and all those who want to deal in shares should have access to the same information at the same time. Rules to that effect are contained in the FSA’s Disclosure and Transparency Rules (DTR) and apply to companies with a full listing on the London Stock Exchange. The fourth of the FSA’s Listing Principles ensures adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of the DTR: a listed company must communicate information to holders and potential holders of its listed equity securities in such a way as to avoid the creation or continuation of a false market. The core obligation is set out in DTR 2.2.1: a company must notify the market, through an approved Regulatory Information Service (RIS), as soon as possible, of any inside information concerning the company. AIM companies are under a similar obligation, imposed by rule 11 of the AIM rules. Inside information For something to be classed as ‘inside information’, it must: be of a precise nature; is not generally available; relates (whether directly or indirectly) to investments traded on a UK regulated market (such as listed shares on the London Stock Exchange); and be likely to have a significant effect on the price of the shares if it were generally available. The information needs to be specific to the company and there needs to be some certainty to it. Imprecise information, and news that is generally applicable, is not announceable; nor are conclusions or facts that can be gleaned from research or analysis, because any investor (in theory) has access to the same material. Price sensitivity is crucial to the definition of inside information. A company must ask: would a hypothetical ‘reasonable investor’, out to maximise their own economic self-interest, be likely to use the information in making their investment decision? Information that will usually be considered relevant to a reasonable investor’s decisions includes that affecting: the company’s assets and liabilities; the performance of the company’s business, or expectations as to that performance; the company’s financial condition; the course of the company’s business; major new developments in the company’s business; information that has previously been disclosed to the market. A commonly used rule of thumb is to say that a price movement of 10 per cent either way is ‘significant’ and so information that is unlikely to move the share price that much is not disclosable. But the FSA is very clear that there is no ‘10 per cent rule’ and that price movements below that threshold can still be significant in particular cases. Deciding whether information satisfies all these tests and should be announced to the market is often a difficult call for a board to make. The company’s brokers or other financial advisers should always be consulted where there is doubt, particularly when considering the effect on the share price, as they will appreciate the factors likely to influence shareholders. Indeed, the FSA has criticised directors where the brokers’ view has not been sought. Lawyers can help test the assumptions being made and take directors through the relevant definitions. When an announcement is to be made, a company must take all reasonable care to ensure that any information it releases to the market is not misleading, false or deceptive, and that it does not omit anything that is ‘likely to affect the import’ of the information (DTR 1.3.4). If the decision is made not to announce, the matter should be kept under review and re-assessed as circumstances change. The FSA monitors large share price movements, and an unexpected rise or fall will commonly result in a ‘please explain’ letter asking for the background circumstances. Professional advice should be taken before replying. Delay Inside information needs to be released to the market ‘as soon as possible’; a delay of only a few days can be unacceptable (see: Cases on disclosure of price-sensitive information). Where the news is unexpected by the company, such as a natural disaster or a surprise contract loss, a short delay may be permissible to establish the facts. But if, pending the full announcement, there is a risk of a leak of confidential information, a holding announcement should be made, including as much information as is known. Delay is permitted where public disclosure would prejudice a company’s ‘legitimate interests’. But there are conditions attached to this concession: the company must be sure that it can keep the information confidential and that leaks won’t give some people an unfair advantage over others. Anyone who receives the information in the meantime must be under a duty of confidentiality to the company, whether as an employee, adviser or by specific agreement. And even where confidentiality can be maintained, the lack of an announcement must not be likely to mislead the public. A company’s legitimate interests will most commonly relate to its financial viability – if it is in negotiations with its banks and fighting for survival, it may be able to hold off announcing that it is having such discussions. But it will still need to disclose the fact that it is in financial difficulty – the exemption only applies to the negotiations, not to the underlying problem. Market rumours Where rumours are false or press speculation is groundless, a company is under no obligation to issue denials. Untruths can’t amount to inside information. But where rumours or speculation are largely correct, the company needs quickly to decide whether it has inside information that should be released. Once news has leaked, delay can no longer be justified, and directors need to ensure that the market is trading on the basis of accurate information that is available to all. Lessons learned In reaching the decisions described in our Cases on disclosure of price-sensitive information, the FSA has drawn the conclusions below. In respect of new developments in its sphere of activity, a listed company must first consider objectively the importance of those developments to the business and then, with its advisers (including its corporate brokers), objectively assess whether they may lead to a substantial movement in the company’s share price. In respect of a change in the performance of the business, a listed company must first consider objectively whether there has been such a change and then, with its advisers, objectively assess the likely price sensitivity of the change. When looking at any change in its expectations of its performance, a listed company must first assess whether there has been a change in its subjective expectations (given the relevant facts) and then, with its advisers, objectively assess the likely price sensitivity of any change. In addition, to minimise their exposure to, and the risk of, personal liability, directors need to: make sure the company has a formal documented process to ensure compliance with its obligations under the DTR and the Listing Rules; regularly review compliance with those rules and rigorously monitor changes to the company’s financial condition, performance and its expectations of its performance; ensure the company and the board are aware of the consensus of market expectations regarding the company’s results and that they regularly ask whether the company’s own expectations are in line with that consensus; keep under review announcements already made and documents already published (such as audited accounts and previous trading statements) and consider whether any later developments may be material in the context of that information; ensure that executive directors elevate issues to the full board without delay; make sure that all members of the board, executive and non-executive, receive copies of the monthly management accounts and details of any major developments in the company’s sphere of activity; seek prompt advice from the company’s corporate brokers, financial and other advisers as to whether any information or matter is pricesensitive. Personal liability for directors The FSA’s main target in recent cases where there has been a failure to disclose inside information has been the company. But there is also a risk for directors if the FSA considers they were ‘knowingly concerned’ in the breach – the FSA can fine a director ‘such amount as it considers appropriate’. The Universal Salvage case in 2002 (see: Cases on disclosure of price-sensitive information) suggested that the ‘guilty’ director did not need to have any intention to mislead the market: knowledge of the facts and some involvement in the breach were enough to result in a fine for the chief executive. In the later case of Pace, however, the directors escaped penalties and censure – the FSA seems to have accepted the idea that to ‘be knowingly concerned’ a director must have some awareness that the company is breaking the rules. (Pace is also described in the cases.) The safest course will always be to make sure you know the rules and assume that absence of bad faith will not be enough to get you off the hook. In this context, Listing Principles 1 and 2 are very relevant: a listed company must take reasonable steps to enable its directors to understand their responsibilities and obligations as directors; a listed company must take reasonable steps to establish and maintain adequate procedures, systems and controls to enable it to comply with its obligations. If the FSA cannot pin a breach of a specific listing rule or DTR on a company or its directors, it has the ability to pursue them for a breach of these listing principles. It can be all too easy, after the event, for the regulator to allege that the breach arose because directors did not understand their responsibilities and obligations, and that adequate systems were not in place for compliance. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Is it just the chief executive who is at risk of a fine? The short answer is ‘no’. All directors of a listed company should accept full responsibility, collectively and individually, for the company’s compliance with the rules. Although the FSA decided in the Universal Salvage case that the CEO had a particular responsibility, all directors, executive and nonexecutive, are under a duty to ensure the company complies with its obligations and to bring any price-sensitive information to the attention of the full board as soon as possible. And, as all these cases show, the FSA will take a dim view of the board that does not seek prompt advice from the company’s brokers. The rest of the board should not simply point to the CEO and expect him or her to take the rap in eve
Bowleven share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:43 V: D:20161001 15:33:01