We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barryroe Offshore Energy Plc | BEY | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.575 | 00:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.575 | 0.575 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 05/9/2024 09:41 by paulsavannah Barryroe Offshore Energy BEY it is known as now and is now focused on Green energy and privately owned as in no longer listed on any stock exchange. |
Posted at 15/12/2023 19:27 by swizz Interesting to note that Lorsden (Jersey) Ltd and Vevan have published the new memorandum and articles of association for BEY, it certainly does not read like an organisation that is intent on just pursuing some form of creative accounting for tax purposes,..GL S |
Posted at 11/11/2023 14:15 by g1lo Thank you Paul, much appreciated. We ll wait and see but seems a bit farfetched and irrealistic to believe LG will want to share the hypothetical 5% profit. I do not think for one second that he cares about the current shareholders in any way and why should he. It was the only way that the few creditors would be paid, to giveaway the company for nothing but that is how it works, shareholders are always at the back of the queue it s part of the risk. LG can find a way to make/declare "no profit" if he has to. Went 50/50 between BEY and LOGP , hope they win their legal claim and claw back some lost money here. |
Posted at 11/11/2023 09:24 by g1lo Anyone knows how will we ever be contacted if we ever get a share of the 5% profit promised to "current" shareholders now all shares are cancelled and so our records with BEY? |
Posted at 27/10/2023 12:27 by swizz With the future of SEL 1/11 all but now in the hands of Vevan and one of Ireland’s wealthiest individuals in LG, it should certainly be interesting to read the content of the development plans due late November, hopefully there will be some reward for the long suffering BEY shareholders, plus it’s now an interesting dynamic for Lansdowne to get their heads around,..GL S |
Posted at 11/10/2023 10:19 by pwhite73 ps200306 - "It involves getting a judge to agree that Ryan shouldn't have had the discretion to apply his own department's guidelines, a tall order."It is not a tall order at all. The department's guidelines are not law. The ECT is law. The DECC would have to demonstrate it has applied the 3.5 times funding criteria as standard right across the board on all companies that have applied for or requested the extension of a licence and not simply implemented this never before used policy because the DECC minister is a member of the Green Party. Getting the decision overturned by the Irish courts is the easiest part. As part of the SOA there is no intention to develop Barryroe and the company clearly states this below:- 5.17 As the licence in respect of the Barryroe field is held by Exola, no provision (other than in the group consolidated accounts) is made in respect of that. 5.18 The Company has no interest in continuing any exploration pursuant to the licences directly held by it. If the company has no intention of developing Barryroe then what was the point in settling with the creditors it wasn't LG that owed the money it was BEY. LG was only a 20% shareholder BEY should have been left to go into liquidation. The problem is LG could not have allowed that because another company would have stepped in with the funds and fought the DECC in court. The secured and unsecured creditors were owed less than £400,000 peanuts in the scheme of things involving an oilfield with potential of 300 million barrels. |
Posted at 09/10/2023 16:02 by pwhite73 ps200306 - "Basically do what he's already doing but with a big tax write-off vehicle"I repeat you band the term 'tax write off' about but have no understanding how this works. You cannot buy or invest in a company to the value of £6 million as LG has in exchange for £270 million of tax write offs. The Irish government or any government would not forgo £270 million of corporation tax for an unconnected business. If you could transfer tax losses to any current business no company would ever go into liquidation. Other companies would simply pick them up for a nominal value of £1.00 and use the tax losses. If BEY does go green I strongly suspect its to announce it will only extract gas at Barryroe and not oil. BEY stating its going green is the olive branch the DECC requires to reinstate the license without the expense and embarrassment of litigation whilst saving face. Vote no to the proposals. The value of oil and therefore the worth of the Barryroe oilfield will only increase in value over the coming years. |
Posted at 08/10/2023 18:58 by swizz Agreed PS, but you can understand the frustration from a number of Barryroe’s ordinary shareholders, which I am one, but I do wonder how many that post on here actually are?,My main holding in the project has always been via Lansdowne and considering the position the BEY board and major shareholders found themselves in, I do believe the most tangible way of seeing the Barryroe project develop, is with the backing of LG’s financial muscle and that in turn, I believe will be the best outcome for Lansdowne, so my BEY votes will be heading LG and Vevan’s way, ..GL S |
Posted at 16/6/2023 19:23 by northatlanticholdings In the case of Barryroe Offshore Energy (BEY) Vs Minister Eamon RyanThe Minister made a decision not to grant the renewal of the company's lease undertaking (grant of permission), to progress to exploratory drilling of the license (referred to as Standard Exploration License SEL 1/11), on the basis of a new and non-legally binding set of criterion; that it had insufficient investment cover in place, of 3.5x the total cost of the fields exploration development costs. This new, non legally binding criteria, was introduced into the assessment process, after the company had formally submitted it's application to the Department to renew it's lease undertaking – for a grant of permission to expedite an exploratory drill of SEL 1/11. It is my firm belief, that the Minister's decision was premature, premeditated, unfair and intentionally biased, in favour of his own party political policy. It is fact that the company had, prior to the refusal of the lease, initiated an 'Open Offer and had agreed the terms of a 'Convertible Loan Note arrangement’ with its major shareholders, which in combination, would have satisfactorily met the terms of the new non-legally binding and subjective 'investment cover' criterion, introduced mid-way through the process by the Minister. The subjective assessment criteria were introduced by the Minister, midway through the assessment process of it's application to renew the lease and to progress exploratory drilling within the licensed acreages of SEL 1/11. It is my belief, that the Ministers actions to introduce new subjective criterion as part of the assessment process, was prejudicial to the assessment process, to the outcome of that process and to the Minister's 'bad faith' decision to refuse Barryroe Offshore Energy, permission to progress the SEL 1/11 license to commerciality. The Minister pre-emptively took a decision to reject the application made by BEY, based on his individual subjective assessment of the applicants 'investment cover' in place, as the non legally binding criterion, introduced by the Minister into the process, after BEY's application had been submitted. As a result, of this action by the Minister, the company could no longer progress the approval of the 'CLN and Open Offer' terms agreed by shareholders, which were scheduled to be considered at EGM, in line with the publicly announced timeline. The decision taken by the Minister, while an EGM was pending, was prejudicial and detrimental to the company’s ability to raise the funds necessary to meet the ‘investment cover’ criterion, which had been introduced into the process. The decision to refuse the lease has no basis within Irish law and is based on the Ministers own guidelines and subjective assessment criterion. I contend that the company had the capacity to raise the investment cover' needed to satisfy the Departments Guidance (the non-legally binding guidance); given that, it had at time of refusal, agreed and underwritten with the Major shareholders of the company, legally binding terms for the CLN. These had been exchanged and agreed between the parties. The cut off date for participation in the ‘Open Offer,’ had already been reached and entitlements to participate in the ‘Open Offer’ and EGM vote, had already been announced to existing shareholders. The guidance on which the Ministers subjective assessment to refuse permission, was taken, I contend, was introduced to the assessment process intentionally to undermine the company’s standing and to disrupt the standing of its application in process. I contend that this was intentionally in order to both frustrate the process, to introduce new subjectivity and Ministerial discretion into the assessment process and to frustrate the company’s timeline in place, of moving to commerciality and first oil, in accordance with the company’s published forward facing published plans and Strategy. The company’s rights over SEL 1/11, are protected in law. The legislative position states that ‘existing licensees’ are protected by law. The new assessment criteria introduced into the process, provided for subjectivity in the Ministers assessment of the licensees application. I contend that the new non-legally binding guidelines on which the Ministers decision was taken: 1. Contravened standard and accepted practice within the industry. 2. Contravened the legislative framework in place to protect existing licensees – given that licensees have made significant investments to date in, the exploration for oil and gas in acreages approved by the Government , as licensees, over the course of three decades 3. Contravened prior practice by the Department itself. 4. Changed the terms of the assessment process and criterion – and was prejudicial to and supportive of, the Ministers subjective assessment of the license, which was biased by, party political policy. The guidelines provided subjectivity to the decision making process itself The guidelines provided subsequently, a subjective process through which the Minister could refuse the rights of the licensee, to the acreages already held. The subjective decision then taken by the Minister, on the basis of his new own guidelines, was prejudicial to the company's ability to retain its lease undertaking acreages and to attain approval to move forward with the commercial development of the oil and gas field. There is evidence to support the case that the Minister, was ideologically driven and in breach of his fiduciary duties, as the appointed Government representative within the Department, with the duty to take fair and equitable decisions in respect of the SEL 1/11, to protect the rights of the licensee in respect of the acreages held. I content that the Minister set out to frustrate the due process through which the company's application should have been assessed 1. The Ministers introduction of New Assessment Guidelines - the new assessment guidelines and framework introduced by the Department/Minister post submission of the application for the lease undertaking. These guidelines are non-legally binding and state that subjective assessment is a key criteria within. The guidelines don't support the legal withdrawal of the rights of the licensee. The terms introduced, the investment cover of 3.5x, is contrary to prior practice, conventional practice and industry practice within the oil and gas sector across Europe. 2. The Ministers Intentional Frustration of the Project Timeline – the time taken to take a decision on the application, to assess the application in a reasonable timeframe, and the lack of due process afforded to the assessment - this was prejudicial to the applicant’s ability to retain the licensed average held, the rights of the lessee, which elapsed mid-way through the process. 2. The Ministers Additional Information Requests- The Ministers additional request that funding be in place, for the entire work programme, prior to the authorisation of the license. This was intentionally prejudicial to any reasonable timeframe that can be expected by a licensee . The company was given a 3 week window to evidence that it had the funding in place to progress the work programme planned. This contravened practice within the industry, prior Government Department and represented a material 'change of approach' through which the Minister operated in 'bad faith' and with bias to, his own ideological and political position. This change of approach was prejudicial to the decision then made, not to renew the applicants’ licensed acreages. 3. The Ministers decision to reject the application and its timing- this came mid-way through the company's authorisation (via EGM) of the agreed terms of the Convertible Loan Note (CLN) and Open Offer. In effect, this acted to frustrate the process through which the 'investment cover' could be raised. As a result of the Minister's decision, the company had to cancel the capital raise. 4. The Ministers Threat to the Commercial Viability of the Company – the previous policy approach of the current Government had encouraged an investment of 280m+ in Irish offshore oil and gas development by BEY to date, before the license was withdrawn. The decision has materially blocked the company's ability to progress to drilling, to progress to commercial field development and to achieve any form of a Return on its Investment. The actions of the Minister have been prejudicial to the company’s ability to seek to recover the investment(s) made to date in the project. The Ministers decision has been prejudicial to the ability of the company to operate as a going concern and has threatened it's viability. I also contend that the Minister acted with bias, in favour of his own party political policy, rather than with regard to the legislation in place, to protect existing licensees offshore Ireland. 5. The decision making process and timeline - contravened any form of equitable process and was both expedited or extended at different stages of the decision making process, in order to frustrate the applicant, intentionally at, different stages of the assessment process. The Minister acted inequitably and in bad faith, and with prejudice to the company’s ability to progress the application, to retain the lease over the acreages and to progress with its plans to develop the commerciality of the field. |
Posted at 01/4/2023 00:24 by northatlanticholdings Just finished work and reading the RNS. Joeb has been busy this week. 2 RNS. For those of us outside the frame we salute you Joeb you legend. Keep em coming. The RNS just creates an even more elaborate convuluted mix of probabilities with no real net change. The only thing interesting is the possibility that a mix of LG, Pageant, Kite Lake and pensions may want to inject more cash into BEY in return for more equity, as part of an 80% share on an 80% share of Exola DAC. That's great. Work away. BEY had signed away 50% of 80% already to a company with no cash, Now if LG wanted to takeover BEY he wouldn't dilute his signed agreement to let Pageant average down (nicks majorly under water) only to later then buy him out down the line at a premium. Even if the other majors could block his agreement. Thats obviously not the game plan. So it's fair to say LG doesn't want to takeover BEY or to table a conditional offer. If he did, his agreement wouldn't have purposefully fallen below the 30% threshold at 28.5% post EGM. Now LG will be on an even lower % after today's RNS. If they were planning to join forces on a takeover via this deal, there would be no waiver of takeover rules. And none of these guys are sinking 40m into BEY until the Dept moves. What's BEY worth then. And the mandatory offer, that has to be at a minimum of the highest price paid in stock in the preceding 12 months. So be cool. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
