Barryroe Offshore Energy Share Discussion Threads

[messer2] 11/10/2023 11:50

Regarding the shareholder meeting on 24th, I'm very confused. The Proposals for a Scheme of Arrangement (6th October) clearly states in a footnote that the proposals do not require approval of shareholders. However, the other documentation on the Barryroe website invites members in the Notice of Meeting "to determine by resolution if the Scheme of Arrangement placed before the meeting should be approved pursuant to Section 540 of the Act".

So, what is the position? Approval or not???

[blustry123] 11/10/2023 11:10

The offer is zero...I will vote to liquidate I just want this over for the tax losses ...Lesson learned.I will never buy AIM shares again

[pwhite73] 11/10/2023 10:19

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.

[ps200306] 11/10/2023 09:36

pwhite -- there has to be a "legal pathway". San Leon, for instance, own(ed) a 4.5% net interest in Barryroe profits without owning any shares in the company. So it can be done. I was just curious as to how it would be effected.

Not that it matters. I don't believe Larry even intends to develop Barryroe, except maybe as a vague Plan B. 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's not enough to show Larry has the development money *now*. If Ryan's decision was valid then the license no longer exists, end of story. Larry is not dishing out multi-millions to buy a ticket in that lottery.

[steelwatch] 11/10/2023 09:11

Well, I guess we'll get the answer as and when this happens:

"Documentation giving effect to this element of the Proposals will be prepared and distributed by the Investor to those other shareholders within 30 working days of the Effective Date"

[pwhite73] 11/10/2023 07:49

ps200306/NAH- Pleased to see you've both seen the light. If the shares are cancelled not just from the London Stock Exchange but cancelled outright there is no legal pathway of handing 5% of net profits of Barryroe to previous existing shareholders as they are non-existent. This is not like a company that has gone into administration or liquidation where the shares still exist but are worthless. There are no shareholders in BEY other than those in the new entity.

[northatlanticholdings] 11/10/2023 07:03

What is on offer is not 5% of the new BEY company - that would have a value. What is on offer is 5% of a profit that they will never make as it’s restricted to the ‘Barryroe field’ not the new business. If we agree to ‘no consideration’ for shares held then that’s exactly what we will get in terms of value. Reject this and they need to table a current offer if the courts hear the rejection load and clear.

[murmurs] 11/10/2023 06:54

Energy independence is the way.

The negative reactions to climate change do not inspire, but instead conjure up guilt, punishment, deprivation, cost, ... It is an area where authoritarians thrive. Who do we blame, who can we control!

It may be the reason why FG and FF have taken an arm's length approach to it and given it to Ryan.

We don't need to be global winners in net zero - does not mean much. We do need to be in control of our future as much as possible.

Energy independence is positive and how we achieve it can be inspirational, understood, measured, costed, and lower the influence from malign outside forces.

During a transition period energy needs to become cleaner until it reaches acceptable cost and cleanliness levels.

As shareholders in BEY we could be partners in achieving independence and solving some of the country's problems along the way. It just requires good leadership that inspires. Ryan is not the one, Martin is like a sail (goes where the prevailing wind blows him). Varadkar has taken a role in Housing in addition to his other responsibilities so he may be to one, otherwise we wait for SF. I thought LG could inspire but now because of the selfishness of his plan his true motivations are exposed.

[ps200306] 11/10/2023 02:13

How would shareholders even get notified of their golden tickets in Larry's "Five Percent of Nothing Giveaway"? If shares are held in a broker's CREST account how are the golden tickets tracked after share cancellation? (Not that I think they'd be worth the electrons they're printed on).

[hermana3] 10/10/2023 22:20

Steel, Lazzer saved Barryroe from de auld knacker's yard for sure. He will make out like a bandit and hopefully gives us a few quid before the grim reaper comes a calling...

[steelwatch] 10/10/2023 20:21

Without Lazzer, there would be zilch, full stop. (Appendix 3).

[steelwatch] 10/10/2023 20:15

Cheers NAH. As at 28 Sept -

Full proposals to go before the High Court:



Seems clear enough to me. The outcome for all the "other shareholders" on record at the petition date, of course, depends on whether, or not, Barryroe comes to a profitable fruition within 10 years of the effective date. Cold comfort to those of us who will be pushing up daisies should the clock be beaten.

[northatlanticholdings] 10/10/2023 19:08

A few additional details on the homepage of the website i.e., voting process

[northatlanticholdings] 10/10/2023 18:28

There will be no further information on the 5% released this side of the creditors/shareholders meetings. The details of that will be circulated to shareholders after the meeting.

The scheme of arrangement does not require shareholder approval; according to the footnote on the website.

Shareholders can vote against in in person or by proxy and they can still progress it to the courts.

Only the courts can block it.

Amazing the lack of detail provided on the process. Pure contempt.

[pwhite73] 10/10/2023 16:43

The refused licence will not cause any delays. In fact it has probably speeded up the development of Barryroe as it has pushed BEY into administration, got rid of the useless directors and given the largest and richest shareholder a financial incentive to see the field developed ASAP.

[paulsavannah] 10/10/2023 15:02

And just ignore the fact the license was refused?

[jotoha2] 10/10/2023 13:28

The answer to this problem has been there for years , bring in a Global O&G company to develop the oil and gas field , it's still not to late , but are our BOD up to the task .

[hermana3] 10/10/2023 06:07

Yes it has come to this. Will need to see full detail of deal to see if Larry is sincere in cutting us into a future involvement.

[northatlanticholdings] 09/10/2023 19:33

Bar an intervention from the courts, or a meaningful intervention by all shareholders ‘no consideration’ per share means just that.

[ps200306] 09/10/2023 18:26

pwhite -- I'm not talking about transferring the losses to an existing business. "Barryroe Green Energy" would be a new business. I'm just saying that Larry might have the expertise or people available to make it hit the ground running without any initial loss-making years so he can start milking the tax write-offs early.

Re: oil vs. gas, a number of years back I calculated that 97.5% of the value in the Barryroe field was oil, not gas. Gas prices have risen since then, but not by so much that it would dramatically affect the calculation. In any case, the natural gas is "associated gas" -- it comes up with the oil. You can't exploit them separately, that's simply not an option. You could target the upper sands which are more gas rich, but there will still be associated liquids which, in the Barryroe case, need special handling and would be a big cost to incur when you are planning on leaving most of the liquids unexplored.

Years back PVR had the OPL/1 option on a panel adjacent to Barryroe owned by KEL. It was supposed to contain a large (0.5 Tcf?) gas deposit. But that option expired a long time back.

[hermana3] 09/10/2023 17:56

Larry probably has the instis in his pocket so should carry his proposals. Expect Pageant to be in cohoots too..

[pwhite73] 09/10/2023 16:02

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.

[ps200306] 09/10/2023 15:14

pwhite -- Larry already has interests in renewables in the UK and some sort of vegetable oil recycling thing (presumably for biodiesel). Maybe he reckons he can kickstart something similar under the Barryroe label without the usual upfront costs. Basically do what he's already doing but with a big tax write-off vehicle.

I can't believe he'd be taking a significant risk with his own money just to fight a dodgy court case over the Barryroe lease. But even if he did, and even if he won, it would be no guarantee of any return for existing shareholders. The idea was that the Barryroe field would eventually hit peak production of 100,000 bbl/day with a field lifetime of 10-15 years. With everything going as smoothly as possible there's there's no chance the field would be at peak production within 10 years from now. When you hold shares there's a chance they will be valued in anticipation of future revenue. Larry's deal of cancelling the shares in return for 5% of profits from operations precludes that.