ADVFN Logo ADVFN

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.

BEY Barryroe Offshore Energy Plc

0.575
0.00 (0.00%)
Last Updated: 01:00:00
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Barryroe Offshore Energy Plc LSE:BEY London Ordinary Share IE00B66B5T26 ORD EUR0.001 (CDI)
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 0.575 0.00 01:00:00
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
  -
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
- O 0 0.575 GBX

Barryroe Offshore Energy (BEY) Latest News

Barryroe Offshore Energy (BEY) Discussions and Chat

Barryroe Offshore Energy Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
28/6/202408:36Barryroe Offshore Energy2,388
26/6/202307:56BEY17

Add a New Thread

Barryroe Offshore Energy (BEY) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type

Barryroe Offshore Energy (BEY) Top Chat Posts

Top Posts
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 11/10/2023 18:06 by northatlanticholdings
Please save yourself some time from debating the merits of the 'scheme of arrangement' for existing shareholders, of which I am one.

The scheme holds no current or future value for shareholders in BEY.

If approved, the scheme will result in cancelation of all shares, the rights which attach to them and for 'no consideration' or 'zero' in terms of current monetary value.

There is no offer of any % shareholding in the re-constituted Baryroe Offshore Energy which will be owened outright by Vevan via the investment from its parent. That company will remain in Ireland, unlisted and a business plan will pivot the company (and the tax losses) towards absolutely nothing to do with the Barryroe Field as we no it.

The only way to see any value from your shareholdering is to attain it now, not in the future, or through a notional promise. The 5% is pure non-sense that is put into the T&Cs to distract some shareholders attention away from the actual takeover thats happening, for which they received nothing by way of a % shareholding or compenstion.

Lets hope that either the pension funds or Nick Furlong lodge a legal objection.
Posted at 09/10/2023 11:40 by messer2
If, optimistically, Barryroe really has 300 mln bbls of (easily) recoverable oil and these are valued at a discounted price of, say, US$5 per bbl then the Barryroe's 80% share of the field's net present value post a 50% farmout would be US$0.60 bn (300*0.8*5*0.5). Based on 1.145 bn issued shares, the NPV per share would be 52 cent and 5% of this would be 2.6 cent assuming Larry plays fair and there are no delays in getting into significant production. More conservatively, the 5% offer might be worth only about 1 cent, or nothing at all.

If the pre-examinership situation had pervailed with initial fundung from Larry and with a subsequent 50% farmout, the share value after 4x dilution might have been, say, 13 cent (52/4) for all shareholders including Larry. That's about four times the average share price (~3c) during 2022 and about 26 times the final pre-suspension share price (~0.5c).

Finally, if the examiner's proposal goes through and the field is developed then it could be worth up to €540 mln after same 50% farmout (300*0.8*5*0.5*0.95/1.06) to Larry.

So, we could be looking at 47c NPV per share (at best) for Larry as compared with (maybe) 2.6c for other shareholders or at 13c to all shareholders if the development licence had been granted and examinership avoided.
Posted at 08/10/2023 19:58 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 07/10/2023 09:51 by swizz
Yes, that’s the correct term, as in “other shareholders”, and excuse my glass is half full approach, although it is part of a broader series of reference points, sub headed by the title of “existing shareholders” so the prudent approach would be to wait until the documents are received in full, ..GL S

I would also add, I think the actual term “other” is being used in the context of “other” than Vevan and it does indeed apply to ordinary and existing shareholders on the share register, as of July 21st.

As below,..

Existing Shareholders and Cancellation from AIM and Euronext Growth Markets

When the Court confirms the Proposals (with or without modification), the Scheme shall be binding on the shareholders and creditors of the Company.

Where the Court confirms the Proposals, the interest of the shareholders in the total issued share capital of the Company will be eliminated. The shareholders shall receive no distribution on account of their shares under the Scheme or under these Proposals. On the Effective Date, the existing shares and all and any rights attaching or relating thereto will be cancelled.

Any rights and / or entitlements of the shareholders as members of the Company pursuant to the articles of association of the Company or any other document, or otherwise, shall cease as of the Effective Date.

Upon cancellation of all the existing issued share capital the Company will immediately seek cancellation of its listings on AIM and Euronext Growth.

The Proposals provide that the Investor will allocate to the other shareholders (as at 21st July), other than Vevan Unlimited Company, 5% of any after-tax net profits realised by the Company from the Barryroe field, either through its sale or operation at any time in the 10 year period after the Effective Date. Those other shareholders shall not be required to commit additional funds to participate. 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.
Posted at 18/6/2023 00:09 by ps200306
It costs zero to *file* a judicial review, but nobody with sense is going to do it without expensive legal advice. A judicial review can't rule that Ryan made the wrong decision, or reverse the decision he made. It can only decide if proper procedures were followed and issue an order of certiorari if not, which means Ryan has to go back and make the decision again. Regardless of legal costs, BEY faces an immediate funding crisis. It has less than a fortnight of working capital left, and a week after that trading in its shares will cease. (They have all but ceased already as volumes are tiny and you can couldn't *give* the shares away at present).

Any of the existing large shareholders who decide to fund the company must know they will have to shoulder legal and operating costs for a considerable period as at best the decision will go back to notorious heel dragger Ryan. There's no prospect whatever of a public equity raise. The share price is way below where Goodman was going to get a large majority of the company for €40m. I can't see why any ongoing funders wouldn't expect even better terms for themselves now. And that's the *best* case. If BEY has to declare itself not to be a going concern then Ryan is vindicated, the Barryroe license doesn't even exist as an asset to be sold off, and everyone goes away empty handed. No matter how you look at it, there is no way PIs come out of this with anything.
Posted at 16/6/2023 20:23 by northatlanticholdings
In the case of Barryroe Offshore Energy (BEY) Vs Minister Eamon Ryan

The 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 22/5/2023 08:56 by rogen83
People selling today are gonna look bloody silly in the medium term. BEY has no debt, and the costs of legal route is peanuts compared to the hundreds of millions sunk in to field in the last decade.

People moaned about the terms of the Vevan financing, well that's no longer an issue, and as a shareholder your entitlement to the proceeds from a legal resolution are potentially many multiples of not only today's share price but the share price of 3-4 months ago
Posted at 07/4/2023 10:06 by northatlanticholdings
Here is a summary of the resolutions to be voted through at EGM

CLN - 40M Loan - €0M raised
EUR 40,000,000 Loan - at price x 0.015c x 1 share = 2,666,666,667 shares
EUR 60,000,000 in Warrants - at a price x 0.015c x 1.5 share = 4,000,000,000 options (10 Year)
EUR 40M Loan is convertible into shares at a strike price of 0.015c or lower
EUR 60M Warrants are convertible into shares at a strike price of 0.015c or lower
EUR 10% annual cost of loan - convertible into shares at a strike price of 0.015c or lower
Vote: 83% of the total shares and options to be authorised via EGM resolutions

PLACING - Capital Raise - €4.8M raised at EGM (if subscribed)
EUR 4,800,000 at EGM - at price x 0.015c x 1 share = 320,000,000 shares
EUR 7,200,000 in Warrants - at a price x 0.015c x 1.5 share = 480,000,000 options (10 Year)
EUR 12,000,000 in shares and options total
Vote: 10% of the total shares and options to be authorised via EGM resolutions

OPEN OFFER - Capital Raise - €3.2M raised at EGM (if subscribed)
EUR 3,200,000 at EGM - at price x 0.015c x 1 share = 213,333,333 shares
EUR 4,800,000 Warrants - at a price x 0.015c x 1.5 share = 320,000,000 options (10 Year)
EUR 8,000,000 in shares and options total
Vote: 7% of the total shares and options to be authorised via EGM resolutions

Vote: Resolution - Authorise New Shares - 3,200,000,000
Vote: Resolution - Authorise New Warrants (options) - 4,800,000,000
Posted at 01/4/2023 01:24 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.
Barryroe Offshore Energy share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock