Bowleven Share Discussion Threads

[tli8jaguar] 27/2/2017 11:29

We've got enough of stranded gas in Etinde already, don't need more from AEX as well.

[warbaby43] 27/2/2017 10:42

What Aminex holder would want a kiss of death like that, not me for sure.

The hype or, more accurately, the over hype, is related to expectations for the test results at their Ntorya-2 appraisal well with 51m gross and 25-30m net of pay.

Here, meanwhile, with guns on both sides falling silent - peace talks in progress?

[leblancleblanc] 27/2/2017 10:40

LeComm -Have CoC clarified their plans and what it would mean for share holders?LeB

[cyman] 27/2/2017 10:15

Anyone else noticed the meteoric rise in AMINEX this past week? Is it connected to us? Is this the escape route planned by kh?

[gark] 26/2/2017 10:26

Another lie from the directors then, time to go given they either don't disclose information to shareholders or try to confuse matters by not declaring their total compensation. Best to stop paying for this type of behaviour and rely on Lukoil and New Age to either buy us out or develop Etinde on our behalf.

[markettimer] 26/2/2017 09:00

The Directors of Bowleven state that their remuneration for the last 10 years is $33m but Crown Ocean stated that it is $44m.

Both the Directors and Crown Ocean are correct depending upon how you decide to calculate remuneration.

The Directors are correct if you exclude social security costs and share based payment costs but if you include social security costs and share based payment costs then Crown Ocean are correct.

See table below that has been extracted from the annual statutory accounts for each year :

Remuneration Social Share based
security costs Payments Total
$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

2016 2,023 376 723 3,122
2015 3,711 406 1,007 5,124
2014 2,867 310 966 4,143
2013 3,039 415 1,020 4,474
2012 3,848 569 815 5,232
2011 4,079 489 848 5,416
2010 4,696 484 940 6,120
2009 2,586 241 1,077 3,904
2008 3,495 350 3,845
2007 2,966 297 3,263

Total 33,310 3,936 7,396 44,642

For instance the Directors will have used the numbers disclosed on page 23 of the statutory accounts for the year ended March 2016 but there is further disclosure on page 42 which shows the social security costs and share based payment costs that are not included in the total remuneration costs disclosed on page 23.

It is now a requirement that accounts include a one line total remuneration total as in the past the remuneration reports in Company accounts would show salary and fees, pension benefits, and other benefits but would not include the costs to the company of executive share schemes and LTIPs these would be shown on other pages and share holders would have to search through the accounts to find them.

The changes to reporting Directors remuneration are to be commended as it brings transparency as it is possible on one page to see how much the Directors remuneration amounts to.

The numbers for 2008 and 2007 do not include share based payment costs as I could not find them in the accounts so the $44,642 is most probably to low.

The social security costs are not disclosed for 2008 and 2007 so I have assumed that they are 10% of the reported remuneration costs.

Surely shareholders want to know what the total cost is for Directors remuneration and that is $44,642,000.

mt

[gunsofmarscapone] 25/2/2017 21:53

Le Comm

Interesting post of yours earlier, I also have offloaded a significant tranche; in my case 60%, still have more than enough to grow profits at my net entry level but our board is serially mediocre hence the partial exit.

I still would never support CoC.

[ramayer] 24/2/2017 16:23

Thanks going to look into them all over the weekend.

[cyman] 24/2/2017 16:17

Thanks cyanWas wondering about the horrible yet perfect head and shoulders we are currently sitting on It has the hallmark of a colossal plummet

[le_commissaire] 24/2/2017 14:42

Ramayer

I am not so sure about my brains as early senility appeared years ago but these are my own votes as i posted the other day :


1. against

2. for

3. against

4. for

5. against

6. for

7. against

8. for

9. against

It would defy responsible business ethics to not allow one seat to CoC.

[cyan] 24/2/2017 13:42

After once listening to Zak Mir talking and making a loony recommendation based on charting; I have come to the conclusion they are marginally more valuable than reading tea leaves.

[cyman] 24/2/2017 13:37

Anyone here familiar with charts and charting?

[ramayer] 24/2/2017 12:12

I know others have made suggestions before but shouldn’t there be more cohesion and clarity with what is best for the share holders as a result of the votes.
It seems that some are treating it like a political vote and almost a protest vote against the current board whilst forgetting their own investment.

There is some great pervious posts and information on here and from reading it seems a mixture of COC and the current BOD would be best for everyone ensuring they get on the board without having complete control to do the dirty on us whilst having some influence on the future direction and possibly a better voice and ear to shareholders.

Surely one should forget spite, bitterness and the past and work out what the best Board would be and who it would consist of after the result?

It’s not and in or out vote or all or nothing vote.... heres hoping some of the brians on here can work out who should stay and go....

[ramayer] 24/2/2017 12:12

I know others have made suggestions before but shouldn’t there be more cohesion and clarity with what is best for the share holders as a result of the votes.
It seems that some are treating it like a political vote and almost a protest vote against the current board whilst forgetting their own investment.

There is some great pervious posts and information on here and from reading it seems a mixture of COC and the current BOD would be best for everyone ensuring they get on the board without having complete control to do the dirty on us whilst having some influence on the future direction and possibly a better voice and ear to shareholders.

Surely one should forget spite, bitterness and the past and work out what the best Board would be and who it would consist of after the result?

It’s not and in or out vote or all or nothing vote.... heres hoping some of the brians on here can work out who should stay and go....

[leedskier] 24/2/2017 10:33

Good to see that investor relations firms are making work for idle fingers.

[warbaby43] 24/2/2017 10:33

"There are some very disingenuous post going on these days, which misleads posters who have not done enough homework."

But surely not by posters who assert:

"They (KH & BA) took a pay cut, they cut G and A by 30%"

and

"The other important point to make is the KH and BA have taken pay cuts and reduced GA by 33%."

[nick rubens] 24/2/2017 08:54

Not long now before the board are potentially voted out, though I wonder if a takeover might come from somewhere, seeing how disappointed/let down shareholders really are here.

Come back Dragon?

[winnet] 24/2/2017 08:38

Angus

Read the RNS history. There have been proper announcements made. You are wrong to suggest the data is not there to make an informed decision.


From Moambe well test update: "To date, the Moambe well has achieved a maximum stabilised flow rate of 7.3 mmscfd through a 48/64 choke with a flowing well head pressure of 664 psig with no signs of depletion during the initial test period. As a result of this success, the well has now moved into the planned extended test period. This is intended to confirm sustainable deliverability to a proposed gas-to-power development scheme. Initial indications are that under such a development scenario the Moambe well would be capable of delivering around 4 to 5 mmscfd."

and then... following the extended test...

"The extended flow testing programme at Moambe and Zingana is now complete. The results to date continue to support plans for an initial supply of around 5 to 6 mmscfd of gas for power generation under a development scheme formulated with Actis and Eneo in Cameroon."

Do you know what a stabilised flow rate is?

Comparing Bomono to the Sapele announcement is totally irrelevant. Bomono has now been tested, whereas Sapele failed on testing. The are are totally different stages of development.

There are some very disingenuous post going on these days, which misleads posters who have not done enough homework.

Log - all this was in an RNS - so nothing to do with "marketing"?
Angus - No "touting these numbers across the boards" here. They are there in black and white for you. Real as Farages smile.

DYOR

[leedskier] 24/2/2017 08:30

Talking of buying, it continues here again unabated.

The question is who is supplying the liquidity?

[leedskier] 24/2/2017 08:27

Of course the shares held in Treasury are not voting chips, but the fewer shares available to buy means that all things being equal, which they seldom are, they could be more expensive to buy.

[belo horizonte] 24/2/2017 08:15

Nonsense. Shares that are bought back are either cancelled or go back to treasury. The company is not a voting shareholder.

[leedskier] 24/2/2017 08:02

Exactly ...

[symbo] 24/2/2017 07:55

Leed, no buyback coc put a stop to that because the company would have held more shares and it would be more difficult to overthrow it, I expect. The more of its own shares a company own can help it in passing resolutions etc, if it owns 100% it can do what it likes.

[leedskier] 24/2/2017 07:49

If British Airways thinks a share buy back returns cash to investors, why is it different here?


* IAG: British Airways owner IAG reported operating profit in line with expectations on Friday, and said it would increase cash returns to shareholders through a stock buyback.