Global Petroleum Share Discussion Threads

[emptyend] 25/7/2016 07:25

....or perhaps it was a complication that has met its purpose and is now getting in the way? I notice that the share scheme has also been dropped. It seems to me that the market for financing projects is on the cusp of some improvement, with a number of funds becoming more engaged in searching out projects that stack up at current price levels...... so if they don't get something done soon they could find they've missed their best opportunities to obtain maximum leverage and best terms.

[ohisay] 25/7/2016 07:10

1.Cut and paste rinse and return.
2.Post the end of the reporting period, the Board of the Company resolved with effect from 1 August 2016 to discontinue the reduction in the cash element of the compensation of the Board announced in July 2015, which has been in place for one year.
You couldn't make it up - so much for the importance of retaining cash.

[hugepants] 24/7/2016 23:08

we're due quarterly results this month.

[emptyend] 21/7/2016 09:16

Not really. They started, built and sold companies. They may have a different risk appetite now, but they haven't forgotten how to do deals. And, as importantly, continuing to do nothing indefinitely will cost them a serious amount of money, given their 40%+ stake. At some point, a deal has to be done that realises at least the cash value.

[hugepants] 20/7/2016 23:01

I think you should put the word "entrepreneurs" in inverted commas like I have done.

[emptyend] 13/7/2016 08:26

Time to make a move. Cashed-up companies have had a year or two to look at their options....and deals are now starting to emerge (not just in the E&P sector), especially with the political changes in the UK.Whether or not UK residence is part of the long-term plan of the key directors at GBP, the Brexit vote has some relevance in prompting a decision: either they are staying in the UK (in which case they may want to monetise the dollar balance sheet in Global, either via a deal or a wind-up) or they will move on and effectively inject Global into some other company.Either way, entrepreneurs like the guys here will not sit on their hands for long, IMO.

[rayrac] 12/7/2016 13:21

Yes, I'm looking!

Don't hold though....might be a mistake...mineԅ61;

[emptyend] 12/7/2016 11:12

If it were not for the fact that directors own over 40% of the shares, I might buy the idea that they are content to do nothing.But it makes no sense whatsoever, given that big stake. As for "games" I did point out several days ago that the sterling "quote" remained totally unchanged from pre-referendum despite the fall in sterling and the fact that their balance sheet and cash pile is all in USD......and the market price in Australia had already moved.In fact it is still much too low....

[joestalin] 12/7/2016 10:45

Up 28% this morning. I wonder what is up. MMs playing games?

[joestalin] 12/7/2016 09:33

They never will. They are too comfortable running the company account down.

[emptyend] 12/7/2016 09:29

.....if they can't get a good deal done in the current market, then they never will!

[emptyend] 06/7/2016 06:45

Small point.....buying in AUD overnight at 3.5 cents or so is the equivalent of just over 2p, thanks to weak sterling on FX markets. Since the balance sheet is held in USD, current indicative mid share price in sterling (1.5p) is now significantly too low.

[emptyend] 14/6/2016 08:25

...tiny bits of buying Downunder in last days or so.....most recently at 4 cents, which is over 2 pence

[ohisay] 25/5/2016 08:48

Related to Blakeys retirement from active participation in the O/G sector (following his TRP exit)??.
Is he going to step down at GBP because ....??

Dunno mate .
One lives in hope.
(I suppose he quite likes having his shareholding cash in dollars at GBP in the event of a Brexit.)

[emptyend] 25/5/2016 07:33

On the face of it, today's announcement is an inconsequential shuffling of shares. But it bears asking "why now?".

[ohisay] 23/5/2016 20:15

Well EE there are deals and then there other deals lets say transformative deals.

My gut feeling is at their respective ages (lets face it they don't have anything to prove now ) - they would rather get a small deal to keep the "lights on" like they had before in the US - ie to pay a high percentage of the outgoing cash costs and hope that some Angel thinks that their Namibian prospects are worth a crust or two.
As TLW are likely drillers East early next year they might take the view that they play the percentages as they surely did with the TRP drill.
Of course if the TRP drill had come up trumps we would be talking a whole different ball game here - the Peters TRP shares would be worth multiple times their current worth - they have after all been decimated - and maybe Hill would have been unleashed for a big GBP deal - they could surely have got even more financing on that basis,
Now I tend to think they will spin it out and treat GBP as a kind of pension fund.
The additional stock I bought last year at 1.8p thinking a deal likely before June this year I sold at 1.5p a few weeks ago and redeployed the capital elsewhere .

[emptyend] 23/5/2016 10:38

Regarding the above posts, the fact remains that the Peters have over 40% of the company. Salaries paid....and dilution from converting 25% of salaries into shares.... pale into insignificance beside that fact.

I wouldn't have touched the shares with a bargepole if they hadn't got big stakes - and therefore much more to lost by failing to get a deal done. And, as you rightly point out, the backstop is a wind-up.

Now, the salary conversion and addition resultant dilution has now been running for 9 months or so. It would be my view that they have incentivised the doing of a value-enhancing deal......and they will be as keen as we are to see that happen.

IMO if they can't get a deal done soon, they will wind up and return the cash. There is no point for the Peters in continuing to see their own cash bled away indefinitely, even if they are getting some of it back in fees.

[ohisay] 23/5/2016 10:16

While I have some sympathy for your views HP the salient fact is they need to conserve the cash bigtime to do any deals .
I'd actually like to see them taking 50% in shares while simultaneously cutting the overall remuneration bill by 25% - that could make an appreciable dent in cash outgoings.

Whatever you think about them (and don't get me started because I'm well underwater) cash is king if they are serious - the dilution is secondary.

Time is running out of course given the oil price recovery.I can't say I'm at all hopeful though.

[hugepants] 19/5/2016 21:20

emptyend,
They obviously rate this guy since they are bending over backwards to keep him happy. I'm not sure why though. What has the company achieved since he's been there.

The taking of shares instead of 25% of salary is imo a hair-brained scheme to suggest they are feeling the pain along with shareholders and are taking a salary cut. I know you disagree but as far as I'm concerned by issuing themselves shares at 1.6p they've awarded themselves a salary increase. Reason being if the company is wound-up tomorrow these shares are worth double the issue price. Using the company's shares as a currency when they trade at this level (half of cash) is complete madness. All shareholders should be livid about this. These awards are supposed to be discretionary and they've just made the case for winding the business up.
Given the company's non-performance I'm disappointed they do not just take a straight-forward salary cut, especially so given the entire industry has collapsed and companies are going bust left, right and centre. Chariot have cut fees by 50% for example.

[bam bam rubble] 17/5/2016 21:26

The gentlemen who own 40% probably approved the CEOs massive salary as they are also
creaming large fees here (in return for delivering corporate excellence as non-execs)

Fees to Messrs Blakey and Taylor, split 50/50
2008: $295,000
2009: $265,000
2010: $322,000
2011: $354,000
2012: $467,000
2013: $442,000
2014: $240,000
2015: $200,000

[emptyend] 17/5/2016 00:06

So what is your theory on why the two people who own 40%+ of the company not only condone but approve this? Do they want to see their own stakes disappear? Especially if they have all just taken more shares in lieu of 25% of comp.

[hugepants] 16/5/2016 20:46

Just looking at director renumeration the CEO, Peter Hill, is on a tremendous salary for such a tiny company that doesn't seem to do much of anything. He started employment on sept 2011 and is paid £250,000 per annum. To put that into perspective I work for a small tech company and that £250,000 would cover my company's entire wage bill. That's 6 engineers/technicians a secretary and an MD.

He was also given 6 million stock options exercisable at approx 20p. Err...not surprisingly it soon became obvious these were going to be worthless so the company decided to cancel them in 2014 and reissue them this time exercisable at AU$0.065 which is ahem.. 3.3p. That's quite a hurdle. It's actually below the current cash per share! Unbelievable but check the last annual report for the details, its downloadable from the website.

To be fair to the guy a quarter of a million pounds in annual salary isn't much of an incentive to get out of bed in the morning so you can understand the need for incentive stock options. That said he doesn't seem to have achieved much since he started. The NAV has collapsed and the cash burn continues unabated. At first glance it would seem the company has achieved the square root of zero under this guys leadership.

I also see from the annual report that they have decided to extend his notice period from 3 months to 12 months. Obviously it would be complete a disaster if he was allowed to leave on only 3 months notice.

You couldn't make this stuff up. What a load of cobblers.

[squibno1] 29/4/2016 10:07

Whats with the hike in administration costs this quarter?