[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Petrel Resources Plc LSE:PET London Ordinary Share IE0001340177 ORD EUR0.0125 (CDI)
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.075 -4.35% 1.65 1.60 1.70 1.725 1.625 1.73 548,679 10:31:24
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.0 -0.4 -0.3 - 3

Petrel Resources Share Discussion Threads

Showing 34751 to 34768 of 35450 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  1394  1393  1392  1391  1390  1389  1388  1387  1386  1385  1384  1383  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
05/7/2021
18:24
If we look at David's answers he may have put a few heads ups in his answers albeit cryptically.As always interesting to see what unfolds.
bronislav
05/7/2021
18:20
Best at losing money LOL.
ducky fuzz
05/7/2021
18:18
Good luck Ducky - you were one of the best here.
bountyfull
05/7/2021
18:14
Hi kd .. but I've sold so now good things will happen. DF
ducky fuzz
05/7/2021
18:13
That's unusually positive for you DF! ;)
kdickson
05/7/2021
18:07
It may be that the BOD have some positive news in the pipeline, hence the delay in replying to F31's latest email. DF
ducky fuzz
05/7/2021
18:03
The fact I have sold is LTH's best chance. I usually / always get it wrong. DF
ducky fuzz
05/7/2021
17:56
Sorry to see you leave Ducky. I think we all must on sitting on losses. Not that the Board cares!
bountyfull
05/7/2021
17:53
Hi F31 .. thanks for all your work .. I sold my PETrel shares a month or so back at a loss so don't really feel I should comment. But I think your contacting the BOD is a good idea. I hope this gets resolved. Don't really have anything helpful to add. Or any suggestions. DF
ducky fuzz
05/7/2021
17:48
It's now Close of Business this Monday, and no reaction from David or anybody else. Our MD seems to have misinformed us in response to a formal letter, co-signed by 23% of all total shares. He told us that the CP never explained things. Even more worryingly, he told us that passage of RNGG title depended on funding, which seems to be totally incorrect. Who is upset by that? When we asked for clarification on the above - our request was ignored. Who is upset by that?
f31
05/7/2021
17:28
DEAR FRANS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTIONS, WHICH I ANSWER DIRECTLY. BUT FIRST, THESE ARE THE FACTS: 5.25 MILLION PETREL SHARES BELONGING TO ROGER TAMRAZ, MICHEL FAYAD AND A NOW DECEASED COLLEAGUE, WERE BEING SOLD WHILE PUNTERS WERE BUYING IN LATE 2019 / EARLY 2020. THE PLEDGING AND SALE OF THESE SHARES WAS IN BREACH OF A STAND-STILL CONTRACT, STOCK MARKET RULES AND COMPANY LAW (SINCE MICHEL FAYAD WAS THEN A DIRECTOR, AND ROGER TAMRAZ WAS A SHADOW DIRECTOR), AND APPARENTLY ALSO A BREACH OF INSIDER DEALING RULES. THE TAMRAZ GROUP HAS NEVER PRODUCED A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OF HOW THIS HAPPENED. THEY APPARENTLY CANNOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE EXPLAINING HOW THESE SHARES WERE SOLD, WHO AUTHORISED THE SALE, HOW MUCH PROFIT THEY MADE, AND WHERE THE MONEY WENT. THE ONLY REASON WHY MORE SHARES WERE NOT SOLD IS THAT PETREL RESOURCES PLC APPLIED FOR AND WAS AWARDED AN INJUNCTION TO HALT THE UNLAWFUL SALES. THE TAMRAZ GROUP HAS FAILED TO PROVE WHO OWNS THE >20% OF PETREL RESOURCES PLC SHARES THAT REMAIN INJUNCTED BY THE HIGH COURT. HOW, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, DO YOU PROPOSE THAT PETREL DOES CORPORATE DEALS WITH PARTIES THAT ARE IN BREACH OF STOCK EXCHANGE RULES, AND INSIDER DEALING LAWS, AS WELL AS THE COMPANIES ACTS? DAVID Dear John, David, Jim, Please regard this letter as a formal approach to the Board. The letter represents: 59 shareholders with a combined total of 28,946,351 shares, i.e. 23.2% of shares in circulation when taking shares under injunction out of the equation. Details are available upon request. We are writing to you before the upcoming AGM with the below set of questions, because Petrel has failed to create lasting shareholder value in the twenty-five years under your stewardship. Additionally, one and half years of negotiations with Tamraz Group have failed to produce a resolution. BY “LASTING SHAREHOLDER VALUE”, YOU MEAN THE CURRENT SHARE PRICE? AS A LONG-STANDING INVESTOR IN EXPLORATION SHARES, YOU KNOW THAT NATURAL RESOURCES ARE HIGHLY CYCLICAL. SINCE EXPLORATION BUDGETS WERE SLASHED AFTER 2014, FARM-INS BY MAJORS HAVE BEEN RARE, AND EXPLORERS ARE FRIENDLESS IN RECENT YEARS. SUCH DEPRESSIONS OCCURRED MANY TIMES PREVIOUSLY (E.G. 1990 – 1994 AND 1997 – 2003), AND WILL AGAIN. MANY INVESTORS PROFITED GREATLY FROM PETREL RESOURCES PLC (AND OTHER 162 GROUP COMPANIES), AND WILL AGAIN. THE OBJECTIVE IS TO BUILD AN OIL & GAS PRODUCER. THE PROBLEM OVER MANY YEARS WAS IN SECURING ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR RISKY LOCATIONS. THE 2019 STRATEGY WITH THE TAMRAZ GROUP SEEMED OFFER A SOLUTION TO THE CAPITAL ISSUE. AT FIRST THINGS WENT SMOOTHLY, BUT THEN THE TAMRAZ GROUP BREACHED THEIR LOCK-IN AGREEMENT, LEADING TO THE UNLAWFUL SALE OF 5.25 MILLION SHARES. AS OF JUNE 2021, THE TAMRAZ GROUP HAS STILL NOT RESOLVED THIS ISSUE. PROMISES OF CREDIBLE DEALS IN LIBYA AND IRAQ WERE NOT DELIVERED ON. PROPOSALS FOR MOZAMBIQUE, MAURETANIA, ETC. DID NOT STAND UP TO BASIC ANALYSIS, MUCH LESS DUE DILIGENCE. A RUSSIAN GAS EXPLORATION PROPOSAL MADE MORE INDUSTRY SENSE, BUT PASSAGE OF TITLE SEEMS CONDITIONAL ON FUNDING, WHICH THE TAMRAZ GROUP HAS, SO FAR, BEEN UNABLE TO DELIVER. SHOULD THIS CHANGE, THIS PROJECT WOULD BE OF INTEREST (SUBJECT TO DUE DILIGENCE AND REGULATORY APPROVALS) TO PETREL. REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TAMRAZ GROUP, THE ONLY REASON WHY THESE HAVE, SO FAR, “FAILED TO PRODUCE A RESOLUTION” IS BECAUSE THE COUNTER-PARTY HAS SO FAR FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY WORTHWHILE PROJECT WITH ESTABLISHED LEGAL TITLE OR FINANCE. NO LISTED COMPANY CAN SURRENDER CONTROL ON FOOT OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED PROMISE, NOR WOULD THE NOMAD OR STOCK EXCHANGE PERMIT THIS. DIRECTORS CANNOT, I REPEAT CANNOT AGREE SUCH A DEAL OR RECOMMEND IT TO SHAREHOLDERS. REMEMBER THAT THE TAMRAZ GROUP PLEDGED CIRCA 37.25 MILLION SHARES TO A LENDER (EYCP) IN BREACH OF A STAND-STILL AGREEMENT. 5.25 MILLION OF THESE SHARES WERE SOLD BEFORE PETREL RESOURCES PLC OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION TO HALT THESE UNLAWFUL SALES. SINCE THEN, WE HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED THE TAMRAZ GROUP TO RESOLVE THE EYCP SITUATION, WHICH (THEY SAY) CAN BE DONE WITH C. $250K. THE REMAINING 32 MILLION SHARES ARE WORTH AT LEAST $1.1 MILLION (£800K), YET THE TAMRAZ GROUP SEEM UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO RELEASE THEM AT A COST OF ONLY $250K? HOW DOES THIS STRENGTHEN CONFIDENCE IN THEIR FINANCING CLOUT? John was very clear at last year’s AGM: “if within twelve months we had not made progress, we would be going backwards”. It certainly feels that this is happening. EXPLORERS DO WELL IN BULLISH TIMES AND STRUGGLE IN DOWNTURNS. WE MAINLY RELY ON FARM-OUTS TO MAJORS, WITH SPECULATIVE FUNDING COMING FROM A LIMITED NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS AND PRIVATE INVESTORS. THESE SOURCES LARGELY DRIED-UP WITH THE 2014 OIL PRICE WAR. POLITICIANS AND NGOS DEMAND THAT “FOSSIL FUELS REMAIN IN THE GROUND”. C-19 CUT OIL DEMAND BY 10% IN 2020 – THE PREVIOUS WORST FALL WAS BY 2.9 MILLION BARRELS DAILY IN THE 4TH QUARTER OF 2009. THIS IS A COLD MARKET FOR OIL & GAS EXPLORERS. HOWEVER, THE BUSINESS CYCLE HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED: THE OIL PRICE HAS NOW RECOVERED TO $75, AND OIL DEMAND IS NOW ONLY C.3% BELOW THE PRE-C-19 LEVEL. EXPLORATION BUDGETS HAVE NOT YET RECOVERED, AND FOSSIL FUELS ARE UNPOPULAR, BUT THIS WILL CHANGE WITH THE BUSINESS CYCLE. CRITICS HAVE BEEN PREDICTING ‘THE END OF OIL’ SINCE THE 1850S. At last year’s AGM, shareholders felt encouraged because of the Board’s comments concerning the possibilities of getting a contract in Iraq on our own accord, and David’s “odds on – sooner than you think” appraisal on that possibility. However, John made it very clear in this year’s Chairman’s statement that Iraq has not moved forward, and that the Ghana saga shows no sign of being finalised. AN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN MADE, AS PROMISED, TO THE IRAQI MINISTRY OF OIL. FOR BEST RESULTS, WE NEED ATTRACTIVE FISCAL TERMS TO FUND AND ATTRACT PARTNERS. PETREL IS RE-BUILDING ITS IRAQI TEAM, AND IS READY TO START WORK AS SOON AS CONTRACTS ARE APPROVED. Also last year there was still a sense of hope that over the next twelve months, Petrel would ultimately reach an agreement with Tamraz, given the totally unsatisfactory current situation in relation to every aspect of the TG shareholding. Now we learn that you want to ‘move on’. We appreciate that the first tranche of shares was paid for, but the resulting massive dilution has still not bought any real benefit. Unfortunately, no progress whatsoever has been made on any of the above and there is no indication that we will see any improvement in the near future. Your immediate plans to persevere with Iraq is questionable without the full support of Tamraz Group. Indeed, it is puzzling that you now want to open immediate conversations with other groups, when Tamraz Group is on your doorstep trying to do a deal with you. WE WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO PROCEED WITH THE TAMRAZ GROUP, SUBJECT TO LAW, IF THEY DELIVER SOMETHING REAL. SO FAR, THERE HAS BEEN NO CREDIBLE, “BANKABLE̶1; DEAL ON OFFER FROM THE TAMRAZ GROUP. THERE HAVE BEEN EXCUSES, AND PROMISES, BUT NOTHING CONCRETE SO FAR. THIS COULD CHANGE, AND WE HOPE IT DOES. THE PETREL BOARD WILL NOT OBSTRUCT THE DELIVERY OF SHAREHOLDER VALUE. WE HAVE, HOWEVER, ALSO HAD APPROACHES FROM OTHER, WELL-FINANCED GROUPS WHOM WE HAVE KNOWN FOR YEARS. THESE MAY OR MAY NOT LEAD TO A REPORTABLE OFFER. BUT FINANCE, AT LEAST, DOES NOT SEEM TO BE AN OBSTACLE FOR THOSE OTHER GROUPS EXPRESSING INTEREST. TALK IS CHEAP, BUT THE TEST IS DO THEY PRODUCE CASH AND VALUABLE PROJECTS. WE ENCOURAGE SUCH INITIATIVES, BUT THE 32 MILLION SHARES STUCK IN LIMBO ARE OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE FOR NEW SHAREHOLDERS. WE CONTINUE TO URGE THE TAMRAZ GROUP TO RESOLVE THEIR DISPUTE WITH EYCP TO RELEASE THESE SHARES. Considering Petrel’s long unsuccessful history, of some twenty-five years, shareholders now have strong doubts on the chances of any future success on Petrel’s own accord. With time running out both for Petrel as well as for oil dominance itself, we increasingly feel that some form of agreement now has to be reached with Tamraz Group. DO YOU PROPOSE GIVING NEW SHARES FOR NO VALUE? HOW WOULD THAT BE IN THE INTERESTS OF SHAREHOLDERS? WHAT BOARD WOULD AGREE, OR NOMINATED ADVISER WOULD ENDORSE SUCH A DEAL? FOR ANOTHER BULL RUN IN OIL & GAS EXPLORATION SHARES, THE SECTOR WILL HAVE TO COME BACK INTO FAVOUR. BUT THIS IS TRUE FOR ALL EXPLORERS. Given that you have turned down several offers from Tamraz Group to try and reach some form of resolution, we feel that the Board now needs to facilitate a full-on and dedicated AGM discussion on the Board’s thoughts and decisions in relation to the Tamraz Group situation. WHAT CREDIBLE OFFERS HAVE BEEN REJECTED? WE ARE AWARE OF NONE, WITH REQUISITE TITLE AND FINANCE. Saying that you want to open discussions with other groups, feels like you are continuing to kick the can down the road, rather than resolve your issues with Tamraz Group. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE RESOLVE OUR ISSUES WITH THE TAMRAZ GROUP, IF THEY HAVE NO TITLE OR MONEY? DO YOU SUGGEST THAT WE GIVE THEM FREE SHARES? HOW WOULD THAT BENEFIT US SHAREHOLDERS? REMEMBER THAT THEY PLEDGED MOST OF THEIR EXISTING SHARES, IN BREACH OF A LOCK-IN AGREEMENT. WHY WOULD THEY NOT REPEAT SUCH BEHAVIOUR? We feel that as shareholders we are now entitled to a better understanding of the Board’s decisions concerning Tamraz Group. Especially because we cannot understand why possible offers have been turned down, despite what must now be an almost hopeless situation for Petrel’s shareholders if no agreement should be reached. Finding another group to salvage what is left of Petrel does not seem reasonable at this point in time. IN ORDER TO MAXIMISE THE CHANCES OF DELIVERING DEALS AND FUNDS THAT WILL BENEFIT ALL SHAREHOLDERS, WE HAVE BEEN DIPLOMATIC. WE DID NOT WANT TO PROVOKE UNNECESSARY DISQUIET OR RUFFLE FEATHERS. HOWEVER, WE MUST OBEY COMPANY LAW AND STOCK EXCHANGE RULES. THE NOMAD AND AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN FULLY INFORMED THROUGHOUT, AND ARE SUPPORTIVE. I WISH THAT REAL, VALUABLE DEALS, AND/OR CASH HAD BEEN OFFERED. BUT SADLY THEY HAVE NOT. THIS MIGHT CHANGE, WITH IMPROVING MARKETS. Therefore, please regard this letter as a formal request to facilitate a forthright discussion at this year’s AGM, where we would like to discuss your answers to the following questions: 1. From this year’s Chairman’s statement, it is clear that you feel Petrel should team up with anyone but Tamraz Group. What makes you think they will be more successful than Tamraz? IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THE PETREL BOARD ARE AGAINST THE TAMRAZ GROUP. OUR RELATIONS ARE CORDIAL. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN IMPACTED BY RECENT EVENTS. I ADMIRE ROGER’S HISTORIC ACHIEVEMENTS, AND HOPE THAT HIS NETWORK WILL EVENTUALLY DELIVER FOR PETREL. BUT IT HAS NOT DELIVERED SO FAR. PETREL WOULD WELCOME A SENSIBLE DEAL: IT WOULD SOLVE MANY PROBLEMS, ESPECIALLY THE 32 MILLION SHARES WHICH WERE BOUGHT BY THE TAMRAZ GROUP, AND REMAIN IN LIMBO. IN THE MEANTIME, WE ARE ENCOURAGING ALTERNATIVE INITIATIVES. AT LEAST ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES INVOLVES A MUCH LARGER GROUP, WITH SUBSTANTIAL PRODUCTION AND CASH FLOW. THESE ARE PRINCIPALS, RATHER THAN BROKERS. 2. As there has been no lasting shareholder value created in the last twenty-five years, how do our prospects in Iraq differ from all previous years? Can you please explain what the opportunities are, and how realistic they are? PETREL SIGNED AN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT WITH THE IRAQI MINISTRY OF OIL, SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION. IT ALSO SIGNED AN EPC-CONTRACT WITH THE IRAQI MINISTRY OF OIL, BROUGHT IN PARTNERS AS REQUESTED BY SCOP, AND COMPLETED PETREL’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT. PETREL SIGNED AND COMPLETED A TECHNICAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE IRAQI MINISTRY OF OIL, HAVING BROUGHT IN ITOCHU AS A 50% PARTNER. ALL THIS WAS DONE AT A MODEST COST AND WITHOUT BREACHING ETHICAL GUIDELINES. BP TOLD US THAT THEIR YEARLY IRAQI SECURITY COST WAS GREATER THAN PETREL’S ENTIRE CORPORATE OVERHEAD. WHAT OTHER JUNIOR COMPANY HAS ACHIEVED THIS? WE BET ON THE IRAQI PLAY AND CAN ONLY WORK WITH THE TITLE AND FISCAL TERMS THAT ARE AVAILABLE. THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT HAS UNDERTAKEN REFORMS TO MAKE CONTRACTS MORE ATTRACTIVE, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN SLOW TO DELIVER. I HAVE PERSONALLY PUT MY LIFE ON THE LINE FOR PETREL SHAREHOLDERS. HOW MANY CAN SAY THIS? I CARRY PHYSICAL SCARS EARNED ON OPERATIONS. AN IRAQI CLIENT HAS DIED, AND CONTRACTORS SERIOUSLY INJURED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHARE PRICE GRAPH SINCE PETREL LISTED, IN 2000, YOU WILL SEE MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO CRYSTALLISE PROFITS AT HIGH PRICES AND LIQUIDITY. WHY WOULD THESE PROFIT OPPORTUNITIES NOT RECUR? 3. Last year you said the focus was once again on Iraq and that you expected to enter into re-qualification discussions with the appropriate decision-makers at the Ministry of Oil. The £250,000 raised last May was to support this purpose. However, it is now clear that you have been unable to move forward on this front. Therefore, what will change, so that you can play a part in finding new discoveries of oil and gas? THE CONSTRAINT HAS BEEN THE IRAQI AUTHORITIES’ PRIOR RELIANCE ON TECHNICAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH PROBLEMATIC FISCAL TERMS. THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THIS PROBLEM, THOUGH IT HAS BEEN SLOW TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUIRED REFORMS. 4. If we do not have any prospects of getting a deal within the next twelve months, what will happen to Petrel? Shareholders do not want to face another dilution. THE BOARD WILL DO WHAT IS IN THE BEST, LONG-TERM INTEREST OF SHAREHOLDERS, AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW. THE WORLD IS FULL OF OPPORTUNITIES. 5. Please clarify why you have not been able to resolve your dispute with the Tamraz Group. We understand that they have made a number of offers, which you have declined because they lacked title or were just ideas. However, their last offer had title, but looks like to have been declined this time because of lack of funding. Could you not have accepted this offer and e.g. farmed out the licences? IF YOU REFER TO THE RUSSIAN GAS EXPLORATION PROJECT, THERE WAS NO PROPER TITLE WITH REQUISITE FUNDING FOR THE 3 YEAR WORK PROGRAMME. HOW COULD WE UNDERTAKE DRILLING WELLS WITHOUT FUNDING? THE CURRENT OWNERS HAVE BEEN SEEKING PARTNERS OR FUNDING SINCE AT LEAST 2013. IF THEY COULD NOT FARM OUT WHY WOULD THE TAMRAZ GROUP? NO NOMAD WOULD HAVE APPROVED SUCH A PROPOSAL. NO ALTERNATIVE NOMAD WAS SUGGESTED. THE FARM-IN MARKET IS CURRENTLY ALMOST NON-EXISTENT – CERTAINLY WITHOUT PROPER TITLE. 6. Last year John thought that Tamraz Group would be able to sort out the share fiasco by this year’s AGM. This clearly has not happened, so how do you think this dispute will be settled? ISN’T THE ECONOMIC SOLUTION FOR THE TAMRAZ GROUP TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES WITH EYCP, REFUND PETREL FOR ITS LOSS AND EXPENSES, AND RECOVER THE SHARES? WHY DO YOU THINK THIS HAS NOT YET HAPPENED? 7. If you are unable to get a deal over the line on your own, would it not be better to now accept an offer from Tamraz Group, especially because they have contacts that you ‘can only dream of’? WOULD YOU TRANSFER YOUR SHARES FOR NO CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN PROMISES? HOW WOULD YOU PERSUADE THE NOMAD AND STOCK EXCHANGE? WOULD YOU SURRENDER THE STOCK MARKET LISTING? Why seek another group whilst still trying to resolve the issue of the missing 32 million shares? Why risk losing the leverage this gives you when negotiating with Tamraz? In the BOD's view, what exactly is the danger for shareholders if Tamraz Group would take over control? What exactly do we still have left to lose? THE TAMRAZ GROUP SEEM UNABLE OR UNWILLING, AFTER 18 MONTHS, TO RESOLVE THEIR ISSUES WITH EYCP. THE SUGGESTION THAT PETREL WOULD UNILATERALLY LIFT THE INJUNCTION, OR GRANT FREE, EXTRA SHARES TO THE TAMRAZ GROUP, WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTERESTS OF SHAREHOLDERS, AND PROBABLY NOT LAWFUL. NONE OF THIS CLOSES OFF OTHER, ATTRACTIVE AVENUES: AS ALWAYS, THE BOARD WILL SUPPORT A LAWFUL DEAL WITH DEMONSTRATED VALUABLE TITLE. 8. If there are no immediate prospects, then would it not be prudent to now allow Tamraz Group to now try and secure our future and protect our investments? HOW CAN THE TAMRAZ GROUP SECURE OUR FUTURE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO RECOVER THE 32 MILLION SHARES, OR PRODUCE CASH OR ANY PROJECT WITH DEMONSTRABLE VALUE? THE BOARD WILL SUPPORT A LAWFUL DEAL WITH DEMONSTRATED VALUABLE TITLE. 9. A chance of success via Tamraz Group, is better than nothing. Would you be prepared to facilitate a shareholders’ vote on whether to accept an offer from Tamraz Group? THE BOARD WILL SUPPORT A LAWFUL (ALSO ACCEPTABLE TO THE NOMAD) DEAL WITH DEMONSTRATED VALUABLE TITLE. THE SHAREHOLDERS WILL VOTE ON ANY MAJOR PROPOSAL. I am sure you will agree that your shareholders have been extremely loyal during all those 25 years, even when faced with significant personal financial loss. SPECULATIVE SHARES ARE INTRINSICALLY RISKY. PRUDENT SHAREHOLDERS CAN RECOVER THEIR INITIAL INVESTMENT BY BOOKING SOME PROFIT DURING BOOMS. When you have asked for your shareholders’ support, it has been freely given. It is our view that shareholders have earned the right, particularly in the last eighteen months, to have an honest and forthright discussion on our future prospects. May we please receive your answers before the AGM, so that we can fully engage with you on that occasion and hopefully better understand your motivations. On behalf of all signatories to this letter, Kind Regards, Frans
f31
05/7/2021
17:27
Well Folks, The week before last, David sent us his response to our formal letter and questions. We didn’t share this here yet, because David’s response contained feedback which on the face of it simply seemed almost impossible, and therefore first needed further clarification from his side. Last Monday we therefore asked David for this further clarification, pointing out that the issue in question seemed to be almost impossible - however, we did not get any reaction back at all Last Friday we therefore sent him a “reminder̶1;, asking him to react before Close of Business today Monday – but again we have received no reaction at all. As the many co-signers from this board are entitled to see David’s responses to the letter they also signed, we feel we now can’t wait any longer, and we are therefore publishing all correspondence on this board this evening. For a best overview of our correspondence with David, I am first posting directly below David’s response. (note that I have put David’s lines in CAPITALS, as I cannot format “in red” as per David’s original. In the following post after, you will find our follow-up letter to David (with on top that “reminder̶1;), asking David for clarification plus as well touching on some other “sticky” points within his response that didn’t go down well with us either. We are surprised to have received feedback from David which seems to be incorrect, but we are shocked that David and the Board have simply ignored our follow-up mail, pointing out this serious enough issue and asking for clarification. We wonder if many of you are as upset on the above as we are – share your thoughts!
f31
04/7/2021
19:15
Dave must have drawn the short straw, but with his education he should be OK.
the diddymen
03/7/2021
21:30
The Diddymen is Fenners. Not many people know that.
bountyfull
03/7/2021
08:08
A perfect palette for you to describe why and how Tamaraz is going to gift assets to PET shareholders.
the diddymen
02/7/2021
23:33
Haha! You're all over the place Didd's!
kdickson
02/7/2021
21:42
"And DH admitted that the authorities in Ghana changed their attitude when they heard that Roger was involved." If correct the sort of irrelevant and fatuous comment that you would expect from a Cambridge and Harvard graduate.
the diddymen
02/7/2021
21:35
kd it is not clear what deal is on the table. Presumably the aim is to effect a reverse takeover, in which Tamaraz effectively takes control of a tradable company and Horgan fronts the company (assuming Teeling is retiring). Tamaraz then reverses the assets into PET and, given that PET is a cashless shell (ie without assets - RT not me), PET issues shares to Tamaraz for those assets. What will the terms of that trade be. Who is going to control it. Tamaraz appears to have done well so far but not without stepping on the odd toe. What is the protection for the PET shareholder, or is 5% of something better than 100% of nothing?
the diddymen
Chat Pages: Latest  1394  1393  1392  1391  1390  1389  1388  1387  1386  1385  1384  1383  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
PET
Petrel Res..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20211202 06:17:40