[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
  0.00 0.0% 1.775 1.75 1.80 1.775 1.775 1.78 305,343 07:38:27
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 35001 to 35018 of 35375 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  1403  1402  1401  1400  1399  1398  1397  1396  1395  1394  1393  1392  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
21/7/2021
16:07
Thank you f31. It will be interesting to learn what the Board has to say at the AGM. Such a shame they could not even organise a Zoom meeting for us.
bountyfull
21/7/2021
15:17
To keep you all in the loop - via the mail below, the Roger Tamraz Q&A's were sent to the Board today Frans 13:10 (2 hours ago) to Jim, David, John Dear Board Members, As already referred to in my (unanswered) follow-up mail of 28th June to David: To learn more about the RNGG opportunity offered to Petrel, we have also reached out to Roger Tamraz with a set of questions on RNGG. As we would like to further discuss this opportunity with you during the AGM next Tuesday, we considered it appropriate to already forward Roger's answers to you. Please find the Q&a's below. Best Regards, Frans ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Michel Fayad Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 13:32 Subject: Fwd: Questions on RNGG for Roger Tamraz To: Frans ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Roger Tamraz Date: Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 1:56 PM Subject: Re: Questions on RNGG for Roger Tamraz To: Michel Fayad See below in red 1. Can you please expand on the quality and exploration potential of these RNGG fields, and as well on the importance and potential value of the licenses for Petrel? RNGG has two potential giants: North Donskoy (Block size 2123 sqkm) and Gashunsky (Block size 1,835 sqkm). There are 9.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent (mostly gas: 7.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent) prospective resources. This is currently 80% owned by my private company, Netoil Limited. It could obviously bring potential value to Petrel Resources PLC which is still kind of shell company. 2. David Horgan informed shareholders, that “the RNGG exploration proposal made industry sense, but passage of title seems conditional on funding, which the Tamraz Group has, so far, been unable to deliver”. In fact, on various occasions during discussions with the Board, we were informed “they have no Cash” It is therefore understandable that many shareholders have unfortunately started to get some doubts on the financial possibilities of your Group. From this angle: · Is the passage of Title for these 2 licenses indeed conditional on funding? · If so, could you please describe how much funding will be required, for what purpose the funding is required, and importantly - how have you planned to ensure the funding? · Do you foresee any difficulty within this funding planning? · Do you foresee any difficulty towards the funding for continued future work on these projects? I don’t want to argue with David Horgan but our title is clear which is not the case for Petrel’s titles in Ghana or Iraq. I offered to the Board of Petrel to get a free carried interest in RNGG and disclosed to them a support letter from Rothschild. Only $4 million funding is required this year. By 2025, $20 million is required (including the initial $4 million). A lot of investors have already showed their interest to join this venture. 3. Please describe the possible dilutions shareholders could face, and if there are any steps you can take to limit these. I did not request for a reverse takeover. I only requested for 29.99% in total for my group. 4. It is our understanding that you have acquired 80% of RNGG, the current holder of the 2 licenses. · Is PET being offered the full 80% of the licences? · If 100% is not being offered, please describe what will happen to the balance? I have already answered this question in my previous answers. For the balance, it will either remain private or be put in other public companies. Plus some investors want to acquire stakes from Netoil Limited. 5. Have drilling targets already been identified, or would you have to undertake an exploration programme? When would you expect such exploration/drilling programme to start? This year, we intend to prepare the exploration drilling project plans and drilling project based on the corresponding comprehensive seismic geology research, and any other similar activities decided. 6. Can you please tell us why you think these substantial licences have not been developed before? Before the 2008 financial crisis, these licences attracted major oil companies. Then the problems between Russia and the West discouraged a lot of potential players. 7. Do the licenses fall within a safe-enough business environment, e.g. do you have any worries about possible corruption or similar in these areas? I know well Russia and am not worried. 8. If the Board would accept the RNGG proposal, could you please expand on your strategy for Petrel? · Will your Group take control of Petrel? · Will you personally be actively involved in Petrel – e.g. will you become a Board member? · Would you still plan to also bring other future Assets to Petrel – if so, is there any possibility you could expand on potential future Assets for Petrel? My intention is to develop Petrel. All is open but the first step is an agreement with Petrel’s board. 9. Shareholders have continually been frustrated with a lack of communication from their Board. If you obtain control, what practice would you implement to update shareholders on business developments concerning Petrel? I believe this interview is an answer to your question. 10. If the Board would accept your RNGG proposal, where do you see Petrel’s future share-price potential? I hope it can go back where it was at Christmas 2019 (25p if I recall) and even more.
f31
20/7/2021
17:20
A knife, a fork, a bottle and a cork That's the way we spell New York ... I don't want to stop, no no ...
lippe
20/7/2021
13:20
The equation is even simpler. IF username = ("The Diddymen" OR "exile") THEN Ignore ELSE Treat with respect
kdickson
20/7/2021
12:41
....another way of looking at it is that Dave and Johno will have to send the hat round if Rog does not hold his knife and fork properly. How credible would it be for D&J to send around the hat given that Rog does not do a knife and fork?
the diddymen
20/7/2021
11:32
Maybe that is Diddymen getting out!!!
1teemore
20/7/2021
11:09
F66, this is the problem with BBs, everything becomes binary and the only victim is commonsense. In reality the current share price is completely irrelevant if you have decided to hold. The question for those who have not decided is whether to take an all or nothing gamble on Roger, or to cash in now. For the holders, if the Roger gamble works, then happier days. If it does not, it looks like ground zero.
the diddymen
20/7/2021
10:32
50k sell someone didn't want to wait it's dripping need something to stop the flood.
palace pete
20/7/2021
10:07
Lol!! I have 1teemore filtered so this is the first post of his I have seen for a while. I think he has learning difficulties so I won't respond in a nasty manner.
exile
20/7/2021
09:47
1teemore 19 Jul '21 - 23:46 - 19620 of 19622 "Nobody with an ounce of sense would pay any attention to exile" Agreed. And therein lies the problem ? PET gamblers have only an ounce of sense?
fenners66
20/7/2021
09:40
Many co-signers to our 14th June letter to the Board came from this Advfn board. As was again the case for participants in the recent poll. Thanks! You might have seen the Board's letter attached to the Notice of AGM, in which shareholders are discouraged from attending, due to Covid measures. Given all circumstances, only extremely few shareholders actually will or can attend next week's AGM. But if you write your short "real-life" Petrel experience, possibly including your request for whatever it is you would like them to do, then your voice will still be heard by the Board in advance of the AGM. Your story and possible request will be added to the overall document of accumulated stories, which will be sent to the Board ahead of the AGM. If many shareholders join, this will be a meaningful message to make the Board realize that there are indeed a lot of shareholders out there that have desperately lost out on their Petrel investment, and that are now pleading with the Board to really do everything pragmatic possible around the Tamraz situation that might help us recover some of our losses. As you know, you can leave out any detail that you don't want to share. Just post your story on the board, or send it to KD via PM if you prefer. With every extra participant and message, the document becomes more meaningful as a tool to make the Board understand your shareholder needs.
f31
20/7/2021
07:38
The equation is simple. The number of shares you have x the current market price, or the risk of nothing with a valedictory vote at an AGM. The indirect evidence of this state of affairs existed many years back.
the diddymen
19/7/2021
23:46
Nobody with an ounce of sense would pay any attention to exile, or his opinion- bazz33/maureen on the Clon board comes to mind!!
1teemore
19/7/2021
21:38
Only the Petrel board can answer your due diligence question. No-one I know has been privvy to the why's and wherefores. The CP were undoubtedly naive in relying too much on trusting the British broker who made the introductions. It is what it is though and there's no point dwelling any longer on the history of this saga. As shareholders, we just want to focus on the best practical way to recover losses. Petrel don't need to follow any paper trail as it is the CP and EYCP who are dealing with this in the US court (so funds not required for any legal activity from Petrel's pov). I don't think many shareholders I know on this board would sell up as a show of disgust. That is a ludicrous thing to think. They'd rather make their feelings known through simply telling the board (via the AGM and via emails) how disappointed they are. Perhaps you should give that Currency article a proper read in bed tonight. Might help you sleep! ;)
kdickson
19/7/2021
21:34
"EYCP LLC, a lender registered in the US state of Delaware, and its Cayman-based agent SRT Capital SPC Ltd on November 19, 2019 " I could not find any evidence of a "hedge fund" onlne presence. Surely this "billionaire" would want to have knowledge of whom he was dealing with? Goldman sachs etc etc... But no, he's been scammed ? If this is the case , not a great thing to have on your cv. And if he's been scammed once?
fenners66
19/7/2021
20:20
And exile, here's the long answer to your burning question. I wouldn't want you thinking I was trying to ignore you now ;) ------------------- Firstly, from The Currency article May 2020: The affidavit outlined Fayad’s version of events and his investor group’s response to the letter they received from Petrel’s solicitors on January 7, seeking “a full and detailed explanation in respect of the sale of the sold shares in breach of the lock-in deed”. Fayad testified that the investors entered into a term sheet for the MLA [KD: Margin Lending Agreement] with EYCP LLC, a lender registered in the US state of Delaware, and its Cayman-based agent SRT Capital SPC Ltd on November 19, 2019 – two days before Petrel’s EGM approved the reverse takeover. This was updated on December 9 with “minor changes” to the MLA agreement. [KD: Note that the Lebanese banking crisis had just happened and the CP's funds were locked in...and still are]. Tamraz, Fayad and their co-investors were to borrow £3.15 million from EYCP and provide 37.3 million shares as security for the loan. These were the shares acquired by Tamraz, Fayad and Mehraik in August under the first phase of the deal, representing a 25 per cent stake in Petrel at that point. Crucially, Fayad insists that “the capital shares would not be at risk until monies were advanced under the MLA,” which he says never happened. On affidavit, Fayad acknowledged his group’s shortcomings when entering the loan agreement: “In order to save on the cost of entering the MLA, the MLA borrowers (including myself) did not take any legal advice, in any jurisdiction, on the contents of the MLA and instead relied upon the party broking the transaction (Oscar Olu-Williams) and representations made to us by the lender during the course of the negotiations.” Fayad told The Currency that he and his partners trusted Olu-Williams’s experience. “He is well-known on the market and has managed IPOs,” he said. Fayad added that the British broker introduced them to Bulent Toros, a Turkish national representing EYCP and SRT Capital. Unfamiliar with AIM market practices, by December 23, Fayad and his associates had placed the security in the custody of Deutsche Bank, which in turn outsourced the holding of the shares to Chase Nominees Ltd, a London unit of JP Morgan Chase. All parties present in court on Friday agreed that Chase Nominees, a defendant in the case because it had become the legal owner of the shares, had followed instructions and not committed any wrongdoing. “Neither myself nor the other investors were aware that pledging shares might constitute a breach of the lock-in deed as none of the investors are experienced investors in the AIM market and are unfamiliar with market practices of that market,” Fayad testified. “We assumed that it was only the sale of the shares on the market that was prohibited.” Fayad said that the borrowers then received a notice of default from their lender on January 3, stating that three clauses in the MLA had been breached: • The 30-day average trading volume in Petrel shares was not to fall below 75 per cent below that on a reference “day of exchange” set at the date of the MLA. Judging by the high trading volume recorded at the end of November around the time of the EGM, this clause set the bar high. By early January, EYCP notified the Tamraz group that volume had fallen too low and they were in default. “My understand of the reasoning for this is that over the Christmas period, trading levels reduce dramatically as a result of the holiday season,” Fayad said on affidavit. • EYCP also notified the investors that the shares were not freely tradeable without a volume restriction, unlike agreed under the MLA. “I consider that this is evidence that the lender was seeking to trade the shares prior to the notice of default,” Fayad testified. • The MLA also “provided that the shares were not subject to any lock-up or prior encumbrance,” and the lender cited the existence of the lock-in deed as another default trigger. Petrel alerted the stock exchange on January 8 at 7am that around four million locked-in shares had already been traded over a number of days. Fayad testified that his lender had started to sell the shares “immediately after sending the letter, possibly even before”. As soon as he found this out, he said he instructed Deutsche Bank to stop any further sales. “I, nor either of the other investors, gave, or had any intention to give, any instruction to dispose of any further shares in Petrel,” Fayad’s affidavit quotes from a letter sent to Petrel. Petrel’s barrister Gary McCarthy told the court that if what Fayad said was correct, “it appears that the lender has not advanced any money and is now demanding £1.5 million sterling for breach of agreement in circumstances where they haven’t paid any money on foot of it, and they have got the benefit of $770,000 worth of shares which they traded as a collateral.” --------------- Secondly from another poster on this forum back in Feb: "...has anyone considered that the problem of the shares ownership may require court action (not inside Eire but in the Cayman Islands or New York). If so that isn't going to be settled anytime soon. Google "SRT Capital SPC Ltd judgement" and you will find a similar instance in the past of a collateral loan where the parties couldn't agree, that one was heard in New York. SRT Capital have brought cases in the Cayman Islands as well, but not London or Eire as far as I can tell... ...Until I did research I thought it odd that the concert party would loan shares as collateral to borrow cash...but I find that using shares as collateral is quite common, it appears to be SRT Capital's business and they have been around a while..." ---------- My note: So, in summary, EYCP took the CP to court (in New York sometime in 2019) in breach of contract which EYCP had 'manufactured' to almost certainly fail. So, not only have the CP lost their shares, they are also being sued (I seem to recall for something lke $1.5m?). The CP are the victims. The US court case is ongoing and very, very slow. EYCP (and their agent SRT) have a longstanding track record of pulling similar stunts. There are, and have been, multiple court cases involving them (e.g. Morgan Stanley, Soleil Capital Ltd, Pious Capital Ltd, etc). It appears to be their 'modus operandi'.
kdickson
19/7/2021
19:57
as for the Russian license? It never gets developed, outside events....what can you do eh...
lippe_mk2
19/7/2021
17:44
JJ, I'm not surprised you'd be cautious of Tamraz. To say he's had a chequered past is a huge understatement. I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't have doubts if they read his CV or read every article about him. This 'American Spectator ' article from May 1997 (24 years ago) gives great detail: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.org.cia/c/nMzLVtg3R9E Back to today though, given our situation where the Petrel board appear to have run out of options, I would say it's time to give Mr Tamraz a chance at recovering our losses. There's not much more to lose, so why not try a change from the last 20 years. Tamraz is incredibly influential and mixes in circles most business people couldn't even begin to imagine. Obviously David and John were willing to have him on board for these very strengths (see my previous post). Anyone who can hide things from the CIA must be pretty damn clever! I don't think it's fair to say all his companies are (or were) skint though. At his high level of corporate deal making in the business world, many billionnaire type businessmen simply do not keep high levels of liquid assets in their companies. Deals are often based on securing funds through various corporate financial lending instruments that most people wouldn't know about. But basically they borrow money rather than use their own liquid assets (i.e. cash). That's exactly why they are billionnaires. In relation to the Russian licences, I do know that Tamraz has access to a massive line of agreed credit (from longstanding business associates outside the CP) that makes the required $20million needed to develop them over the next 4 years, look like peanuts. Hence the offer of a free carry for Petrel.
kdickson
Chat Pages: Latest  1403  1402  1401  1400  1399  1398  1397  1396  1395  1394  1393  1392  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:20211020 02:52:46