Petrel Resources Share Price (PET)

Buy
Sell
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 Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 1.95 0.00 01:00:00
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
1.90 2.00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers -0.40 -0.26 3
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
- O 0 1.95 GBX
Related Shares
Bp (BP.), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA), Spitfire Oil (SRO), Nautilus Marine Services (NAUT)

Petrel Resources (PET) Latest News

Petrel Resources News

Date Time Source Headline
27/7/202111:39UKREGPetrel Resources PLC Results of Annual General Meeting
04/6/202114:42ALNCPetrel Resources reports narrowed loss in 2020 on lower costs
04/6/202107:00UKREGPetrel Resources PLC Preliminary Results for Year Ended 31st Dec 2020
12/3/202114:46UKREGPetrel Resources PLC Update on migration of uncertificated shares
23/2/202111:21UKREGPetrel Resources PLC Result of Extraordinary General Meeting
25/1/202107:00UKREGPetrel Resources PLC Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting
21/9/202021:20ALNCIN BRIEF: Petrel Resources Posts Widened Loss In First Half
21/9/202007:00UKREGPetrel Resources PLC Interim Statement
18/8/202016:41UKREGPetrel Resources PLC Second Price Monitoring Extn
18/8/202016:36UKREGPetrel Resources PLC Price Monitoring Extension
More Petrel Resources News
Petrel Resources Investors    Petrel Resources Takeover Rumours

Petrel Resources (PET) Discussions and Chat

Petrel Resources Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
28/7/202123:54PETREL resources14,543
28/7/202122:16Petrel Resources finally set to deliver?19,684
12/6/202013:16Petrol Resources all hype and bull shit just like Bula and the Albert scam50
19/5/202014:10Petrel Resources Charts, News and Press Articles500
18/5/202007:56Put this sick pet down now96

Add a New Thread

Petrel Resources (PET) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Petrel Resources trades in real-time

Petrel Resources (PET) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
28/7/2021
09:20		Petrel Resources Daily Update: Petrel Resources Plc is listed in the Oil & Gas Producers sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker PET. The last closing price for Petrel Resources was 1.95p.
Petrel Resources Plc has a 4 week average price of 1.95p and a 12 week average price of 1.95p.
The 1 year high share price is 7.10p while the 1 year low share price is currently 1.95p.
There are currently 157,038,467 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 409,803 shares. The market capitalisation of Petrel Resources Plc is £3,062,250.11.
Read Full Thread
Reply
23/7/2021
11:55		lippe_mk2: Oslo Børs suspends Netoil Capital, must reapply for Euronext Growth listing after rule violation Oslo Børs is halting trading in the small company. Oslo Børs has suspended all trading on the low-threshold euronext growth exchange in the small oil company Netoil Capital Ltd, according to a report on Friday. The reason for the case is a notification the company sent the Stock Exchange on March 22, about a transaction between Netoil Ltd. and JP Kenny Petroleum. At that time, the listed company bore the name JP Kenny Petroleum, with exploration and production with interests in Colombia, South America. JP Kenny Petroleum, the listed company, then took over Netoil Ltd.'s sole asset, a stake in a so-called production-sharing agreement for the Salah Aldeen oil license in Iraq. As a settlement, the company issued 30 million shares to Netoil Ltd., at the same time as a change in the composition of the board of directors. On April 9, JP Kenny Petroleum announced that it was changing its name to Netoil Capital Ltd., reflecting that the company was now the majority business of Netoil Ltd. – Does not accept The report on Friday states that Oslo Børs believes that the company violated the issuer rules on Euronext Growth by transferring too much of the value or activity in the company, or that this was done without the company explaining how the company still met the listing requirements after most of the business had been transferred. The limit is for the transfer of at least 75 per cent of the company's assets and share of income or profit. Netoil Capital has told the Stock Exchange that it believes it is in the dry, as "no more than 75 percent of the company's assets at that time were transferred." "Oslo Børs does not accept this argument and requires Netoil to re-apply to continue to be listed on Euronext Growth," it states. Netoil chief Nils Trulsvik has not responded to DN's inquiries on Friday. Must strengthen management Such an application will require the company to hire advisers, and for due diligence to be carried out – i.e. a thorough review of the company. "The Board also believes that if the new application is to be accepted by Oslo Børs, it must have a stronger project portfolio, as well as a financial and management structure that is compatible with companies listed on Euronext Growth," the company wrote. Netoil has been given a deadline to submit a new IPO application on 2 August, but the board of directors of the company does not have time to do so. It is therefore expected that Oslo Børs will start a process to close the listing. "The Board of Directors will consider all options, including a new listing application, and possibly other solutions that benefit shareholders," it said, adding that Netoil Capital acquired Nordic Petroleum as in May with a settlement of 1.95 million shares. A few weeks after Netoil announced the transfer of the Iraqi license, Chief Financial Officer Jon Wiggen left the company. The field in the transaction is located just north of Iraq's capital Baghdad, and was destroyed during the war in Iraq in 2015–2018. The purpose was to secure sufficient funding and approval from the authorities, and to get the field back into production.
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
21/7/2021
15:17		f31: 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.
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
17/7/2021
12:54		steephill cove: Having been in PET for many, many years (from 2000) until a month ago, the narrative has never appeared bleaker than it does now. When you see where a company like ADV with a similar share price entry point are heading (& what has been achieved in just the last couple of months there), it puts PETs consistent lack of delivery since Suba-Luhais & Merjan into perspective. Hence, I sold out my entire holding & moved it across. There simply comes a time when enough is enough. I wish all genuine PET PI LTHs all the very best & much luck. There are some very nice genuine people on this thread who deserve success.
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
10/7/2021
10:25		f31: Teemore, I fully understand your concerns about going from the frying pan into the fire. After all, it's our investments we are talking about, and we need to protect them as best we can. And indeed – the initially planned path towards a take-over was troubled by the shares-issue. But "from frying pan into the fire'", means from a bad situation into one that is even worse. And I have not heard any well-reasoned explanation by anybody of why this would be the case. On the contrary - how could we be worse off? The share price is already lost, so our investment is already lost. (Unless you want to cash the 2.5p value from it) And nowhere in David's extensive response to our Shareholders Letter is there any indication which warrants realistic hope that this 2.5p will improve. At best, we need to wait for the exploration cycle to turn, and then hope that this time for some reason we would get a contract, unlike before. At best, we’ll financially survive the wait, although further dilution would then seem unavoidable. In contrast, Roger Tamraz offers us a real existing Asset – the RNGG blocks. Independently valued by 2 different companies at $200 million! And in addition, he wants to grow Petrel further – something his track-record suggests he is very capable of doing so. How does that even remotely predict a future for us “in the fire”? I honestly do not understand the hesitation to vote for this very realistic chance of what MUST be a better future. I assume this hesitation is based on the shares-issue that happened, effectively caused by that loan facility. But what people need to understand that this loan was required because the Tamraz Group cash at that time was all in Lebanon (their origins), where in October 2019 suddenly banks imposed a capital control (without a law voted by the Parliament), forbidding to take more than a few hundred dollars from the ATM and forbidding to transfer money abroad. So, exactly at the time of the 2nd phase of the 2019 take-over, completely out of the blue, they could not access their own Cash to pay for the upcoming 2nd tranche of shares. For this reason, they went into that cash-bridge facility with EYCP, who subsequently (intentionally) frauded them with the shares, and in addition with the loan facility itself. Shareholders that are possibly hesitating based on this shares-issue, should realize more in full that Tamraz Group was the victim here (of the fraud by EYCP) and NOT the committer of any wrong-doing against Petrel (other than admittedly being too trustful on advice they were given). The above is fact. But even if shareholders should nevertheless still have misgivings about what happened: The right thing for their investment is not to dwell on what went wrong, but to be pragmatic within the situation we are now in, and take the opportunity (probably the ONLY opportunity !!) still available to them to recover their investment. And so should the Board – be more pragmatic !!
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
08/7/2021
11:48		kdickson: Here you go Pete... f31 5 Jul '21 - 18:28 - 19435 of 19494 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
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
07/7/2021
13:34		f31: Jungle Jim - thanks for your reaction! It is good when people share their sincere thoughts and opinions - it helps for a constructive debate, which in turn helps people making up their minds. What we would like to achieve: The overall and the ONLY important goal is obviously to achieve a share price improvement !! Within John's recent Chairman Statement and within David's response to our letter and questions, we absolutely cannot find anything at all that does even remotely provide any realistic hope on such share price improvement. David's "strongest" argument towards hope is the oil exploration's "business cycle", which he seems to believe will ultimately somehow get us a contract. This despite of his own The Currency interview, where he himself indicates that Petrel’s balance sheet is too small to be taken seriously. For these reasons, we firmly believe by now (after 20+ years of failed attempts), that our only remaining realistic hope on a share price improvement now sits with the “Tamraz Group Option”. Whatever one might think about the personalities (and don’t believe everything you read in the press!), this group has (as John confirms!) direct access to all relevant decision makers, resulting in an immense track-record of getting things done. As you could read in our Q&A session with Roger Tamraz, he hopes that acceptance of their RNGG offer will bring the share price back to 25p or even more – as it indeed already did in December 2019. 25p or even more – who would not want this after 20+ years of full-on misery and losses ?? And it is a very realistic target – as mentioned, it already happened before. And with Roger Tamraz’ intentions to develop Petrel further after that, who knows how much further even the share price could potentially go? Unfortunately, our Board seems completely inflexible – it is obvious by now they won’t change their minds on their expressed intention to “move on” from Tamraz Group and instead pursue their long-tried road, trying to get their own contract in Iraq. Coming from that specific position David responded to our letter and questions, basically giving us his reasons why they won’t go for the Tamraz Group option. But he seems to have – hopefully unintentionally – somewhat incorrectly informed us on several points, the main one being that “passage of the RNGG title is conditional on funding”. This seems to be completely incorrect?: Netoil Ltd already owns 80% of RNGG (the owner of this title), so there is no “passage of title”? And there is as well Roger Tamraz’ confirmation in our Q&A session: “our title is clear”. Unprecedented: - David and the Board have completely ignored our several requests for clarification on possibly incorrect information in reaction to our formal letter. Unprecedented, because our 2 emails asking for clarification were effectively co-signed by 23% of the total shares in circulation, no less! Unprecedented that the MD refuses to explain where our reasoning was incorrect – if he thought so! Unprecedented that John – chairman – so far has not reacted at all to my formal complaint on the above – see my post directly below. Where does that leave us? Well, it is now rather obvious that without drastic action by shareholders, nothing will change, and that most likely we will never see any recovery of our lost investments. We will protest somewhat during the upcoming AGM, but that in itself won’t change things. So our only remaining option to still at least have a shot at some recovery, is to call for special General Meeting, which would include a resolution for the Board to accept the RNGG offer by Tamraz Group. We shareholders are the owners of the company, not the 3 persons on the Board. Never forget that! Jungle Jim - I am not overly worried about the consequential scenarios from such resolution, e.g. concerning David’s potential departure, which you rightly so consider, and highlight. Because …IF… the vote to accept the RNGG offer would be carried, then consequently the Tamraz Group will take control of Petrel and/or the Board. And to be honest – with all (sincere) respect for David and John – I think we would have a powerful and capable new Board when the Tamraz Group would effectively replace the existing Board. The question is if shareholders would like, and are willing to stick their neck out, for a seemingly realistic shot at 25p via Tamraz Group – for starters, possibly more with additional future Assets. Or do they feel they have a safer or better chance with the current strategy of our Board? I personally have made up my mind, as I feel we realistically have nothing left to lose anymore anyway by choosing for the Tamraz Group option, as our share price is lost already.
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
05/7/2021
18:28		f31: 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
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
02/7/2021
02:46		f31: As per the recent Chairman's Statement, the Board has not accepted the RNGG-licenses proposal by the Tamraz Group, which was their latest effort to reach an agreement with Petrel. In fact, the Board now wants to “move on”, and instead focus once more on own chances in Iraq. After now 20+ years of not having managed to get any valuable contract in Iraq, a very sizeable group of shareholders (representing 23% of total shares in circulation - often long-term holders) feels that the chances of Petrel getting a contract in Iraq on their own accord don’t look very strong at all, and certainly not at a moment where even Iraq’s own Minister of Oil very recently indicated that Iraq is an almost impossible environment to get any decision over the line. The above was the context in which shareholders grouped together and all co-signed a formal letter to the Board of Petrel, asking for the exact reasons why the Board had not accepted this latest Tamraz Group offer / if they had any realistic hope on alternatives to create value for shareholders / and effectively expressing that a large group of shareholders was now in favour of the Board trying to secure a Tamraz Group involvement in Petrel - as that would most-likely give us the best shot by far on any future success, considering Tamraz Group’s massive relevant contacts, their track-record of delivering massive projects, and as well their Assets. David has responded to our formal letter to the Board last week. However, his responses raised a number of questions that required some further clarification. We asked David last Monday but have not yet heard back. We will of course share David’s responses with the co-signers as soon as they are completed. Triggered by David's initial responses however - on Tamraz Group in general and specifically his feedback on their RNGG proposal - we thought that it would also be helpful if we reached out to Roger Tamraz to ask him some questions about his latest offer, so that we could prepare for a constructive discussion with to the Board at the forthcoming AGM. We were very pleased that Roger Tamraz agreed to answer our questions, and in fact we have meanwhile already received his answers. You can find our questions and Roger’s answers in my post directly below. As was the case for us, we hope that Roger’s answers will encourage all co-signers to keep favouring the choice for Tamraz Group involvement in Petrel, rather than almost certainly going nowhere on our own accord in Iraq, and potentially for a long time (and several necessary dilutions) to come! See post directly below
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
10/6/2021
17:12		fenners66: Meanwhile in La La Land "The Sage 10 Jun '21 - 11:35 - 19324 of 19328 Michel has told me that the CP are willing to offer Pet a stake in their Russian asset or in their company in Euronext. I don't know what the Euronext connection is worth, but I believe the Russian assets has the gas equivalent of 9.1 billion barrels of oil." If he did, surely that could be Price Sensitive Inside Information ? The exploration licenses are referred to on the Netoil website... so what? PET used to tell all about Block 6 PET and CLON have "license" for Tano .... cough , cough.... What are any of these worth? Controlling stake in PET instead of the £0.5m Cash they were going to put in ? They bought the shares on credit , and then failed to pay for them. They said give them 100 days ( we are led to believe by posters on here) then Nothing happened. The BOD have obviously much more access to information than Sage and they have rejected everything so far.... Not surprising since the CP or is it the "French" stopped delivering.. Why if Tamraz is a Billionaire does he need tiny micro caps PET , ROSS and Netoil Capital taking over a loss maker? One can say that coincidently the share price of these micro caps rises when his involvement is announced....
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
27/4/2021
16:01		fenners66: So almost EIGHTEEN months on from the CP "takeover" and what has happened ? The shares to take them to 51% got issued but never bought. The sold some that should have been restricted. They went to court The second tranche of shares were cancelled. The projects due in "90 days" came to Nothing Rumours were put about afterwards of the CP buying a Portuguese bank , what has this to do with PET. Well that has not happened Iraq have dealt with Intl Oil Majors - lots of them - but Nothing with PET Ghana have dealt with Intl Oil Majors - lots of them - but Nothing doing with PET PET share price has gone up and gone down PET has no business transactions , no sales, no income and has not had any for a generation. Meanwhile many other listed companies that do stuff have had their share prices rocket to all time highs in the last year....
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Petrel Resources share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
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:20210729 06:31:13