Sirius Petroleum Share Discussion Threads

[oakville] 24/7/2017 05:04

For all the myths and mysterys the chart is somehow still intact.

[sherl0ck] 23/7/2017 23:48

The leak RNS states "....notes the recent press speculation and can confirm IT IS currently in discussions with BP..."

So it matters not one iota if there's another O&G company somewhere in the world with the B.P initials that you wish to make fit into an extravagant theory. We simply wouldn't participate in what you might describe as a cunning play on the initials, and what most would class as clear and blatant deception.

Even if we thought it would be fun to try it, Cantor wouldn't tolerate it. But even if they had an unbelievable moment of poor judgement and opted to be complicit, AIM authorities would pick up on it....and even if all of these things somehow miraculously took place and slipped through the net on 12th June 2017, you can absolutely guarantee that BP plc themselves would have been all over this by the 13th June at the very latest and we would have issued an embarrassing retraction and clarification RNS.

Chances of all of these things being somehow allowed to happen are approximately........... ZERO!

[htrocka2] 23/7/2017 22:48

DR.. You're concept suggests the possibility of being bought out with BP shares?

'The number of ordinary shares which have been bought back and are held in treasury by BP p.l.c. is 1,485,234,257.'

[vatnabrekk] 23/7/2017 22:00

We'll just have to wait and see. I just hope they don't compulsorily buy us out for less than 1p.

[detective captain sean signal] 23/7/2017 21:53

"We're currently working with a few international companies and relevant providers of gas solutions with a view to creating joint ventures that would enable us develop the opportunities we have identified."

[bumhammer] 23/7/2017 21:00

Benny and Xerot - old adversary's?

[xerot] 23/7/2017 20:54

Benny what you doing here then ?

[bennyfishery] 23/7/2017 20:39

It says a lot if you can still remember playschool . . . . AIM is for the big boys.

[dr rosso] 23/7/2017 20:38

Reverse Triangular Merger ("A" Reorganization)

In a reverse triangular merger, a subsidiary of the acquirer is merged into the target, leaving the target as the surviving entity and a subsidiary of the acquirer and eliminating any minority shareholders in the target. This structure allows the acquirer to shield itself from the target's liabilities, as in the forward triangular merger, but with the added benefit that non-transferrable assets and contracts are not lost. For this reason, the reverse triangular merger is a commonly used structure. However, at least 80% of the consideration must be paid in voting common or preferred stock of the acquirer, eliminating some flexibility in the type of equity consideration paid relative to the forward triangular merger. Other characteristics of this structure are similar to those found in forward triangular mergers, including the "substantially all" and shareholder approval requirements.



Stock-for-Stock Acquisition ("B" Reorganization)

In a "B" reorganization, the acquirer exchanges its voting common and/or qualified preferred stock (no boot, except for small amounts paid for fractional shares) for control of the target, defined as ownership of 80% of the "vote and value" of the target's stock. The target survives as a subsidiary of the acquirer, shielding the acquirer from the target's liabilities. The buyer need not acquire the entire 80% of target stock at once, but must own at least 80% upon completion of the acquisition. This allows the buyer to acquire the target's shares gradually in what is known as a "creeping" acquisition. Note that since this structure does not require 100% of the target's shares to be acquired, minority shareholders may retain a stake in the target. The "B" reorganization is similar to the reverse triangular merger, except that the latter allows boot, eliminates minority shareholders, and requires the buyer to acquire "substantially all" of the target's assets.

This structure may be useful when the target's shareholders are willing to accept acquirer stock as consideration because, for example, they might have built-in capital gains that would be triggered upon a stock sale for cash. The buyer may also prefer this structure if it does not want to part with a substantial amount of cash to fund the acquisition or seeks to shield itself from the target's liabilities.

[htrocka2] 23/7/2017 20:05

benny...
I'm going with an earlier poster who suggested that someone's in and out continual so as to created stability,.. thereby engineering and culminating in a gradual, controlled rise. A sudden spike will probably infringe on AIM rules and require an unwelcome explanation. (my opinion only)
(..and no doubt picking up a few shares on the way.)

[bennyfishery] 23/7/2017 19:44

There's certainly been a different pattern to the trading of late.
Someone, somewhere is filling their boots with shares, and somehow keeping the price low.
One day someone will say 'Open Sesame', and then all will be revealed.

[htrocka2] 23/7/2017 19:34

DR I'm not too keen on the 'red-herring' post......sailing that close to the wind is dangerous.




With ref to the above...I'm not sure the point you're trying to make?.

[dr rosso] 23/7/2017 18:53

Squeeze out rights, sell out rights and the City Code 6.1 Section 979 CA 2006 provides that if, within certain time limits, an offer is made for the share capital of the Company, the offeror is entitled to acquire compulsorily any remaining shares if it has, by virtue of acceptances of the offer, acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire not less than 90 per cent. in value of the shares to which the offer relates and in a case where the shares to which the offer relates are voting shares, not less than 90 per cent. of the voting rights carried by those shares. The offeror would effect the compulsory acquisition by sending a notice to outstanding shareholders telling them that it will compulsorily acquire their shares and, six weeks from the date of the notice, pay the consideration for the shares to the Company to hold on trust for the outstanding shareholders. The consideration offered to shareholders whose shares are compulsorily acquired underCA2006 must, ingeneral, be the same as the consideration available under the takeover offer.



Whopping great $19m has been built up for the new boys for tax offsetting. Whoever`s taking over won`t be paying tax for years. Shades of Donald.

[bronislav] 23/7/2017 18:43

Perhaps explains the huge volume since Schlumberger signed up.

[xerot] 23/7/2017 18:13

I like solarno have seen the docs proof and he isn't wrong this time. Great work from the doc as usual. Obviously too sensitive to put on here but there is a link and it is right. Interesting stuff.

[detective captain sean signal] 23/7/2017 17:44

Dr R, do you think we've been looking at the wrong Nigerian billionaire in Aliko Dangote? BP rather than AD...

[aventador] 23/7/2017 16:39

Don't care just give me my bloody money back and hurry up.

[1alfi] 23/7/2017 16:36

DrRosso - why would the company be disguising there true intention and more to the point would it be in the interests of lth's to have that 'disguised' information put into the public domain ?

[vatnabrekk] 23/7/2017 16:33

That the whole thing is fairy dust, perhaps?

[dr rosso] 23/7/2017 15:58

This Co. has thrown out an astonishing number of red herrings, each aimed at focusing attention away from the real target, the real issue. It does it very well, with carefully measured statements via podcast, rns, agm and other means.
What on earth could it possibly be that they do not want us to know?

[sherl0ck] 23/7/2017 15:33

HT - they closed that deal and here's the photographic evidence (note Obaseki's presence)