I also believe that PFC is the only party fully funded, and that is why in the qtrly, it says BKP's funding commitments are 'as required'. Because if Statoil plan to drill in EP 127/128, BKP will be up for some money.
It would be nice if BKP could clear up the confusion and lack of clarity us shareholders have...
Perhaps the reason for the confusion is due to the fact that much of BKP's quarterly report is taken from PFC announcements (see link to PFC's June 11 announcement. compare it to the first 1 and a half pages of BKP's quarterly)
Therefore, when you read the first 1 and a half pages of BKP's quarterly about being fully funded, it applies to PFC (because that is THEIR words, from THEIR announcement, THEY wrote it) but does it apply to BKP?
And if you look carefully you can see that BKP have added in two bits of information that are both related to funding:
From PFC's June 11 announcement:
Throughout 2012 and the first half of 2013, PetroFrontier and Statoil jointly spent approximately US$30 million on exploration in the Southern Georgina Basin, thereby gaining valuable geological information. Under the Amended Farmin Agreement, Statoil could spend a total of up to US$175 million by the end of 2016 before PetroFrontier will be required to contribute further. Statoil will also become the operator effective September 1, 2013.
Now read that same paragraph in BKP's quarterly. Notice that BKP have added 'with participation of Baraka'? That says to me that BKP aren't fully funded.
The other addition made is under phase 1 & 2A and Phase 2B, where BKP has added 'Baraka - as required' in regard to exploration funding. That also says to me that BKP is not fully funded.
Those are my thoughts anyway.
BKP Price at posting:
0.4¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
