Hi all, I thought some of you may appreciate some feedback from the session today hosted by CTP in Brisbane. Sorry for the length.
Firstly, there was a video taken from the meeting which is meant to be made available as well as minutes from the meeting. I am not sure when this will be made available but would have to assume that early next week would be timely. Secondly, the following is based on my notes and recollections and is not meant to represent investment advice. Finally, please do not shoot the messenger, be grateful that someone with a concerned, vested interest attended the meeting and is willing to share.
If you have been following the discussions on HC you are probably aware of my position regards the SOA and no the meeting did not change my position but I am pleased with some of the information gleaned mostly during question time and will try and share some of the information from today.
I was surprised at how few people were in attendance, probably less than 30 in the room (of which a large number were CTP and event staff) and only 21 online. I did expect regardless of anyone's position for or against the SOA that given the significance/purpose of the meeting and the opportunity to raise questions and concerns that there would have been more people despite the short notice. I was also pleasantly surprised at how calm the meeting was which I feel allowed for the representatives to be more open.
Yes, there were the usual disclaimers and information but my key observation of Richard, Robert and Joseph during the meeting and presentation they looked more alive and engaging than the exhausted and haggard versions I have seen in some of the other recent presentations since the announcement of the SOA. RC did make his presentation around the pdf document we all received today, obviously, he was bound to talk about the yes case but nothing new raised based on what we have already been told in other presentations and in the recently released SOA & IER document. I do believe that after today’s meeting and presentation that the board does believe, with our current position, they are truly working in the best interests of all shareholders. (Many of you will disagree, but I refer to the boards opinions, not if they truly are, based on my observations today). I will say he did look more lively and engaging, like the RC of old we are used to seeing in presentations, totally different to what I have seen the last 2 times where he looked like he was well and truly defeated, lost and exhausted.
There were not a lot of people raising questions, eventually though we did moving along with some discussion around various topics, I will try and outline some of the key pieces of information from the discussion based on a series of questions I asked (keep in mind there always was the ever-present elephant in the room of the SOA restricting some direct discussion).
The documentation and information outlines that around 80 different parties have been approached/entertained to either try and source funding or source a better offer than the MB offer, all of which apparently proved unsuccessful. Is it possible that no-one is interested due the presence of MB as a major shareholder of CTP, MB’s recent acquisition of Mereenie and now their takeover offer? Has MB basically financially locked us out due to their recent actions? There was not a direct admission of yes but essentially the response was an acknowledgement that due to the current ‘market climate’ and CTP’s current position no-one is interested or is discouraged in providing funding or investing etc. RC admitted this was surprising to him as he had always felt that being able to find the funding as time came close to CTP being able to get the gas to market and in the pipeline, was going to be the easiest task of the list of challenges to make it happen.
CTP has funding/revenue available to continue to make payments on our debts and meet all obligations in this regard, is there any likelihood that if the no vote were to succeed that MB would either call in the loans or even withdraw their financial support? Their response was that CTP is fully compliant re details of the loan and cannot see a reason for why CTP would not be able to continue this. However, the board cannot speak on behalf of MB and do not want to predict their actions.
I questioned the validity of the IER due to the recent GSA and transport arrangement with EDL and Santos wishing to increase their interest in EP 111 & 124, additionally the lack of value of the Helium reserves. None of which appear to be clearly referred to in the IER. Of course the response suggests that yes these were accounted for, with particular reference to assessors being advised all along during the process and in the final days as the sign off dates are before the date of the IER being finalised, take this how you wish. In relation to the Helium, this was explained as being discounted by the assessor as part of their risk assessment process. As far as the assessor is concerned the helium is a high risk of not being sold or available to sell in the next 4 years as CTP only have a 30% controlling stake with Santos the other 70. The assessor did not count for this as it is not in our control to take advantage of this asset.
One for the conspiracy theorists out there, regards the issues regards the website and access to company announcements. The company did not undertake any action to restrict anyone’s access to information despite any outward appearance given the issues accessing info on the CTP and the ASX websites. The issue took some time to resolve but it was identified that the fault was the result of a change caused by the ASX which has since been resolved. No aliens were harmed in the correction of this issue.
Does the board have any plans for CTP beyond the SOA if the no vote were to succeed, is there a Plan B, is there an option that if we turn the steering wheel that we can turn the corner? There was the obligatory statement about we have always had to maintain business and continue to operate CTP. Outside of this I was pleased to hear there was a reference to yes there is planning for where to after a no vote. Yes, there has been work undertaken towards a Plan B which did include CTP working to keep moving forwards with the intention of working in a MB free world, aiming to free CTP financially from MB. I was pleased with the energy behind the discussion.
Question time ultimately led to the discussion regards the board stepping down as the result of a no vote and the 2 proposed replacement boards. There were lots of points but some of the main things I took out of this discussion: The board is not automatically going to step down, nor is there a mandatory obligation for them to do so with the no vote possibly being a vote of ‘no confidence’. I liked the vigour and confidence with what RC said, outside of people’s opinion of the board in a no vote there will be a right and a wrong way to move forwards in the interests of CTP & the shareholders. He said that on the other side of a no vote will be a very disruptive and destabilising time where CTP will be best to focus on uniting rather than rushing to replace the board. He called for calm and patience if the no vote were to succeed and plan to make any board changes at the AGM for free otherwise it will be a very expensive and destabilising process causing unnecessary disruptions. He did not argue against any changes being needed though. He just asked that the financial and operational impact on CTP that jumping into a change may bring be considered before any personal agendas.
There were more questions and discussion but hopefully this is a good starting point for people to work over until the video and/or minutes are released. I did stay on and speak with the board members afterwards, with this and comments from the meeting the key things I found pleasing: 1. They did not look as defeated/exhausted as at recent meetings; 2. Their energy and confidence when discussing certain points; 3. There has been discussions at board level, what if the no vote gets up, what about plan B. 4. Richards, authoritative, confident and sensible call for unity, calmness and patience if the no vote were to succeed.
As I said earlier, nothing in the meeting convinced me to change my position. If anything, it gave me confidence that there is hope beyond the no vote.
I do believe that if the no vote succeeds there will need to be changes for CTP to move forwards. I am not going to align myself to either proposal, however I do tip my hat to RC for his common sense in advising waiting until the AGM for any changes as it will be a free pass and that anything other will be expensive (from many angles) and destabilising.
The priority I believe for CTP shareholders after this meeting is to ensure we focus on unity, before and after the vote. After all, united we stand and divided we fall. We must unite and vote no, we must remain united despite our feelings towards the board in the interest of CTP and work together until the AGM and plan any changes for then. We cannot afford to waste any cash on just changing the board straight after the vote.
I hope that shareholders make a better appearance at the future meetings around Australia but I echo RC and ask for calm and that SH act professionally as we all have to get along in the short term.
Expand
