rambler
Member of DD Central
Posts: 69 
Likes: 13
|
Post by rambler on Nov 16, 2018 17:28:16 GMT
Seems they want to repay us early at the lower rate but we will get to vote (?) on this. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by nbk on Nov 16, 2018 19:41:02 GMT
I think looking to pay off the loan at 2% just days before maturity is pretty disingenuous to lenders. It has been known for months that the drilling would be behind schedule so why not return capital back in July ? I had assumed our funds were being used all along. I would prefer to see a more equitable arrangement where they look to extend the debentures maturity date at the orginal interest rate to build enough time into the plan to allow them to assess the outcomes from the drilling / test results and then to refinance for a longer term. The project would not have launched without our capital. So it will be interesting to see what the voting options are but I'm not inclined to roll over.
|
|
|
|
Post by GentlemansFamilyFinances on Nov 22, 2018 11:24:34 GMT
voting on the resolution is open now - I don't know which way I'd like to vote.
2% is a bit paltry - especially since some of the reasons that they want to give the capital back now is that they don't want to pay more in interest.
I think that 2% is better than losing money but a great deal less than the 12% touted.
|
|
rambler
Member of DD Central
Posts: 69
Likes: 13
|
Post by rambler on Nov 22, 2018 15:15:27 GMT
So originally they needed our money to drill the wells. Now they are suggesting they return our money (with 2% interest) but continue to drill the wells anyway. Where is the money coming from to continue the project? It makes me wonder whether they have another source of finance which is cheaper for them than paying us the 12% originally offered.
Have I missed something?
|
|
|
|
Post by nbk on Nov 23, 2018 14:13:36 GMT
I will be voting against the proposal - our funds were clearly required to get the project started and that use of capital to benefit the project upto this point should now somehow be recognised
|
|
|
|
Post by justdabbling on Nov 24, 2018 16:31:49 GMT
I feel somewhat dissatisfied as I would not have lent the money at 2%. However, I am going to vote for the return of the capital and 2% because I do not want to be involved in another default situation and I did sell some of my loan at a premium to the total return will be more than 2%. I feel a bit sorry for the purchaser of my loan part though. I will certainly bear this experience in mind the considering future offers.
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Nov 25, 2018 17:08:09 GMT
This should not have come as a surprise to anyone - it was laid out as a possibility in the info/docs on site from the beginning:
"U***** D**** Geo******* will make a decision whether to proceed with the project after they have drilled the first of ...[part redacted]... the subsequent development cost of the project (see Clause [detail redacted] of the Debenture Deed). The first well should be completed by [date redacted]. If the decision is not to go ahead, your investment will be returned in full with interest of 2% a year for the period from [date redacted] to the point it is repaid."
Disappointing perhaps, but I have voted to get my capital back +2%. You win some.............could be far worse!
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 26, 2018 10:09:39 GMT
It appears to be set up so that anyone who knows your name and email address can vote on your behalf - which in particular is likely to include anyone who you've transacted with on their secondary market.
Would the result of such an unverifiable vote be legally valid?
|
|
|
|
Post by justdabbling on Nov 26, 2018 18:08:53 GMT
We accessed the voting page from a link sent by email to our email addresses. I have just tried to see if I could go in and vote again as if I was trying to vote for someone else and the voting page is still there as if I had not already voted, so perhaps it would allow me to vote for someone else but hopefully there are some other safeguards. 🤔
|
|
|
|
Post by mfj197 on Nov 27, 2018 12:37:32 GMT
Difficult decision. I also wouldn't have lent the money at 2%, and I have enjoyed hearing about the project in the news and knowing I've been contributing to it. I've been viewing it as a reasonable success up to now, with the obvious exception of drilling delays. To suddenly find out that actually I won't be sharing in the project going forward, and potentially reaping the benefits, was a bit galling. The project could be in default of its obligations under the terms of the debentures in that it probably wouldn't be able to repay the capital, or even take the decision whether to drill the second well or return capital, in the timescales stated in the terms. It's a timing issue primarily. Should the project not pay back when stated in the terms then it is in default on this particular loan. The outstanding amount is still owed but we're in more uncharted territory - it may not be able to repay in some instances (financial solvency for example). I think the choice offered, of returning capital plus 2% interest, is a bit of a cheap offer. I've also sold quite a holding of debentures in this to others at significantly over the 2% gain, and all those who have purchased from me would be losing out. I personally would prefer to remain invested, possibly with the same expected monetary return (should drilling be successful) but over a longer payback period - i.e. reduction in IRR but same monetary gain. However this option was rejected and is not offered to us. The project needs our approval to repay us now, and even then it will have to source funds to cover the drilling. Might it now be able to secure those funds at a more advantageous rate given the demonstrable progress the project has achieved up to now? Also of note is that not agreeing to the capital plus 2% interest does not automatically create a default situation. The Special Resolution says that if insufficient votes have been gained then further alternatives will be considered. This should not have come as a surprise to anyone - it was laid out as a possibility in the info/docs on site from the beginning:
"U***** D**** Geo******* will make a decision whether to proceed with the project after they have drilled the first of ...[part redacted]... the subsequent development cost of the project (see Clause [detail redacted] of the Debenture Deed). The first well should be completed by [date redacted]. If the decision is not to go ahead, your investment will be returned in full with interest of 2% a year for the period from [date redacted] to the point it is repaid."
Disappointing perhaps, but I have voted to get my capital back +2%. You win some.............could be far worse!
The breakout option there was purely in the event of the project choosing not to continue once the first well has been drilled and evaluated. They are requesting a different outcome, to break out and return capital before the first well has even been drilled. |
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Nov 30, 2018 10:01:25 GMT
I sold out a few months back after evaluating my Abundance portfolio. I definitely did better than 2% and felt a bit of pride when I'd heard they been successful. Gutted for those still in it who don't get to share in the potential of this exciting new tech despite shouldered quite a bit of the risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by GentlemansFamilyFinances on Dec 5, 2018 15:52:30 GMT
looks like the special resolution has passed and will pay out the 2% PA after receiving over 75% of debentures holders' support. (80.1% in favour, 2.4% against).
I suspect a lot of the money will go into the marketplace - so I'm buying up a few more pieces before prices go up.
and I would imagine that those looking to reinvest will look North for a home for their funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by nbk on Jan 26, 2019 15:04:18 GMT
So, when it was proposed that this loan be repaid early to pay investors off at just 2% interest, the rationale to everyone in advance of the vote was that as the schedule had slipped by a few months and then it would take time to complete the first well, and then spend another 2 months analysing the data from that well before starting the production well - that all of this reperesented too much risk to what investors had initially invested in. Of course my suspicion was that rather than extend the loan at fair terms and let investors who had put their capital up for some time to share in the benefits , the company could exit cheaply at 2%. How interesting now to review the updates on the U***** D**** Website ( https://www.u*****d*****g**t******.co.uk/drilling-progress ), to see that they have decided to turn the first well in to the supposedly more risky production well and keep drilling to the full 4500m - all this just a couple of months after the loan was paid off and around the orginal completion time of the loan. I think it's clear that a lack of transparency and pure disregard to handle investors with fairness is fully in evidence here. Such a shame - I really like the concept of this project and hope it's a viable energy source going forward, but this trickery has left a bad taste.
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Jan 26, 2019 17:50:27 GMT
So, when it was proposed that this loan be repaid early to pay investors off at just 2% interest, the rationale to everyone in advance of the vote was that as the schedule had slipped by a few months and then it would take time to complete the first well, and then spend another 2 months analysing the data from that well before starting the production well - that all of this reperesented too much risk to what investors had initially invested in. Of course my suspicion was that rather than extend the loan at fair terms and let investors who had put their capital up for some time to share in the benefits , the company could exit cheaply at 2%. How interesting now to review the updates on the U***** D**** Website ( https://www.u*****d*****g**t******.co.uk/drilling-progress ), to see that they have decided to turn the first well in to the supposedly more risky production well and keep drilling to the full 4500m - all this just a couple of months after the loan was paid off and around the orginal completion time of the loan. I think it's clear that a lack of transparency and pure disregard to handle investors with fairness is fully in evidence here. Such a shame - I really like the concept of this project and hope it's a viable energy source going forward, but this trickery has left a bad taste. Good spot - if that's how it goes then I'm glad to be out. Good luck to them..........
|
|
