We have seen the announcement made by the company today “ISS Supports the Board of Reabold” we also would like to question why the company did not mention Glass Lewis & Co’s report who is a major American proxy advisory services company;
We note the mention in public forums that it is stated the Glass Lewis Report stated
“CONCLUSION
Overall, we find that Pershing has made a compelling argument that change to the Reabold board is warranted and that doing so would likely lead to a more favorable outcome for all Reabold shareholders. The Company has performed poorly from a total shareholder return perspective, destroyed significant shareholder value and underperformed relative to benchmark indices over the three-year, five-year and 10-year periods prior to announcement of the Dissident’s requisition. These periods coincide with the tenures of the longest standing Reabold directors and with the tenures of the Company’s co-CEOs. While the incumbent leadership team appears to be making progress on its strategy to develop and monetize upstream assets, and recently secured the sale of Corallian for a net gain, these efforts have not translated to favorable shareholder returns, in our view. In addition to lackluster performance, we believe there are notable governance deficiencies at Reabold, including poor oversight of management, questionable compensation practices and a lack of sufficient industry operating experience on the board.”
West Newton
In response to our statement that we are disappointed with the lacklustre results of UK onshore licence PEDL 183 (West Newton), the incumbent directors have provided a single paragraph response. A single paragraph devoted to what the incumbent directors would have shareholders believe is a flagship asset of the Company. The incumbent directors state it is their opinion that due to the substantial progress at West Newton since the Company invested, with two wells drilled and tested and with a third well due in 2023, our criticism is not factually correct. Where, one wonders, is the belief of the incumbent directors rather than simply their opinions.
We assume the lack of belief is due to the incumbent directors’ previous approach to drilling, which resulted in: “Completion fluids were injected into the formation at a rate constrained by the pumps on site at 5.7 barrels per minute (8,208 barrels per day). However, the Kirkham Abbey reservoir appears to be sensitive to the drilling and completion fluids. We see clear signs of reservoir damage in near wellbore areas”. The Company went on to say: “The B-1Z well will therefore be suspended” (RNS dated 31 August 2021).
The previous drilling attempt at West Newton was disastrous, resulting in the well being damaged. We believe the incumbent directors rushed into the drilling without the required preparation and diligence, to distract from their failed approach for Deltic Energy. To date, there has been no accountability relating to this failure. Based on the Company’s current conceptual development plan, we believe the Company lacks the required capital and in-house expertise to successfully implement the plan of the incumbent directors. Our desire is not to change track for West Newton but to de-risk the incumbent directors’ plan and ensure the Company takes into account all the technical expertise already available with the project partners. Removing the incumbent directors will not delay West Newton but will further enhance the chance of success by reducing the co-CEOs’ excessive costs and replacing them by a single more technically advanced and adept CEO with the experience and knowledge to make a far more informed decision. We are keen to forge a close working relationship with the Company’s partners.