RE: should be short livedWhile I concur with knowsnothing and sparkletooth recent posts that BUK has (had) great promise as an O&G producer, I am more concerned with the bad mgmt decisions made by over-issuing additional shares/warrants to raise working capital. There was also no need to give such sweet deals on warrants at 1 for 1.
I bought shares in several batches in a range from $1.15 to $1.35 and fully expect to get a small cap gain in due course. However, thanks to BUK floating shares and warrants like they were water, we now have close to a 200 million stock equivalent float. That's totally nuts for a start-up company this size. They should have raised some capital via debt instruments rather than shares recently. Instead, a few favoured institutional shareholders got a sweet done deal, and we smaller retail investors got screwed. I own shares in lots of companies with much larger market caps who have 1/2 or even a 1/3 the shares out that Bridge does now.
Let's face it, even if BUK produces a mammoth $200 million profit down the road, that's only $1.00 a share folks!!! And if they enter into a share buyback plan later on when they have some cash, they will be buying these suckers back at (hopefully) a higher share price which waters down their leverage. My greatest fear is that they will float yet more shares the next time they need dough - diluting the share price even farther.
This operation has some very favourable assets, even if oil goes down in price. But so far these assets & the companies' start up ops have been very poorly managed on behalf of shareholders - to the point where future earnings/share will be severely diminished. Initial prospects appeared better than Oilexco in their infancy, but they have squandered this away now. Sad indeed.