hi mate.. i hold 4.5m shs here so try to be as optimistic as possible mainly to hold onto the little sanity i have left but there is one side of my ravaged brain that tends to agree with your latest post.
The picture I paint is just logical assumptions based on facts contained within the RNS and of course, with a large cautionary and negative view to it. As you say, it could well be false but you are free to decide which suits you best. It just strikes me as too cosy an arrangement. I have used this analogy before, you buy shares in a cheese factory but the sole supplier of the milk for the factory is wholly owned by the directors of the company! You stand no chance of benefitting from the milk activity. Directors are free to set the price for the milk and you have no visibility. It is not arms length dealing and it is very very far from corporate best practice. Read it whichever way you want but my experience has led me to smell fish.
Who cares about my credibility. I just want to share a flipside view with the BB. End of the day, there is no denying that corporate governance here is probably one of the worst in aim.
YB, I have only posted about what HAS happened. I am not going to comment on what RNS say MAY happen.
As a fellow VGM victim I shared your concern at the BOD coup and welcomed your cautionary posts as to what could happen. However, your latest post exposes you as a deramper rather than a dispassionate observer. The scenario you paint could possibly be true, but it could just as easily be false.
One major difference between RRL and VGM is that the latter BOD made no attempt to woo shareholders, they just implemented their strategy. For your scenario to be true, the BOD must be quite deliberately misleading shareholders as to their intentions.
I believe you are not a shareholder? I could be wrong on that but, in truth, I can’t be ars*d to find out. In my view your post has destroyed your credibility as a contributor.
LO effectively controls Range now through core and ABR. They have now moved RRDS into another for profit organisation which they own so I assume they have the confidence of running it profitably. If that is the assumption, and if it had kept RRDS in house and run it well, it would be a big cost saving to RRL. Why do you then need to flogged it? $4.37m Doesn't sound like a lot of money for 12 rigs?
Only logical explanation springs to mind is that if they can invoice whatever they want for the services once RRDS is flogged. More right hand pays left hand but PIs left stranded. The only people who stands to benefit are the Chinese. $4.37m just lasts 4 months in admin costs.
First, $60m loans for technical advice and management, then more in drilling fees, all set by themselves of course. LO has its claws well and truly around RRL's "assets". I would not like to have my assets squeezed by the Chinese in such manner.
Hope they don't waste money again in Puntland until we achieve results elsewhere. More dusters will knock any gains on the head depending what gains come about from this 'new venture'. I hope this 3000 isn't just waffle so I will believe it all when I see it. I will have been here 5 years at least come July and it was 25p then, but I will find it hard to imagine it will ever get remotely close to that figure ever again: 3-5p possibly unless they make a siginifcant strike, that's the only time it will hit the old figure of 25p.
Once we start motoring towards 3000bopd in Trinny and start looking like meeting government targets there with useful financial incentives, Puntland will surely soon come into play. It cannot be a coincidence that there in a specialist Chinese national in charge of Trinny to replace Will, and probably the most knowledgable and experienced East African oil geologist advising the BOD.
We might only get the scraps as PI's, but those scraps should be more than most of us thought a couple of weeks ago. Not a bad run-in to the February Chinese New Year and the year of the goat.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.