Quite right re WONS. You note SK says at the 2012 AGM chappi refers me to there were two flow lines placed for use of the storage tanker, in relation to the earlier problems at 6! The hose disruption as we all know on the ON was a serious issue, then and later.
So when did we announce we had secured RBL via RNS pre ESP? (subject to FDP approval)
I notice we happily issued an RNS saying we had secured RBL subject to certain conditions being met in 2012 and you honestly believe if we had the money in place pre ESP the BOD wouldn't have been shouting from the rooftops! T
Then why did they not tell XEL before they submitted the draft FDP. XEL were in discussions with them, if it was an expressed concern of theirs why did XEL not simply submit then to DECC a request for EWT approval. Reason is quite simple, Banks don't initiate these sort of things, they are not technical experts, but they sure will cover their backsides on others who are, and their FDP qualifications, as DECC looked to be insisting on. All this required data could either have come previously from 6, we know why not there, or could have been conducted while XEL were in 1st phase production, except they were never allowed to get to that stage.
I also clearly didn't say that the banks might not have had a spanner too
The fact is that some decisions were made for instance RN that clearly indicate the change The EWT was drilled under WONS
We don't know any of us - it is clearly more palatable to the shareholder for it to be entirely a lending issue since there was never any indication of anything awry with the FT planning other than the fact that the TRACS initial reserves assessment being a surprise. The initial FT was delayed leaving us the wrong side of the year - maybe the export hose wouldn't have broken if the seas hadn't been so rough, maybe they had indications that the tote tank test would suffice, should they have stayed out there and tried to get it done ?
I don't know none of these quandaries was RNS'd but we know they happened that's why I don't find it hard to believe that it's probably not a clear cut banking blame - more of a mixture.
I'm just not sure that it matters to be right - just that it comes out right in the end
Quite agree. Of course XEL can't talk about it directly, they have both had to deal with those guys for a long time, and continue to have to do for the future, but the way this has gone there is a lot that can be inferred.
Stop putting words into my mouth, I have never said XEL had an RBL agreed before submission of the draft FDP, only what XEL had said in presentations etc., that it was being worked on, which clearly would have been the case and nothing to dispute about on that, they needed to source money from the obvious places. RN etc., was not funded as you know by RBL, but if they had gone into production as per the phase 1 plan it likely would have followed, as they indicated funds required for the SSP.
I'm not getting into an argument with you just stating my personal opinion .
I believe DECC threw a spanner in - I can't prove it since no one is saying but it's what I believe. Some of those thoughts are based on AGM comments and not just those during the meeting. We all know that what comes out in an RNS is the "potted" version and sometimes the two don't mesh seamlessly.
As far as the subject to FDP we can't go into production without it and I guess the banks would be expecting a return on their investment ergo Xcite produce oil
As I said I think it's largely immaterial at this point since however it happened we are where we are
Absolute crap, having been in since 2010 I'm in this until at least close to production, if I'm still alive by then. Let's see how RC's AGM projection on timing and sp revaluation after approved FDP goes first.
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.