London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Who pays for the days lost and the sidetrack on humpback if mechanical problems occurred during drilling these cost should be down to operator.
Eegbvi, I would be willing. Would it require mail correspondence, or is there a means of doing so electronically via either email or the website? I have examined the RNS and found only telephone numbers...
Many thanks to you all. I bought my shares whilst working down in the FI. Also have Argos resources . Should have stook to BT !
Well you or someone has certainly had a good go at describing the net situation which comes down to exactly what has to some extent been voiced on here albeit in pieces by various people. May I suggest that you or the author of this missive repeats it to the Chairman and MD/CEO of FOGL with a copy to the FOGL brokers RBC Capital. All the names and addresses are on the latest FOGL RNS re the merger. Then wait for the reply. This will I feel sure interest an awful lot of shareholders.
I regret the cutoff at nuymber 2. Here is a revised number 3 including the omitted text. [If Noble had actually undertaken this action, it would help explain why, even today, what Noble learned at Humpback remains completely unknown. Noble’s only truly substantive communication to date has been that Humpback was “noncommercial’. That is not a fact: it is a conclusion. Conclusions are judgments of individuals premised upon facts, and while identical facts frequently result in different judgments from equally qualified persons, facts are uniform and unmalleable. To date, Noble has failed to release even the most elementary facts about Humpback - amount, quality, and quantity – even though its possession of this information, given the extensive drilling and logging performed to date, cannot seriously be questioned.] It must also be noted that some publicly available information flatly contradicts Noble’s conclusion of noncommerciality. No¬ble itself concedes that “oil finds” were made at Humpback, and the September, 2015 price leap, publicly reported by a number of reliable posters, was consistent with such a discovery. While small in volume, this compilation is positively encyclopedic compared to the dearth of information afforded by Noble. It even remains possible that Humpback was, after all, the massive oil strike which investors had been anticipating. Noble has to date neither addressed these concerns, nor released the facts upon which its conclusion of ‘noncommerciality’ was premised, and for which FOGL investors paid so dearly. Noble’s position appears, rather, to remain: “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” FOGL investors and regulatory authorities should insist upon Noble’s immediate release and full disclosure of all information pertinent to the Humpback drill in order to allay the foregoing legitimate investor concerns.
It must also be noted that some publicly available information flatly contradicts Noble’s conclusion of noncommerciality. No¬ble itself concedes that “oil finds” were made at Humpback, and the September, 2015 price leap, publicly reported by a number of reliable posters, was consistent with such a discovery. While small in volume, this compilation is positively encyclopedic compared to the dearth of information afforded by Noble. It even remains possible that Humpback was, after all, the massive oil strike which investors had been anticipating. Noble has to date neither addressed these concerns, nor released the facts upon which its conclusion of ‘noncommerciality’ was premised, and for which FOGL investors paid so dearly. Noble’s position appears, rather, to remain: “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” FOGL investors and regulatory authorities should insist upon Noble’s immediate release and full disclosure of all information pertinent to the Humpback drill in order to allay the foregoing legitimate investor concerns.
If Noble had desired to eliminate FOGL, it could have done so rather easily by employing the following three-point program: 1. Deliberately and substantially extend the Humpback drill in an effort to increase exponentially total drilling cost. Doing so would deplete FOGL’s cash reserves in short order and, while it would also increase Noble’s costs, Noble’s enormous cash reserves would have rendered its endurance of such increases inconsequential, particularly given the prospect of ultimately acquiring FOGL’s assets for virtually nothing. [If Noble had actually undertaken this action, it would help explain one of the greatest mysteries of the Humpback saga: Why would a sophisticated driller with a record of success have bumbled operations so badly as to require extension of a 65-day drill to almost six months at $570,000.00 per day? And why would it be willing to pay so much to drill a dry hole?] 2. Engage a market maker to sell into any share price increases in order to eliminate market capitalization as an alternative funding source for FOGL. With no cash reserves, FOGL could still have raised required capital by either selling treasury stock or issuing new stock. This option would be foreclosed outright by ensuring that FOGL’s share price never rose. [If Noble had actually undertaken this action, it would help explain the remarkable behavior of FOGL’s share price over the past ten months. In February and early March of 2015, the share price doubled in anticipation of Zebedee, only to be promptly obliterated subsequently without explanation. Thereafter, an oil discovery at Zebedee, a massive oil discovery at Isobel, and the prospect of still greater success at Humpback all yielded no share price response, a phenomenon as uncommon in the annals of oil exploration as it is intuitively absurd: how can a flagrantly substantial increase in a company’s assets not increase that company’s value?] 3. Utilize total control over drilling information to secrete all positive results. Withholding positive drilling information would artificially, but effectively, depress FOGL’s share price while discreetly retaining for Noble invaluable information concerning an asset of extreme value. [If Noble had actually undertaken this action, it would help explain why, even today, what Noble learned at Humpback remains completely unknown. Noble’s only truly substantive communication to date has been that Humpback was “noncommercial’. That is not a fact: it is a conclusion. Conclusions are judgments of individuals premised upon facts, and while identical facts frequently result in different judgments from equally qualified persons, facts are uniform and unmalleable. To date, Noble has failed to release even the most elementary facts about Humpback - amount, quality, and quantity &am
[Author’s Note: All statements which follow are in no way premised upon non-public information, facts, evidence, documents or materials. The author does not have, and has not consulted, any non-public resources, and does not assert as fact any of the statements which follow. All of the statements which follow are, rather, solely and exclusively, statements of surmise, conjecture, hypothesis and opinion. As always, the reader must not rely upon any such statements for any purpose, and must perform his/her/its own research and due diligence.] Let us review the history and data of the past ten months in an attempt to bring some understanding and context, if not closure, to our current FOGL predicament. We do not know the specific terms of the operator agreement between Noble and FOGL, but it may have provided that Noble held exclusive control over drill-related information. If so, FOGL, like its investors, was at all times a pure consumer of drilling and well information. From the start, Noble knew all of the following: a. FOGL had enough cash for the Humpback drill (but only just enough); b. FOGL never intended to be a producer and, as such, was completely dependent upon drilling results for market valuation and continued economic viability; c. Noble was fully funded for the drill, regardless of result; d. Noble was sole operator, but only minority stakeholder, in Humpback; and e. Noble is a well-known operator with record of drilling success which exceeds the industry average. If Humpback had been a success, Noble was to receive only a minority share of the resulting benefits and profits. And if, following such a success, Noble undertook to acquire FOGL or FOGL’s Humpback interest, it would be obliged to pay a premium and, perhaps, find itself in a bidding war with other prospective suitors. In this context, Noble may have viewed its financially weaker, but majority-stakeholder, partner (FOGL) as an obstacle. As an alternative to the course of action delineated above, Noble could have considered the benefits of driving FOGL into insolvency. If FOGL were rendered a debtor of Noble and FOGL’s cash reserves dissipated, Noble would ultimately be positioned to acquire FOGL’s assets virtually free of charge, an outcome: (a) guaranteeing Noble all Humpback benefits and profits; (b) positioning Noble as sole leaseholder and operator in the South Falkland Basin; (c) positioning Noble as the major player in the North Falkland Basin (with Isobel and Rhea surrounding Sea Lion); and (d) foreclosing as impractical competition from all other firms which may otherwise have held interest in the region.
Sorry that should have been a reply to Parsley
Isobel is 24% RKH 40% FOGL so if a success its skewed ifo FOGL not RKH.
I don't think there will be any recal either in the end simply because RKH has more institutional holders than FOGL but with the FOGL BoD at less than 10% and RKH BoD at less than 2% it could well happen. I don't want the deal to fall either but I do want to see it put together properly. I assume that both sides will be seeking an independent auditor's validation as they will have to so it may all come out then. I suspect the Stock Exchange will also require an independent audit approval which may prove difficult without full information.
Stick with WO's hamster instead of some lunatic on iii. !!
Oil price I don't know a lot about oil industry and I certainly hope you are right.however I try to read as much info as I can.i get impression the Saudi, S intend to anihilate all competition before they cut back
If as I expect Isobel comes out very good then the two BoDs need to recalculate the numbers on the basis of reality instead of what seems to be the back of an envelope. There's also very interesting article on Investing.com Brent crude price. Saudis will Cut. (sorry no link) suggesting this whole mess is caused by the dollar imbalance. The dollar will fall soon despite gerrymandering by the Fed so the oil price rises and Saudi will at the same time cut output thus forcing even higher oil prices.
There's a lot more where that came from.
You have to admire the FOGL BoD getting it right re Humpback described as a "High Impact" drill. Certainly was !!
Good morning Gentlemen. Just got on and had the pleasure of reading Supertube's post from Wednesday at 19:18. Literally laughed out loud! Supertube, will print your wisdom poster-size and hang in my office as a constant reminder of my investing prowess!
Sfb Yes I agree with hindsight sfb was mistake.i did notice that in rock hopper bid they placed zero value on sfb.i don't want to sound sarcastic but I am willing to make a better offer for sfb than rock hopper have made say a quid.if sfb has zero value then surely rock hopper will not object
Columbo in my opinion des shareholders got a very generous deal when fogl took them over.but in my opinion fogl shareholders are getting a bad deal in that how can our oil finds be valued when us shareholders have no cpr info to go on.also add on the fact of our share of sealion, plus the little bit of cash we have in the bank and also rkh anf pmo were going to have to pay towards and free carry fogl on current well drill.looking back fogl were totally out of their depth getting involved in the sfb and history will show us it has been a graveyard for oil explorers
whos gonna buy rockhopper a few years down the line,des,fogl,rockhopper next,ha ha,its that old phrase,you only lose when you sell,im gonna stick by that,luckily i can still put food on my table and im in no rush.
Classic! Well I've been here since 2012 - topped up 3 times and chucked all my Dragon Oil cash in as well after takeover so I literally put all my eggs in one basket just for the hell of it. I'm not going anywhere soon. Hahahahahaha (imagine crazed laugh).
yes your talking years down the line m8,i bought des shares when they were 99p,and i need 1.60 a share from fogl,god knows what im looking for if rockhopper takes over,but if im being honest,i think ive got more chance of spending the night with kelly brook than ever seeing a return,ha ha
ive been stuck in here since the early days of des,so ive had des shares,now ive got fogl shares,and now im gonna get rockhopper shares,i dont know what the flooking hell is going on either,ha ha
So it looks like another 3-4 years of me not understanding what the f**k is going on! Great.