Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
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.
Here's a summary of the questions at the AGM and some snippets from the pleasant conversations with the BoD and CEO. I hope this will answer some of your questions and adds to the discussion.
First of all we were a bit dissapointed not to be greeted at the gate again by the group of anti-oil protestors from extinction rebellion. Later we found out that last year they were basically told to F*** off by the lady owner of the venue, and apparently that was enough for them to postpone saving the planet for another year.
Following tradition the question round was kicked off by a very articulate gentleman who carefully formulated his well informed questions at length and in great detail. The BoD was prepared this time and enjoyed a light lunch while taking in all the intricacies off the well formulated questions ;-)
In his answers Sam explained the department of mineral resources was renamed department of natural resources (including fishery) and the former director had handed over the responsibilities to a very knowledgeable lady who was a geologists and they were in a position to hire outside consultants if needed. Navitas has set up 5-6 teams around the main topics of the project and engagement with FIG is very good. It was not something RKH was worried about.
From multiple sources it was made very clear that huge progress is being made. A very, very big difference with the time we were partnered up with PMO. The Navitas team around Ian Ramsay has an office in London and Chanan Wolf oversees the project from Houston and London. The team around Ian Ramsay worked with each other for years at Murphy oil, who already were partcipating in drilling in the Falklands when Shell was over there and had twice seriously considered farming into Sea Lion. Ian Ramsay was the one who did the due diligence for Murphy and was already intimately aquainted with Sea Lion.
Needless to say they had a flying start.
Before the AGM I asked Keith how it was possible that the whole team of Ian Ramsay could come over to Navitas at such short notice. Implying Murphy oil had some advantage because they might be considering farming in later. Keith told us in the US it was much easier for senior personnel to change jobs. By the looks of it Navitas wants to get to FID on their own balance sheet and after FID, farm out to a third party because it would be much easier then. This could also be to Murphy oil, but nobody knows at this time. 3 times lucky?
The next question was about the warrants and if the company couldn't somehow advise shareholders to change them into shares. It was clear the board would like to see all of them converted into shares and getting some more money in the bank to get to FID, but advising as such would not be allowed by their Nomad as it would be seen as financial advice and this is highly prohibited. I have already converted all of my warrants, it helps RKH and at this SP it should be a no-brainer.
End of part 1
It's OK to jabber endlessly here while we sit here waiting for some tangible news, but probably more productive to wait until we hear something worthwhile and in the mean time, get on with something useful.
I think we should have learnt by now that Navitas will only announce something, when they believe it's appropriate.
We know that things are progressing (because of the various posts that have been advertised and filled and then more jobs advertised).
Oil price remains reasonably strong and VERY favourable for SL to go into production.
Putin's war continues
Everyone's looking for energy security. We just can't survive without abundant energy supply, even though we all know that fossil fuels are bad for our health.
There's always a possible banana skin which could crash the project, but at the moment, I really cannot see this one not happening.
Hi OscarIndiaLima - why post STRONG BUY when you expect the sp to have fallen by December ?
Safe to hold this share only as long as Sam is at the helm. Share price to be nearer 9p by December 2023. Allow a 6 to 12 month delay to the estimated timelines of Annulment and Final Investment Decision.
No 2023 Oil & Gas capital markets activity at Tel Aviv. Globes.co.il
Be patient.
"So it doesn't really matter what the annulment panel do with the stay as it will be very difficult to gain asset seizures in courts whilst the annulment appeal is in process".
Agreed up to a point, but there is psychological value in lifting the stay, as that would be just one more step in the right direction for RKH and one less for Italy.
Also, if RKH were to consider monetising even part of the award, lifting the enforcement stay is likely to increase the sale value, even if only by a few percent.
So while unlikely that anyone's going to swoon over the lifting of the stay, RKH management and RKH shareholders should welcome it as yet another step in the right direction.
Remember that only 18 months to 2 years ago, all such issues, plus things like the TDF decommissioning costs, etc., etc., seemed insuperable problems, with RKH probably going bust before they could be resolved.
Respectfully disagree with you Chess, A lot of what you say is just BS.
1. The threat of asset seizure isn't one they currently have to deal with (this changes with the stay being lifted which may change their tactics of "just ignore rkh"). Hence the relevance in RKH arguing for the stay to be lifted and my 2 reasons (which was the question originally about.."what's the point of rkh doing this if they don't chase the assets until after the annulment").
2. Lifting the stay without any preconditions to cover the perceived risk of recuperation in a successful annulment award could have been an outcome and wouldn't have been know unless the stay was challenged.
3. I disagree hugely with your timescales of award money recovery through asset freezing / seizure via the courts. You haven't proved this in any way to deduce the process taking 3-5 years, - your points of "not turning up in court" to defend themselves result, in most parts of the world, in a win to the plaintiff. Refusing to recognise the award is irrelevant as that is why its in front of the court in the first place. Not paying case fees is irrelevant as RKH can settle any court fees and need to anyway being the plaintiff. Claiming sovereign Immunity in court will be part of case law and struck down as quickly as its been objected to... Granted the process wont be quick, but it will be a lot quicker than your 3-5 years.. lol.. my expectation would be closer to 6-12 months.
BB3 -
Buzzthomas - "McCloughry, I don't understand whats the point of arguing the stay if you aren't going to go after the money immediatley."
I would hazard a guess that the only point of doing arguing the stay to be lifted, would be to see if Italy would pay the cash into an escrow account if and when the stay is actually lifted which would prevent the need to chase assets.
Until its lifted Italy don't have to do anything so why would they make it easier for RKH in any shape or form by putting the money aside for easy collection at any stage. The threat of asset freezing by rockhopper becoming a real thing upon a decision to lift the stay may force a change in those actions which would obviously be favourable to RKH.
Assuming RKH were never going to chase assets upon a lifted stay until after the annulment process -Italy would never have known that was the case - it would have been worth the cost for RKH to push for the lifted stay as they may have avoided the need to chase payment through the courts as an outcome (even if it is only accessible post annulment)..
Also the stay may have been lifted with no pre-conditions which would have allowed RKH to go after easy to monetise assets and also to then use those funds etc. etc.
So 2 reasons to fight the stay in my mind. (granted neither may have happened and thus be less than cost effective, but given the choices I would have contested the stay).
BB3
NigelHaemoglobin, thank you for the detailed response. Without wishing to sound like a stalking weirdo, your account is one of the very, very few I keep an eye. I noted a more positive tone with RKH and you are not one for mincing your words. I must admit I thought it was lights out a couple of years ago, but held, picked up the 7p rights issue and have exercised the warrants.
I think you plugged BP anything sub £3 in covid times. Unfortunately, I've been caught with Harbour instead. Such is. Will certain look more into your super major/majors theory.
Best,
Danger_Man.
Danger_
Thank you for asking but I have never pretended to be an O and G professional or having been involved in running businesses, I am bearish on all mini oilers: the safest money to be made is to be found by exercising great patience in accumulating super major or major hydrocarbon shares.
As for Rockhopper the future will be determined by a first rate but moderately sized company. Will they reach FID? Probably but the decision will be made after receiving very complex guidance from economists specialising in natural resources.
Everything else is being very professionally dealt with inc FPSO selection etc.
Shortly after FID resources will be converted to reserves IAW the PRMS of 2018, at that point the PI investment carries risk but greatly mitigated.
After paying royalties and taxes to the FIG, will RKH be liable to pay UK taxes on remaining profit ?
McCloughry, It is the committee considering the annulment which has lifted the stay, so if the committee is happy for the stay to be lifted that would carry huge weight with any court as a counter argument to what you are saying.
It’s a very fair point buzz.
Rockhopper may be unwilling to commit funds to enforcement until the annulment case has been decided, but if that were the case why waste time and money contesting the stay? They’d have may as well agreed with Italy and moved on.
Maybe a question for the company once the committee makes a decision.
That may well be correct but it still doesn't explain what's the point of arguing the stay then.
Even when the Stay is lifted, Italy can say to any court that they should not hand over assets because an annulment hearing is due.
McCloughry, I don't understand whats the point of arguing the stay if you aren't going to go after the money immediatley.
This did come up. Sam said that some clarifications were submitted to the ISCID yesterday (or the day before) and that he expects the Stay to be lifted soon. I got the impression that they wont go after the money until after the annulment hearing in January.
Was there any mention about the OM arbitration and the fact that the 30+10 days have already passed?
Paul, I agree that RKH are likely to sell the award at some point.
Providing Navitas make the progress expected, we should get FID next year. If we do get a bit "short" (of cash) before then I would expect the 8% loan (or a new bank loan) to cover this fairly small sum. I cannot see the need for another equity raise unless there's a protracted delay.
By the way, although Sam is much vilified by some, he seems to me to be doing a sterling job all things considered.
There is nearly £5million of warrants still waiting to be exercised.
Assuming the SP remains above 12p, I would expect nearly all to be exercised.
I have over 50,000 warrants that I haven't yet exercised, but expect to later in the year.
Whackford, my guess (and it is just a guess) is that they will probably sell the award.
I suppose the question is when - it’s likely to be much more valuable should the annulment case be rejected obviously, and the outcome might not be until late 2024.
I suspect they are hoping the remaining warrants are exercised so they can get to that point & then sell it to an entity that doesn’t mind waiting for the money.
The question, I suppose, is what cut a purchaser would want and how much would that leave Rockhopper with.
Paul, Thanks for that.
I can understand Sam being vague on (3), but I am surprised that there might be any need to raise further funds (especially equity) when there is the option of selling the potential award. In any case I had supposed that the 8% loan rendered further fundraising unnecessary and it was there for that very reason.
@NigelHaemoglobin what's your take on RKH at present? You seem to be generally bullish now. Would genuinely value your views. With thanks in advance.
I wasn’t able to attend and ask questions unfortunately but Sam Moody did kindly reply to my questions via email - I have summarised his responses below:
1. In light of what’s happened with windfall taxes in the UK & Europe, have Navitas & Rockhopper got any assurances from FIG that the tax regime will remain stable for the foreseeable future?
Answer: Yes there is an agreement in principle.
2. A suitable FPSO clearly needs to be sourced - I understand that you are looking at repurposing an existing one. Has the partnership made any progress with this and have any potential FPSOs been identified?
Answer: Yes they are narrowing down options and will make an announcement once there is something concrete to say.
3. Assuming the Italians drag out the arbitration process for as long as possible, when do you believe that Rockhopper will need to raise funds next? I realise that’s dependent on the uptake of warrants but a guide would be useful.
Answer: Difficult to say at this stage because it does depend on uptake of warrants, legal costs and whether they enforce or sell the award.
Pleased to say received my 35,713 warrants recently, happyish days
Agree, odd. At the very least take up the warrants and sell for an immediate gain!! How many PI's make even modest profits?