The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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.
Hopefully hear something in December, failing that Jan 2020. It's interesting the article about PMO, Durrant seems to be playing it cool giving some conservative promises, partly as that is very sensible at the moment as oil seems to bouncy around daily and weekly in a knee jerk reaction style, but also gearing up for a great 2020 for them.
Every couple of dollars on oil and their expectations to pay down debt will increase, same for the industry as a whole at the moment, lots of underinvestment and streamlining and cost cutting. I can't help but feel a few E&P will be posting more positive returns of the next year. more so if the US sort their trade deals and Shale continues to falter.
The thing that interests me is IF it comes to pass, PMO might, just might be able to secure a partner for SL and fund things themselves. I know, I know this is not something that is likely at the moment and the BEST scenario for everyone is the UKEF loan. At the AGM it was clearly pointed UKEF was make or break. But now as we head to 2020, yes UKEF not get involved would hit PMO hard and RKH REALLY hard, but if PMO kept it's head down; paid down debt with Zama sale and then beat expectations of further debt reduction (as mentioned it could be getting down to nearer $1.3B rather than the conservative $1.5B), late 2020 SL could still be a goer without UKEF.
Of course for the above to be possible, it would mean RKH surviving the fallout from UKEF loan not happening. At which point PMO might make a whole paper offer to put RKH out of it's misery! But should RKH survive that, and PMO reduce it's debt considerably then why wouldn't they try and fund themselves in a more positive environment. Let's face it, as mentioned PMO needs to replace reserves and production over the next 5 years; what options are there around with such an understood basin with great fiscal terms?
Its all getting interesting and I feel a little more positive despite the lack lustre share price. I expected the share price to just tread water after the AGM and everything would be dependant on UKEF, but I didn't expect such a drift down. For a cheeky punt it might be worth it but only as a highly speculative punt, I won't be betting the farm.
FWIW and IMHO, I still cannot see why UKEF would not get involved; it's a big loan, but by no means top end; it also helps an industry that employs a lot of people that this past 5 years has been knocked and hit quite hard, never mind the knock on of supplier involvement and of course the Falklands themselves, huge investment and money to the FIG which will then pay for it's share of military support in the region and then some.
LTT
A few years ago now, when Desire was doing all the talk of going back to the Falklands as Shell data and drill results showed great promise after re-evaluation, there was a little company called Rockhopper that went and picked up all the acreage around Desires. I had a cheeky punt then thinking if Desire came good, RKH would be dragged along by the coat tails, little did I know Desire would falter and RKH with one drill would hit the jackpot! What a ride that was, I have taken punts on other investments and they have failed, but that's the nature of the beast.
The above was more luck than good managemnt and the cards are stacked against it happening again but who knows, not me, not you, but where the RKH share price was is only relevant if you bought high and hugged an held. For anyone with a balanced portfolio with a little cash to spare and fancies a cheeky punt, they could do a lot worse. Good luck with whatever your plan and strategy is.
This is not advice for anyone to buy/hold/sell but just think why you would do any of those depending on your current position.
LTT
LTT: DES - 8 drills!!!! 8 ****ing drills and they put them in just about the only areas of their acreage that DIDN'T have oil!!!!! The whole story would have been different if they had of hit the black stuff. All the negativity from the "oil to water" weekend (I can still remember the sheer excitement on that Friday) has ensured a cloud has stayed over the FIs ever since.
Kurgan2.0,
Having put all this effort into de-ramping Rockhopper, I suspect you probably know a bit more about this story than you care to let on. Hypothetically speaking a farm down from RKH of say 15% of Sealion could net something like $60m to RKH Plus the $10m from sale of Egyptian assets and a potential $200+m from the Ombrina Mare Arbitration would set us up well for Sealion phase 1 development.
" potential $200+m" I wouldn't count those chickens !
I'd be wanting far more than $60m for 15% -- in that scenario , it would make the whole shooting match only worth $400m = £315m.
ralph2010,
One of the worlds top Litigation funders has bet a few million on a good outcome. Its not guaranteed but do you know better ?
I am questioning the ~£200 million idea, a perfectly valid stance. But you always know better dont you
ralph2010,
A world leading Litigation funder is backing this case risking their own money, most likely at a cost of several £millions. A leading International Arbitration lawyer who specialises in Oil and Gas claims and has a great track record of winning hundreds of millions for clients in Oil and Gas cases, is claiming ( damages reported in media sources to be $275m )
Yet you state 'I wouldn't count those chickens' and 'I am questioning the £200m idea'
Are you quite sure its me who thinks I always know better ?
You really are a prat arent you. Claiming and getting $275 are 2 different things. A good chance of winning, but I doubt they will get the whole amount claimed. Thats my view so sod off
ralph2010,
I originally stated $200+m ( thats US Dollars ) you seem to be able to copy that down alright but when you type it out yourself you put ' I am questioning the ~£200 million idea'
Are you quite sure its me that looks like a prat here ?
Prat, $200m or $275m, what ever. I still don't think it will at that level .
So you saying that the "A world leading Litigation funder is backing this case risking their own money" are wrong with $275m and you are right with $200m. Make your mind up, one minute you are sucking them off, the next its you that right.
All you do is try and nit pick and split hairs, something wrong with you buddy. It was obvious what I meant, Prat.
If memory serves, $50M they get 25M, $100M award they get 35M, so there is hopefully some expectation/hope of a six figure award
Cubane
Nigoil can you explain to me how I can think out of the box and see this as a massive strong buy rather than a “high risk speculative buy” ?
I mean that in honesty, I am wondering if I have missed something or how you are seeing things so differently to many others on this board.
Many thanks
LTT
Nige, how about answering LTT's question, and preferably without being rude and without the spelling and grammatical errors, which don't do anything to make your rant look credible.
Oh yes, what does "simples" mean?
The one thing about the OM case that we should probably all consider is that it is very likely the legal firm have multiple cases on the go and expect to win a proportion and lose the rest
RKH could fall in either camp
So when people say “why would they spend xx££ speculatively?” well, that’s their business model.....work five cases and expect to win two...
I’m long RKH and staying in to see this play out but I am in no doubt that it is highly speculative and I may lose the lot.....anyone who continually posts that it is a strong buy and a sure fire winner is, frankly, overly optimistic at best and dangerous at worst
Nigoil, more waffle. You were asked a reasonable question, why dont you back up the strong buy?
??????????????????
Please explain where my "half facts" are and explain "the whole story" if you please. Your post there seemed to contain a lot of waffle and not much else. I was expecting a bit more as you seem so sure with "Strong Buy".
I don't have issue with your opinion but you seem no better than the so called "bashers" you want to protect everyone from. If you have posted before and don't want to type everything again, just direct me to your posts which contain your reasoning or thoughts, then I can make an informed opinion with regards to what you have to say.
Seriously I apologise if anything I have posted has been incorrect or misleading in any way, but to say I am a disingenuous poster........... well I don't know how to respond to that, so please do explain where I am going wrong.
Many thanks
LTT
Superrich
That is not how it works with litigation of this type. In order to get the backing of both a risk committee at the firm, and more importantly, the litigation funder and the after the event insurer, prospects of success of 60% or more, with a supportive leading counsel's opinion, are required at the outset.
Ax I have said before, no lawyer will give more than a 75% chance of success on a case due to the concept of litigation risk, that is, that things happen in a case which are outside the control of the legal team (a judge/arbitrator does not like an argument, a witness does not perform and so on).
That is not to say that the risk in a case will not change during the course of a case, but at the outset, this will have been given good prospects of success at K&S.
The bigger issues on the ON litigation are: 1. getting execution any time soon if RKH win; and 2. the fact that a lot of the damages, if recovered, will be eaten up by King & Spalding, the litigation funder and the after the event insurer (together with the 12.5% insurance premium tax on the ATE insurance). I have said before that anyone thinking that hundreds of millions are riding in over the hill in Q1 2020 could be in for a nasty surprise. It is perhaps more likely that the judgment debt receivable would be sold at a substantial discount if cash is needed.
Fibonacci112,
Thanks for you well reasoned post.
That sounds about right so somewhere around a 60-75% chance of success. As I said previously its been reported that the claim is $275m. I don't think anyone is invested here hoping for this amount to be going into RKHs coffers. My point was that there is a 'good'chance of an award, like I think there is a 'good' chance of UKEF, and a 'good' chance that Tony Durrant wants to press forward with Sealion.
King & Spalding secured an arbitration award – one of the largest ever rendered under the Energy Charter Treaty – on behalf of the clients in December 2013
Prat, your point was not that at all, this mornings post is a back track on your Prat attempts to split hairs.
ralph2010,
I think in my original post I said a 'potential' $200m. Which you changed to £200m ( close to a $60m dollar mistake ) or nit picking as you call it. In my next post I mention the claim is a reported $275m which you change to a mere $275 ( which could be a even more costly mistake )
Your delightful post below
' ralph2010 RE: Zama Sale Sun 11:04
You really are a prat arent you. Claiming and getting $275 are 2 different things. A good chance of winning, but I doubt they will get the whole amount claimed. Thats my view so sod off '
My god you are still at it Prat. Who cares $ or £, its OBVIOUS what I was saying.
Hi Again
I agree with all of that. And apologies for the autocorrect typos.
F
Hi Auson
It did it again (*Again - and also tried to change Auson to Austin this time around).
Got to hate autocorrect!
F