Member Info for aligator

Joey, Re the debt facility, I would much prefer this approach to fund raising than a further issue of equity, which simply dilutes all shareholders. It would not surprise me if the larger loan is non-recourse to TXP - that is, the security for the loan is limited to the assets of its subsidiary TXP Trinidad. Indeed, no mention was made of a guarantee by TXP which would support this view.

As for your views on Malcy, I think you will find that the great majority of his predictions have ultimately proved correct, not just in terms of companies but in terms of regional and global markets.

Dai2belts, My take on the situation is that no one at HE1 has seen the rig, somewhat confirmed by the COO's response. It may be that Noble personnel have seen it and maybe even had it assessed and that HE1 is deriving some comfort from this.

That said, I find it difficult to comprehend how HE1 can be 6 weeks (from the 6 April RNS) into negotiating a contract for the rig without having some first hand assessment of the piece of equipment.

TL2482, As I said in my post, I wrote to the COO on 28 April and posed the questions of rig location and 3rd party assessment. To reiterate, the COO's answers were that the rig is "In the Sofori yard" and, regarding the name of the third party rig assessor, "Contractor is Sofori, none at this stage", suggesting that no rig assessment has yet been carried out.

You are quite right, I know no more than was provided to me by the COO. That said, his response is not exactly full of clarity, hence my early post.

I thought it appropriate to remind everyone that, on 6 April, LB advised that the company had entered into an LOI and

"... negotiations continue, with a view to signing a contract as soon as possible...".

That was almost 6 weeks ago. While I assume that Noble is jointly involved in the negotiations - which might possibly slow progress - my question is, how long does it take to agree the terms and conditions of such a basic contract?

On 28 April, I asked HE1 (by email) the "actual" location of the rig in Tunisia and the name of the third party contractor who had undertaken the assessment of the rig and confirmed it as being fit for purpose. I was told by the COO that it was "In the Sofori yard" and that "Contractor is Sofori, none [technical issues] at this stage". Perhaps my questions were misconstrued but, based on these responses, it would seem that HE1 does not know the exact geographic location of the rig and that, to date, no third party technical audit of the rig has taken place.

Again, I am merely reporting fact. I appreciate that it is not what most want to hear but, given the 6 weeks silence on contract negotiations, these responses are confusing to say the least.

Skittish, You do realise that your are not allowed to be negative about the company? It upsets investors who want only to see positive comments in the belief that LB is going to deliver as predicted.

No problem! There are none so blind as those that don't want to see.

Systemzero, Agreed, basic logic.

KeithOz, shares aplenty, Prae, and all other sceptics,
Let me firstly reiterate that I am a very substantial holder of HE1 at an average price of 5.4p so please refrain from FOMO and deramping claims. I want this company to succeed as much as anyone.
Secondly, I don't often react to comments about my posts but this is an exception.
I am a risk analyst by profession and therefore my modus operandi is to focus more on what could go wrong with a project than what could go right - hence my generally negative posts. The situation in Sudan is a classic African continent scenario which could impact other countries - this is why I raised it yesterday and why news stations around the world have been commenting on such a scenario, as pointed out by PatShare in their post this morning.
The problem with investing through rose tinted spectacles is that, in many instances, people fail to see the initial signs of smoke which then lead to a raging fire, by which time it is too late.
I make no apologies for seeking to make people aware of the downsides to a situation and would remind all shareholders that Sudan has a ca 400 mile stretch of the Suez canal as part of its eastern border. As Skippysb01 infers, this could be an issues should Sudan meltdown.
AIM is brutal market and unless you really know what you are doing you will eventually get hurt.

Oldapache, I can only presume you are a recent investor in this stock.

may seem a long way away but, should the country implode, the ripple effect on the continent could be substantial. Quite apart from being geographically between Tunisia and Tanzania (should road transport be considered), events in Sudan could embolden other opposition factions in a myriad of African countries, many of which cling precariously to some form of current order.
Again, not being negative. Rather, assessing realities and the prospect of influencing this project.

One can only hope that there will be a sizeable attendance of shareholders willing to voice their various concerns to his hapless board.

Dobbyy, Location not mentioned.

Dobbyy, If you know then please tell the rest of us. If your rig location is a presumption rather than fact, please explain why you think so.

I am somewhat surprised at the confidence and level of optimism of some posters. Does anyone know where the rig is actually located? In the interview, LB said "North Africa" which suggests that even she does not know? Given that she also said it had been "independently" assessed (presuming that it was professionals who did the assessing), has anyone within HE1 actually seen the rig? Further, do we know who will actually conduct the drilling - SOFORI or a third party contractor?
If the latter, who and at what stage is this contract?
LB also said that it would take 4-6 weeks to transport the rig to the site. Given this is Africa let's assume 6 weeks, if not more. Once onsite (and assuming all preparatory site work has been done) let's assume it will take another 10-14 days to reinspect and prepare for drilling. Thus, if the spud is to occur before 30 September, the rig will need to be on the move before the end of July. In theory, this would provide HE1 with over 3 months from now to negotiate the terms of the rig contract (and, if required, drilling contract), turn it/them into a legal agreement and sign, which would suggest that there is some flexibility in the critical path to drilling. However, speak to anybody involved in rig transport and drilling, specifically in Africa, and most if not all will recount horror stories of transport breakdowns and other delays (even documentation), slow progress on site preparation and a myriad of other offsite and onsite technical and personnel issues.
Yes, I am a shareholder and hoping for the best. No, I am not being negative. I am being realistic and what I have heard from LB (who left me unimpressed from the interview) and the company leaves many questions unanswered.

Could someone please advise the expected timetable of events over the next 12 months? Seems to me that PB's predictions of a wall of cash in the near term have been dismantled somewhat. Would I be right in recalling a Malcy prediction of £2 within this timeframe?

Mole, With respect, I disagree. The company had suffered numerous geological problems, including unexpected pressure zones and fluid loss, on H1, A1 and A2. While we are not privy to what data RN and colleagues had before them in planning the H2 well, these historical experiences should have convinced them to specifically identify the possibility of encountering the same issues on H2 in the 6 March RNS. Again, I would argue that this would have been a win win move for reasons previously stated.
I do appreciate that there are myriad of issues to consider in drilling a well but the fact is that these problems were not already known from previous experience but had occurred on all 3 wells drilled. Thus, any experienced CEO/Chairman would have ensured that the prospect of this happening again was made known to the market.

Legalwolf, Please don't hold your breath! My take on this whole situation is that, sometime in late summer, we will get an RNS stating that either there are problems with the rig (mechanical, logistical, operational) and that the well spud will have to be delayed until 2024.

Coldspy, Having encountered similar geological issues on Southwark in both the A1 and A2 wells, I would argue that this is specifically why RN should have spelt out the same possibility in the H2 spud notice on 6 March. As I have stated, this would have been a win win scenario for RN as, in the current scenario, he could have said "As predicted...". Conversely, had their been no such problem then everything would have just moved forward.
We all know that the wording of corporate statements and announcements is often critical but IOG have never seemed to comprehend this.

Mole, My view is that if this possibility was known then why not say you are aware of it upfront, rather than report it only when incurred. It is a win win situation. If it does occur, then you are credited with having "prepared" for it and if it doesn't occur then you are credited for having taken it into account in the drill plan. By not saying anything upfront and now reporting it as a "known risk" simply increases the doubts of investors who are already suspicious of this board and senior management team.

SpArmada, Agreed, Petrofac has done IOG no favours. That said, if RN and company knew about the possibility of gas and oil influx and associated drilling fluid losses at the time of the H2 well announcement on 6 March, why on earth did they not include in that announcement. That way, they could then word todays announcement with the preface "As predicted,...". It would show the board and senior management team in a totally different light to the stumbling, bumbling group we appear to have.