Member Info for AlmaCogan

HNWIs and institutions don't pi55 about with market makers, AKA Jobbers, they buy Direct Market Access for an annual fee to bypass them and trade L2. So there is no market maker slice or broker fee per transaction.

The trade in question looks like a couple of sells and they might we be that. Equally they might be someone with a big T20 leveraged position to roll over in the expectation of it paying off in the near future.

Some things you know, and some things you will never know, so hold your bottle in the absence of bad news. It didn't damage the closing SP.

You are right Aiminvestor, it won't happen in the next 6 minutes. First truth you have ever spoken.

I don't think that Aimi, AKA Godders, could find a train at Clapham Junction, never mind find a scam.

This chap on Linkedin is just a regular guy doing a job and reporting it as such. The Navitas bit is deeply buried, he is not bigging it up as his career highlight, far from it.

His name is a TexMex name and he is based in Houston, where Navitas have an office. It all sounds legit, and if an EPC contract has been issued from there, an American contractor will be doing it.

This guy whose resume is on Linkedin has another interesting statement:

“Represented Navitas Petroleum for issuing the EPC contract for the subsea manifolds, connectors, jumpers and flexible jumper connector goosenecks for the Sealion project located offshore in the Falkland Islands in South America. Assisted with cost tracking and management of the sub-sea structures”

An EPC contract is “Engineer, Procure, Construct”.

So, such a contract for long lead items has been issued, if you believe his CV.

Forget worrying about FID, get your car PCP claim in, after the Close Bro case.

According to analysts, the total payout could amount to as much as £13bn – a dramatic increase of around £9bn over initial estimates.

I want to thank NigelHaemoglobin for his raising issues into the environmentalists’ planning objections at Horse Hill, Wressle and the Islandmagee gas storage caverns in Antrim. I want to understand commercial risk, just as he does.

The latter case involves an objection to salty brine discharges to the local sea area and an assertion that a 40 year lifespan would breach the UK legal commitment to reach net zero in 2050. It’s an interesting case but I see no read across to the Falklands because Sea Lion is not a gas cavern project and the Falklands have no legal commitment to net zero that I can find. The Ministry of Defence has such a commitment for its South Atlantic operations, suggesting they intend to be there for a very long time.

Link here... https://www.teamdefence.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240502-Hydrogen-Conference-Leaflet.pdf

In the two former cases, both brought by the environmental campaigner Sandie Stratford, the cases revolve around Environmental Impact Assessments failing to include Scope 3 emissions in the carbon footprint calculation at Horse Hill, not the legality of the projects in themselves. County Court and Appeal Court both dismissed the arguments as fatuous, but the UK Supreme Court voted 3:2 to overturn the lower court judgement at Horse Hill. Both projects could satisfy the Supreme Court judgement by revisiting their EIA process. Again, there is no read across to the Falklands that I can see. The charity Falkland Conservation have made their views known about the work of Navitas EIS and a public consultation has now closed.

I have examined the most recent financial report of the Sea Lion operating company “Navitas Development and Production Limited” signed by the directors on 27 Sept 2024, and I can find nothing in the statement of cash flows that remotely approaches $50 million, in the last 2 years. The word insurance is not mentioned anywhere.

In the risk section of the report, they identify 4 risks : Market, Commodity Price, Currency and Interest Rate. There is no mention of political risk. I can only assume that a PLI premium has not been paid.

Make of all that what you will.

(Written from the Maths Class 4d in a South London comprehensive school)

Nigel, if political risk insurance is readily available and affordable, what is the purpose of the Energy Charter Treaty and ICSID? And why, one wonders, that MOG/RKH did not have it for their Italian operations?

Genuinely interested in your opinion.

Https://www.prestonmarkets.co.uk/image/15232/Wallace-and-Gromit-Sculpture/gi-responsive__1325.jpg?m=1692961450740

Good to see the Preston North End lads have got the measure of the clown.

Https://sd-windenergy.com/wind-turbine-news-events/falklands/#:~:text=There%20are%20now%20in%20excess,off%2Dgrid%20wind%20power%20solutions.

They are well ahead of the game with 85% wind turbine cover on the farms and rural dwellings without Millipede's help.

You are right Paul, every one of the FI licences has been graciously extended for offering to do a bit of seismic, exploration, sea bird study, or some desk top research, but not one of them has ever submitted a field development plan for approval. Even BOR had to recently raise funds to prove going concern to get a licence extension this coming December, just to carry on looking for a farm in. Even Argos had to do it before throwing the towel in.

Proof of funding is required for what you say you will do, and once you have an approved plan, that is what you must do, surely? Otherwise what is the point of all this approval stuff if you cannot afford it anyway?

Q : "Of farting about meetings worked for premier why wouldn't it work for Navitas??"

A: Because once the field development plan is approved, FIG will require it to be implemented. Premier never got to the point of an approved development plan, they had 3 concepts including a TLP, none of which was ever engineered into an approved plan.

Ancientarcher, you can take it or leave it, but it remains a fact that you cannot hold a petroleum licence without the funds to meet its obligations, and the obligations for 2025/26 are to bring Sea Lion into production, not fart about holding meetings on the best way to do it, as was the Premier approach.

There is some strange stuff being discussed here about deadlines and announcements.

Firstly, as everyone knows, Rockhopper is not the operator of the Sea Lion, it’s a UK registered company called Navitas Development and Production Limited (formerly called Premier Oil Exploration and Production Limited). This company submitted an annual report to UK Companies House on 27 September 2024 in which the directors stated (on page 4) that a short-term target in 2024 was to progress the Sea Lion project to a Final Investment Decision. This is a piece of public information signed by the directors, and it’s not in an RNS, because it’s not a company listed on a stock exchange.

Secondly this operating company is ultimately controlled in Israel, not by a company, but by a limited partnership called Navitas Petroleum LP. It has no shareholders to hold it to account, but it has partners who are in it for the money, and they know what is going on. They hold participation units, not shares, and these are mostly loans in nature with a small capital appreciation element but are tradeable on the Tel Aviv stock exchange. You cannot expect a partnership to be telling the whole world what they are doing, but the value of these participation units has doubled over the last year.

Thirdly as to a going concern, on page 5 of the afore mentioned annual report, it states that Navitas Petroleum LP has undertaken to provide all necessary financial support for 12 months from the date of signing, that is to say until 27th September 2025. The FIG licence PL 032 has now been extended to 31 December 2026. These timelines go full on into the development phase. None of this is remotely possible without Navitas Petroleum LP having the funding secured in fact or in principle, and having demonstrated it to the FI Government, surely to God? Yes, the Shenandoah income in that period of time will be part of the jigsaw, but just a part.

We are simply waiting for the FI Government to approve the Field Development Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement. There is a meeting of its Executive Committee on 29 October 2024 (Next week!) to approve the principles of an investment protection agreement to provide security for the investors in the Sea Lion project.

Why are people saying there is no news? I am the News of the World, and I am telling you the news. On 31 October, it will all become clear.

"Target for 2024: Progress the Sea Lion project to a Final Investment Decision."

That statement was signed off by the directors on 27th Sept 24, so it's still their objective.

There will be a significant RNS on 31 October, or I will hang myself off Blackpool Tower by my bra strap............You can all watch !

TCM asks "Does Jimmy Godbold get an invite to the SL FID Party ?"

He ought to be on the Board, never mind at the party, if you believe his CV...

======================

James is a seasoned financial modeler/finance transformation practitioner specialising in supporting business leaders to understand their commercial realities to unlock growth often trapped inside organisations and make transformation decisions required.

James started his career as an auditor where he honed his commercial capabilities and then moved to support investment banks including UBS .

=================

C'mon Jimmy, step up and do it. You know its right.

As for Oklahoma, Howard Keel once tried to buy the Broadstrike Inn just outside Aberdeen. Just another piece of useless information for y'all about Oklahoma.

There are 12 working days left before the Sea Lion Production Licence PL032 must be renewed by FIG in favour of the JV partners, Rockhopper and Navitas or not. Watch this space.

I have said this before and I will say it again, evidence of funding capacity for commitments is a re-requisite of any licence renewal. Today, Rockhopper met that requirement, without any placing or dilution.

Navitas only needs to find funding for 2025 commitments, including long lead items and any upfront costs of a drilling rig contract, because the 2026 commitments of drilling, subsea kit and paying for the FPSO lease will be met from Shenandoah income in the Gulf. Gideon Tadmor’s personal wealth is enough to fill that capital gap by himself, so it will be filled, surely? All of that is enough to make a Final Investment Decision.

I am certain that there will be an RNS on 31 October to say that the Licence has been extended into the development phase because adequate funding has been demonstrated and the FID is due before year end.

As for insider Mr Richards. He clearly knows what’s what and has walked away with sub 3% of the company just in time, at a bargain price to make a fortune.

And still Godders moans.

I’m sticking to my prediction, if you are out on 30 Oct, you’ll be regretting it.

"My god, it's full of stars" ...................

"That's right : hear no evil , see no evil."

James , you missed the third monkey ...SPEAK NO EVIL !

William Philip Seymour RICHARDS, director at RAB Capital Holdings Ltd

So it was an inside job!

Having "a hydrocarbon industry" is a very long march from have a single oilfield. To be of intergenerational economic value to the islanders it must create a significant domestic supply and service chain and it must consider how to commercially exploit gas, which is a hydrocarbon, together with multiple field developments. She is talking long term strategically, as you might expect, as she is about fisheries and climate.

Developing all of that on the back of Sea Lion is indeed a challenge for the CEO and the islanders, rather than relying on the endeavor of folk eight thousand miles away in a different hemisphere.

Port Stanley is smaller than a Lancashire village like Garstang, so yes it's a challenge.

Do you not see that what she is saying?