Member Info for AlmaCogan

It wasa

There is something unusual about BOR; they have a survival gene which seems to defy explanation.

The list of failed Falkland explorers is long and there is no point in naming them all, but somehow BOR is still there with a 100% licence on a fair-sized light oil/condensate discovery which made front page headlines in the Sun newspaper at the time. The business case for Darwin is more robust than Sea Lion, particularly in terms of capex.

The company is more secretive than the Vatican, but it is a fact that they were the first mover in securing Eirik Raude for the last drilling campaign before Noble muscled them out (first-hand information from the meeting room).

There is an investor or group in Calgary which is taking a stake in BOR. Are they just ten bob Yanks who speculate on anything with the letters O, I, L, or are they privy to the inner sanctum? Do they have money to put in ?

So, as is obvious, BOR has little hope of doing anything unless they can share a rig to appraise Darwin and open up a development plan.

Eirik Raude was a deep-water rig. Unfortunately, it was poorly maintained and unfit for purpose, particularly its defective BOP. So deep water rigs are not out of the question and it’s a matter of money not specification, and who is to say that that the Chinese have not made an offer you can’t refuse for Blue Whale 2, perhaps an idle rig, as intimated in the Upstream article?

Strange things happen at sea.

"One of the options includes an ultra-deepwater semi-submersible rig that was built in 2017 and is currently stacked at a yard in China for its Chinese owner."

I thought that was an interesting comment by Upstream, on a few fronts.

1. It seems to identify one or both of the Blue Whale 1 and 2 drilling rigs.

2. It would explain the otherwise inexplicable interest from Calgary investors in the fortunes of the Darwin discovery in the deeper South Basin, by offering the possibility of a rig share deal between BOR and Navitas.

3. It might mean that there is greater % upside in the BOR share price than RKH if such a rig decision was made public. (LTT has made that observation in the past)

4. I doubt that the Chinese are bothered by Argentine threats. They might even send a frigate as the standby safety boat.

5. All part of the "belt and road" Chinese neo-colonialism and a possible JV partnership.

"Bring it On 💪 💪 💪"

Bring what on? You look and sound a bit like a retired Henry Cooper with a bottle of Old Spice, grinning to camera and saying "Splash it all over" to make a quid after losing his fights.

As sure as night follows day, the ghost of Ken Dodd turns up to make sure we can all guffaw and pee our pants on Sunday Night at the Blackpool North Pier. He prods his tickling stick at Ovets and falls on his harris. Oh, how the audience roared!

Ken was famous for going on all night and wouldn’t leave the stage until he was hauled off. No change there then?

TCM, tell us something we don’t know, otherwise you are an angry watcher rather than a useful player.

TCM

You are pi55ed. Switch off and go to bed.

When someone loses the argument and retreats to abuse you just know they are ( fill in this gap)............

TCM is pulling out the Ken Dodd handbook of accountancy. Cash flow is not Profit & Loss.

Ken, stick to diddy men and tickling sticks my friend, you are sheite at riposte. Give up.

I see the ghost of Ken Dodd is here again pointing out the obvious to himself and using two letter “m”s where one is adequate and gesticulating fiercely with his exclamation marks as if to say ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’

According to the Ken Dodd handbook of accountancy, debt repayment is an operating expense which reduces profit. Try that one on your next HMRC Tax Return and see how it works out.

And of course, funding is a hurdle, not an obstacle, a hurdle. It will carry a hurdle rate of return as with any project.

Tell us something useful for a change, rather than sitting like a hawk waiting to pounce on anyone with a view or question or observation.

Deliver some enthalpy to the board rather than entropy.

Looks like Bluehorseloveschipfat has returned. Who'd have thunk it?

TCM....18.7 billion surely not 187 billion? They come in at £5/6 billion each.

Bonneville, what is the infrastructure which you feel might be threatened?

There are no vulnerable long subsea pipelines, no ship to shore power cables, no fibre networks, no anchor chains, or the like. Just a self-reliant dynamically positioned FPSO which can shut down, disconnect its turret, drop its riser and sail away at the first sign of any threat, political, technical or environmental.

The support infrastructure on the islands, the airport, Port Stanley harbour etc , is under the protection of RAF at Mount Pleasant and Royal Navy at Mare Harbour.

And as had been pointed out, there is always a Royal Navy Astute class nuclear powered submarine stationed in the South Atlantic, but out of sight.

The North Sea is more vulnerable to the risks of Russian aggression with simple trawlers which can chop cables and rupture pipelines, such as the Nordstream incident.

I have seen all this before, and I play snooker, not chess.

When I was a younger woman working in the procurement department of an oilfield company, we had an offshore project funding problem, and FID was delayed by 12 months because of JV partner lack of working capital.

We had a fixed budget of $30M to progress the engineering effort while the funding was sorted out. Every third project employee was laid off. Purchase orders were issued for all long lead items with deposits of $10 as a consideration for the vendors’ detailed designs, so that the project detailed designer, Brown &Root, could integrate everything, and they mostly agreed to that. There was only one objector, so we sent round a QA inspector to condemn his premises. He fell in line pretty quickly afterwards!

The production vessel had been selected, with LOI, but no contract had yet been signed. Its name was a company secret (even though we all knew it) and it was given a code name “Threlge”. It was commercially confidential to avoid the owner thinking it was an irreversible decision and so jacking up the price. The real name was only disclosed publicly after contract signing.

Does anything sound familiar?

"Schachmeister (Chessmaster in German, of which I am fluent)"

Germans ! ....Don't tell him your name, Pike................LOLjustLOL

"No Walter, your completely off it....I'm debating whether Navitas has signed an LOI for an fpso"

And I'm saying, if they have, you won't know about it, because it's commercial in confidence and not for RKH to say either.

"So Alma, Show yr Uncle Ken where he has displayed strong interest in this boring 1600 page Document ???"

Well Ken , you are arguing with at least 3 people about it. I would call that a strong interest. If it's boring and of no interest to you, why are you talking about it?

That's all good Ken, just like my lounge clock, you need winding up each day. Tik Tok.

A man with a strong opinion about a specific document in the public domain says he has never read the document about which he has a strong opinion.

Yes it's definitely the ghost of Ken Dodd come to torment us.

I do not believe that RKH will be a co-signatory to any letters of intent, memoranda of understanding, contracts or purchase orders, for any service or equipment. RKH is not the operator. They are JV partners on a cash call basis and a share of production, without having any project management role.

Navitas LP is not listed on any UK or European stock exchange, so there will never be any RNS issued by them. Its subsidiary operating company for Sea Lion is a UK private company which is not obliged to say anything to the media, and won't.

It may be that RKH thinks something that Navitas does would affect the RKH share price, in which case they would have to obtain the operator’s consent before making it public via RNS, and that consent might not be forthcoming.

The whole beauty of Navitas is its obscurity from scrutiny, so you can forget about them telling you anything they don’t want you to know, and that includes the name and current contractual status of the FPSO “identified” in the EIS.

There might be a few blokes in overalls who know some details, and TopDrive has said as much below.