Member Info for BuildersBum3

Burnwell, I too am in the camp of sub 1%, but over 0.5 but dont expect I'll get a look in on the conditional placing.. I am already enquiring though.

As you say though, until the details are in the public domain, who knows what the criteria will be... I suspect I won't get a personal invite, and on top of that id be surprised if I even got a look in with £200k ready and waiting to participate..

In my view it's tied up and and passed off in advance and there is little anyone can do both about it or to partake in it...

I'll personally be voting against the conditional and OO, but I think it will be a simple majority needed and likely a 95% positive vote. As OIL said, its a done deal.

I'll be all over thoes OO shares though, as should everyone else.

Bb3.

Sorry, no.. I had messed up.. technically it's 9m usd or there abouts..

I'd imagine it's closer to 1 in 25 held.

I said 10% because that's what we as shareholders gave them the authority to do at the agm (which always seems to be part of the reselutions and is very common among AIM) without requiring further voting... i.e. quick money.

Burnwell, do you know what your talking about?. I suggest researching and understanding this company and its RNS's before posting to avoid spreading misinformation.

Unless you are involved in the Firm placement, are a large shareholder (id imagine over 1% as a minimum), or are an isreli institutional investor then you won't be able to partake in the conditional placing..

Once all is said and done, and if the conditional placing is voted through, then if you are a shareholder you will be able to subscribe to circa 1/10th of your holding at 53p within an as yet formalised Open Offer (without warrants).

Any yes, navitas already own 65% of the NFB licence.

BB3

I'm not entirely sure how im going to vote with regards to the conditional aspect of the placing. How do you guys see it? Better to vote for the conditional and OO, or better not to?

Assuming the insurance payment lands... (without it im 100% voting for the conditional and OO, but with the insurance hitting the bank im not so sure).

Granted this may be irrelavant as the vote may just be a simple majority, at which point it will be walked past the vote without any fan fare, but if it requires a higher threshold then it may be an option to stop it.. just not sure if I'd want to??.

Would we want an extra 34m usd worth of fundraising at 53p, and then the associated warrants attached to the conditional placing part on top (given only 9m usd worth will be coming to us shareholders)...

If we were to vote down the conditional placement, then obviously we wouldn't get the OO, but would have a substantially reduced amount of shares than there would otherwise be.

If the conditional and OO part of the placing was to cover the insurance gap, but that gap was no longer there by the time of the vote... would it not be in LTH interest to vote down the extra shares and watch the share price fly as the scramble for the few available ensues...

The company could always raise at a higher price later on if it felt the need to do so, it could also do a rights issue or Open Offer as speed of securing funds would no longer be an issue.

This is why there is a placing for Firm (needed for FID) and conditional (because we arnt yet certain we will need it, but might) and the OO (to help push through the conditional by trying to appease the shareholder base with a token gesture).

I'm personally inclined to vote against if we have received the insurance monies.. we can always do reserves based lending post FID if there was a need for more cash to speed up phase 2 or poke more holes.

BB3.. what are your thoughts??

I'm fully aware of that Supra.

I don't have the direct contacts of some on here that I have collaboratively talked to over the years, hence the post and the off topic nature.. feel free to not respond and keep the thread going.

P.s. I have no financial need to ramp, I do this stuff for fun.. but put me in a pigeon hole and name it if you like, I don't mind... and yes, I'd always suggest researching things yourself.👍

Bb3

Totally off topic. Please ignore if not of interest.

Having been in rkh for longer than I can remember, some of the main attractions to the Falklands was its basin opening possibilities with rkh (or desire for that matter) having the possibility for exponential growth.

Off of the back of that I have kept looking for similar dramatic company making opportunities and have been both successful and not in that endeavour.. however I have found Helium production an interesting area moving forward as a growth market which has chronic under supply but is a nessessity without substitution for a number of growing markets.

The landscape is littered with small companies (outside of O&G helium production as a by product) but mostly unsuccessful or have limiting factors that prevent them from changing/distorting the market..

Pulsar Helium (PLSR) on the other hand is small, not yet producing, but due to be releasing flow testing results of it's main prospect and appraisal well in the coming weeks.

What i like about this company is it has decided against further dilution in favour of a loan to get to FID and is tightly held by its founders (30%+). It has world class Helium concentration from initial drilling results and has the opportunity to sell it to order (tapping off as and when it's sold), which is in stark contrast to the current market of take or pay contracts which i see as the disrupting factor that gives them a market wide edge.. along with the fact it's land based in the US which is the biggest user of Helium, can be sipped by road, has a link up with the market leader of gas controll equiptment which has a manufacturing facility in the same state, and won't attract new US import tariffs..

Anyway, I won't take up more of your time, as its wildly off topic, but if your interested its worth researching.

I thought it might be if interest as it has the same sort of investing feel as the FI had when I first bought RKH. All be it wildly different.

Bb3.. no alterior motive other than promoting another share im invested in to shareholders that have shared a similar investment path over the last 15 years to myself.

Come on the rock🚂🚂

As expected, as soon as senny was online then the need to come up with the equity stake was in play.

The arbiter has left us needing more than otherwise have been needed, so to has the timeline with regards to insurance.

Anyone paying attention at the AGM would have realised the short timeframe between shenny and funds being needed (RKH are not setting the timeframes and are thus having to navigate the flow).

I sold a big chunk (10%) at 50p on the day of the AGM, partly due to not knowing the insurance outcome and the impending capital raise, then sold another large chunk (10%) slightly above 70p as there was nothing further holding the price until the inevitable placing.

I missed the opportunity early this morning to buy back, but im very happy to hold the remaining until FID which I expect will be in September.

Why September?.. well why raise the funds now with a 30 day average being detrimental to shareholders if the funds are not needed till December.. why not wait for the insurance payout first as well?.. timelines are set in motion and RKH are having to navigate them as best they can... September is showtime IMO.

I suspect there will be the possibility to get up to 1 for every 15 held if you subscribe for more in the OO due to placing participants being excluded, but thoes thinking this funding is great news, and thoes thinking it stinks are both right and wrong in equal measure IMO.. we had to do it, its larger than we want, its not on equal terms, but it does get us over the line.. II's and new placing investors have taken the jam now as they always do, but I would expect them to only sell the minimum to cover their investment once able to, the rest will likely be held for long term growth as this is still way undervalued now the risk is all slipping away.

I'd just also like to point out that the funding to first oil has increased a fair bit and the decommissioning fund will likely be reduced due to an as yet arranged financial mechanism in the form of some insurance bond etc.etc.

Also of note is that if the placings, OO and insurance comes in, we will have more money than needed (not even including the warrantss), now I wonder what they will be using the extra capital on??? 35% of an Isobel/Elaine drill and flow including subsequent processing of results????

But all in all, a good day and a spectacular last 6 months with an expected amazing 6 months to come, with a good few years after that..

Me and my £2m+ shareholding are very happy with how this is panning out, and will be patiently waiting for the myriad of column inches that will no doubt come over the next few weeks and months.

BB3... 🚂🚂

Not sure it was OilBrat that coined the 'its full of stars' term, but i did very much love his basin geology commentary and what that meant in terms of share price growth.. M.Monkey on the other hand, wow, respect..

Thoes we're the days, and now we are on the edge of round 2 (or is it 3🤣)

Ding Ding. 🥊

🚂👋👋👋

BB3

Thanks space, this is my point but not the answer I'm looking for..

It mentions we retain material interest in monte grosso and one of the gas prospects - both potentially very valuable... but on the original rns it seems to link this with a second payment which now doesn't seen to be relavant due to the legal annulment..

Think it's going to have to be an email to sam.

Thanks anyway.

Bb3

Forgot to ask at the AGM and am kicking myself now.... did anyone asked about this in person???

The Italian asset disposal- with the successfull Annulment, does this now mean payment 2 (2.5m) not be needed? And does that also mean we now do not have a sell on clause / entitlement to interest in the 2 gas prospects and the Monte Grosso oil prospect (which is the largest un-drilled land based prospect in europe)??

I'm quite annoyed with this, if so, as I thought Monte Grosso was a good prospect, however I'm also happy that we don't have to fundraise a further 2.5m pre FID.

Think I know the answer from the RNS, but wanted confirmation that I never got on the day.

Italian update ""Under the terms of the SPA consideration, Rockhopper will pay Zodiac in two instalments, with a retained upside participation to Rockhopper in two undeveloped licences.

The first instalment of €3 million is payable to Zodiac on satisfaction of two precedent conditions ("Completion"), those being receipt of all necessary regulatory consents in Italy, as well as regulatory consents in the Falklands.

The second instalment of €2.5 million is payable to Zodiac on or after Completion, assuming the satisfaction of two additional conditions, those being successfully defending the Italian Republic's annulment application and receiving a minimum of €10 million from the Award monetisation (the Tranche 2 payment under the Award monetisation is €65 million, due on a successful defence of the annulment application, but can be reduced in the event of a partial annulment1).

In addition, assuming the second instalment is payable, Rockhopper will retain a royalty on two assets within the Rockhopper Civita Limited portfolio, those being AC19 (a northern Adriatic licence with two gas discoveries and an additional adjacent prospect) and Serra San Bernado (which contains the Monte Grosso exploration prospect).

The royalties will take the form of either 10% of the revenues of the interests acquired by Zodiac or, should they realise value by on-selling the licences acquired, 25% of the gross proceeds received for the part sold.

The transaction is subject to both Italian and Falkland Island Government regulatory approval, the timing of which is uncertain but is anticipated within 12 months.

Following completion of the transaction, Rockhopper will have no remaining liabilities relating to its Italian licences, its P&A liability will have been reduced by some $15 million (unaudited as at 30 June 2024) and its annual cash burn reduced by approximately €500,000 - €750,000. In the year ended 31 December 2023, Rockhopper Civita contributed a $1.6 million loss to the Group.""

Bb3

Have any pubs, night before or after, been decided/shared yet?

Bb3

If you strip out holdings being held on behalf of someone else (nominee), so actual ownership, then you just have Aedos on 8.x% which is over the 3% notification amount for Institutional / notifiable holdings which is listed in the RKH annual report.

Outcome:- Massive Private Investor holding and a tiny Institutional Investor holding in comparison to other similar companies on the cusp of FID.. There will be fireworks in the SP when the project is FID'd, and Institutions want "IN" as the risk of it not happening is removed.

BB3

I wouldn't be surprised if ROI decided to agree to a settlement if RKH decided to once again go down the arbitration route, as they already know they will loose and what the likely sum will look like.. 200m euro up front to settle with no need for more lawyer costs, interest accumulation etc. To wipe the slate clean and still leave future claims without precedent.. sounds like an interesting offer if I were ROI.

Who knows at this point, but it's not finished by a long shot.

BB3

Much..

I agree, and he would likely have massive liability insurance considering his role and job. This would be the route for the award funders that are out of pocket.. insurance i think also if they think they have a case but personally think that would be standalone and have no recourse to his liability insurance.

So Sam in theory could just take the case back to Harbor and do another no win no fee with them (the relationship isn't broken as they have already been paid up for winning first time round), but at a materially reduced win fee due to the unknowns in the case now being known and the work effort already sunk... quids in for the pair of them.

BB3

Buzz.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not reserves until after FID and hence the issue with pmo, but would be overcome with bridging loan/farm in/ raise prior to fid and then RBL post.

Both rkh and roi agreed to the arbiter personnel and it wasn't disclosed as a conflict so there was no way of rkh (or the no win no fee firm harbour) knowing and thus was a failure of the arbiter. Roi on the other hand had knowledge of his previous Italian case as it was in Italy in their court system, so one would assume they continues knowing there was a poison pill in play for them that may or may not work in their favour if they needed to play that hand.

Can't see any fault on the rkh side other than they could have saved themselves a lot of time, effort and money had they found this out and decided to challenge the arbiter choice/selection up front.

Either way it basically resets like it hasn't happened from a legal perspective and they can go at it again in the full knowledge that the won last time around and they know the arguments that will be put against it by ROI, so a good place to be at the start of a tribunal/arbitration assuming they don't make the same mistake again.

One point to note is that the 'other' annulment arguments were not furthered/pursued to the final outcomes in order to save money for the mitigating and defending parties.. so that means no decision on them and likely if a re-run were to be embarked upon, and RKH were again assumed to win, then ROI would likely still try to get it annulled on the other grounds they haven't been rejected on, whatever they may be.

BB3.. this in my opinion still has a number of different directions it could go

1.could be a massive headache for RKH sorting out the mess if found to be at fault and funder came after them and or insurance payout is refused.

Or

2. Could be a massive win for RKH as they may get insurance pay out but still own the legal case that can be re-run with the knowledge that they will likely win and all defences have been shown by ROI and have been effectively rebuffed already.. may even not need to sell any future award and instead look to recover 100% of any future award (+crazy interest!!)

Likely not something sam will have answers at the AGM for, but will likely get numerous questions on.

P.S.. FID is safe as Reserves Based Lending can be sought now they have their own independent resource report, and if needed can be coupled with a bridging loan if needed prior to FID rather than post FID (development confirmed compared to development pending). Also farm out and a rise are options if needed, so no issues with FID regardless of insurance/cour case etc.

It's been known for a while that Italy would have been trying this route, but previously without success as far as I'm aware.

https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/italy-fails-dislodge-poncet-icsid-case

Bb3

Ouch.. whoever had a stop loss at 42p just got a lesson.

I thankfully lived through the flash crash days on this stock to know that given an opportunity the market will move the price as far down as possible in short order, only to bring it right back up..

Painful mistake for someone.

Bb3

The loss scenario was always priced in to the SP due to the insurance against it.. had we won the. There would have been an aditional 2-3p upside to the share price if the annulment had been rejected.

Any movements today are likely market makers making their market and a few uneducated investors / gamblers deciding to turn their attention elsewhere.

Give it a few days and talk of Shen first oil, and SL bank/bond funding will be back on the agenda and we will all be looking forward to the FID in a few months, along with the associated farm in and takeover talk.

Bb3

Hi Paul,

I'm assuming the 180 development on hold refers to isobel and Elaine, hence the reference to the field names now being known as part of the sealion development in the NSAI resource report.

Would love to get a flow test and another appraisal on that, I'd imagine the numbers would skyrocket x 5+

Bb3