Member Info for BuildersBum3

Passive.

Clearly you have warrants, otherwise you wouldn't have them viewable in your account, but you know this anyway.

I would challenge IG and point them to the RKH RNS stating the terms of the fundraising, how one acquires a warrant, what the warrant entitles the holder (which is to purchase an ordinary share in RKH for 9p for each warrant held) and the date in which it is valid through.

And then tell them that you wish to exercise your warrants, and that the cash to pay for it is already in your account. Also tell them they need to email you back with acceptance of your client order within 24 hours, failure to do so will result in an email to both the IG complaints department and the FCA.

If that doesn't work, then send the complaints and then keep asking every day until it's done.

I wouldn't be surprised if that 14% jumps up next month, however not concerned as I'm sure 99-100% of them will be taken by Dec.

BB3

Apologies Yeast,

Moniker mix up.. Your time and effort is much appreciated. Thank You.

Let's just leave it this way, one of us will be right the other won't.

No hard feelings.

Like I said, BS

Fist post

"Italy will not even be thinking about any kind of payments to Rkh at this early stage, they likely have another 3 years before they even begin considering payments, and possibly 4 or 5,"

Next post

"The costly, time consuming enforcement process begins now after 4 years.So my shortest 3 year timeframe for payment looks a pretty good shout on that basis."

It's always easy when you change the goalposts.

My 6-12 months from the end of the ISCID process would allow for plenty of court action, even more so if the stay is lifted in advance of the annulment being rejected, as paperwork can start running in advance of filing court proceedings... also looks like RKH have been advised along thoes lines too as Ovets agm report highlights.

I don't need to back it up any further, and I'm sure there are plenty of ISCID cases v states that are settled post award and annulment proceedings within your lowest 3 year timeframe.

BB3

P.s. Ovets.. the agm report is much appreciated, thank you.

Respectfully disagree with you Chess, A lot of what you say is just BS.

1. The threat of asset seizure isn't one they currently have to deal with (this changes with the stay being lifted which may change their tactics of "just ignore rkh"). Hence the relevance in RKH arguing for the stay to be lifted and my 2 reasons (which was the question originally about.."what's the point of rkh doing this if they don't chase the assets until after the annulment").

2. Lifting the stay without any preconditions to cover the perceived risk of recuperation in a successful annulment award could have been an outcome and wouldn't have been know unless the stay was challenged.

3. I disagree hugely with your timescales of award money recovery through asset freezing / seizure via the courts. You haven't proved this in any way to deduce the process taking 3-5 years, - your points of "not turning up in court" to defend themselves result, in most parts of the world, in a win to the plaintiff. Refusing to recognise the award is irrelevant as that is why its in front of the court in the first place. Not paying case fees is irrelevant as RKH can settle any court fees and need to anyway being the plaintiff. Claiming sovereign Immunity in court will be part of case law and struck down as quickly as its been objected to... Granted the process wont be quick, but it will be a lot quicker than your 3-5 years.. lol.. my expectation would be closer to 6-12 months.

BB3 -

Buzzthomas - "McCloughry, I don't understand whats the point of arguing the stay if you aren't going to go after the money immediatley."

I would hazard a guess that the only point of doing arguing the stay to be lifted, would be to see if Italy would pay the cash into an escrow account if and when the stay is actually lifted which would prevent the need to chase assets.

Until its lifted Italy don't have to do anything so why would they make it easier for RKH in any shape or form by putting the money aside for easy collection at any stage. The threat of asset freezing by rockhopper becoming a real thing upon a decision to lift the stay may force a change in those actions which would obviously be favourable to RKH.

Assuming RKH were never going to chase assets upon a lifted stay until after the annulment process -Italy would never have known that was the case - it would have been worth the cost for RKH to push for the lifted stay as they may have avoided the need to chase payment through the courts as an outcome (even if it is only accessible post annulment)..

Also the stay may have been lifted with no pre-conditions which would have allowed RKH to go after easy to monetise assets and also to then use those funds etc. etc.

So 2 reasons to fight the stay in my mind. (granted neither may have happened and thus be less than cost effective, but given the choices I would have contested the stay).

BB3

My god Chess,

You really didn't get the ironicness of my post did you..

Been a holder before the strike and have been to many agm's over the years, own more than .5% of the company, have traded in and out over the years care free having had my stake and a healthy profit out of it already... and I am fully aware that none of my questions can be answered which is my point entirely.

You don't need to take everyone's post, twist it a little and speak from some sort of know all position.. fact of the matter is that RKH are not in the driving seat, haven't been for a very long time and there is no real compass for when they will be.

Not going this year as until this company have their hands on some cash from the OM award they are defacto impotent.

Time will be a healer for this share, problem is the timeline.. when, when, when is the only thing investors in this are interested in, and the company can't answer it, others are deciding its fate.

For what its worth, I think the company will come good and multi bag, just don't know when and if that will come before or after another cash call (or sell down of award etc).

Anyway.. hopefully lots of interesting info to come from tomorrow's agm, and thanks to thoes asking sensible questions rather than the toung in cheek ones I did.

:-) BB3

Can someone ask when FID will be taken on Sealion?... thats it nothing more..

However if you feel another one would be helpful, then try this..

Will owning a slug of this company be profitable within the next 12 months, and will a cash call be needed within that time frame.

Or

What is your expected timeline to receiving any usable cash, unencumbered by any Italian restriction, from the OM award as it stands curently.

Any flag being nailed to a wall on thoes questions would be great 👍

😆 BB3

Considering the curent market value of he1 and noble post fundraising, their respective play types, drill locations and size of drill prospects, which is the better bet for value creation? Noble have 2 drills which effectively doubles its chances of success, so with its market cap slightly less than he1 it feels like the better option, however I have no idea on the quality of the opportunity for each.

I have invested in both in order to hedge the success possibility and give me options during the proposed drilling of each, but I just wanted to gauge sentiment as to if it were a straight shoot out who would you pick to make a commercial discovery and why?

Possibly the wrong board to ask as I guess there would be a heavy lean to HE1 being their discussion board and the vested interest of thoes on here. However it would be interesting to know why as they seem such similar opportunities and hence my backing of both (post recent fundraise).

BB3.

Word on hot copper chat is that it's a $10-12m rise at a 25% discount to the curent price. In my opinion it should be well received and the SP back to where it currently is, maybe a bit more, within a week if it's shortly followed by rig contract which no doubt would be then expected post capital raise.

Buyers of the raise sell into the rig news and everyone is a winner, shareholders dilute less than a farm out and new investors get a nailed on short term profit opportunity if they want to sell.

Only downside is that a farm out to a major player in the helium market (either operational, technical or demand for the product side) would have given extra benefits assuming the same terms as the capital raise.

BB3 - toot toot, train is about to leave the station.

Me too, I will be exercising mine too on the back of today's comments.

Biggest bit of positive news I got from today was the FI tax liability write down. Massive benefit to RKH, all be it not very relevant till first oil but is worth circa 7p to the share price alone.

Not sure if this now makes us more susceptible to a takeover bid, but I'm not sure anyone would be upset at a predator or two bidding up the share price.

I expect another funding mechanism will be entered into to recover assets from the Italians and as long as both the FID and annulment proceedings are completed by end q2 2024 then there won't be a need for further dilution.

BB3 - just a matter of time before this pops through 15p and heads up into the 20's and beyond.

Because of the alternative would be rkh seizing assets to the same value which would cause significant problems for them if it were say, aeroplanes, foreign consulate buildings, etc, not to mention the press field day there would be.

IMO they will deposit the cash as its the least impact full for them.

BB3

My musings on this.. "Treasury will give the proposals that are currently in front of it"

- Treasury is financial so there is a request for some sort of funding / support in terms of guarantee or cash. This would most likely be for FIG expenditure related to the sealion project (housing, regulatory roles, port improvements etc to support/enable the new revenue source for the FIG), rather than paying for the foreign commercial entities (Navitas) costs of the development. It could be an Export Financing application but I would question why Rob Butler would be pushing this through the topic of an Overseas Territories debate. If it is Export Finance then it would be more logical that it was the "FIG raising finance to take a stake" in the project, as they would qualify for EF far easier than Navitas, but I don't think they need to invest unless it has been proven that funding the project won't happen any other way.

As for "can the FIG decide to start an oil extraction operation in its own waters",

- as a democratic self governed people with their own constitution, of course they can.. However this would raise the risk of retaliation with the argies/ change the status quo on defence, which obviously has an impact on the British Gov as its protectorate. The FIG probably wouldn't go ahead with a unilateral decision of extracting oil that the UK Gov were not in favour of, due to the possibility of the UK pulling back its defence assurances in return.. Hence the possible need to seek approval either formally or informally. However in my opinion they could do it regardless if they wanted, they would just have to work out how to replace the elements the UK could withdraw, which would be pretty difficult and expensive funding and finding air and sea defence capabilities.. So essentially we were always going to need UK Gov approval for this project. however not constitutionally in my opinion.

half joking - Maybe this is why an Israeli company has been invited to take up the baton - plenty of high tech defence not supplied by the UK as a hedge / strategic manoeuvre to aid the approval process by watering down the UK influence!?.

Certainly does get the mind wandering of the discussions and decisions at play outside of the pure financial FID decision which most of us are fixated on - nothing this size in a new province is going to be easy or straight forward -

BB3 - Still think Sea Lion is a slam dunk, just a matter of time

Circa 5.2m warrants have already been taken up out of roughly 19m issued during the open offer process.

Total voting rights RNS at the start of each month gives you the numbers.. so 5.2m x £0.09 = cash in hand for RKH to date with 70%ish yet yo be turned into cash.

Fair price will depend on the shareholder that owns the shares deciding what fair price to them is.

BB3

Not forgetting that RKH tax liability would become immediately due if taken over (also prior to any shareholder distribution), rather than at first oil/from first oil as part of the negotiated tax settlement between RKH and FIG (resulting from the Premier oil farm in free development carry element of that transaction).

Which has been our protection from both asset stripping (when we had cash) and takeover at low SP levels without FID in place..

BB3

Well put DeusEx, its all in the RNS's

Simple optics.

4.4m for 6 years of trying to prove fault (assuming more effort involved than attend annulment meetings etc).
2 year annulment within which action to recover award is done = 1.5m

Space... yes I was only taking a part educated guess at costs of recovery through the courts, it could in fact be relatively easy and thus not costly. I'm sure someone else could comment better..

My thoughts were along the line of 'if they are self funding the annulment process then that would leave even less to chase recovery through the courts and thus probably need external funding, rather than - 100% they would need to as its expensive.

BB3