Member Info for CitizenTS

... you see his job depends on it

Aha, and a classical education too. I came , I saw, I conquered. Not yet matey!

The penny has finally dropped; this is Cateater's day job. The written style and a bit of the content tells me he's quite possibly at a small hedge fund and is or has been professionally short. May or may not have closed that for now.

Given some of his comments he's down on this one overall and he'd lose his job (they do) if it goes too badly wrong for him.
Be warned anyone who reads his stuff should 'sup with very long straw' .

UKEF projects make FI oil look a rather safe and politically uncontroversial bet alongside arms sales to dictators with ghastly human rights records.
Thanks Cateater!

SecretBlueprint: First people complain no funding submission, and now we have someone complaining that we might get funding.
Weird agendas out there.
And such flimsy supporting argument. Oil is sold on world markets, almost all outside UK - end of unnecessary discussion.
But sounds like you'll fill space on here all the same!

SecretBlueprint - Oil is sold on world markets, almost all outside UK - end of unnecessary discussion.
But sounds like you'll fill space on here all the same!

Would be nice to have news on the funding submission to UK Export Finance but, for me, I'd rather they delayed the submission. If it is submitted whilst the EU picture is so unclear it will be rejected. The EU has just signed a trade agreement with Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay plus others) which, in scenario of no deal, or a deal with us outside a customs Union (transition or not), the UK will be trying to replicate! No chance of government agency funding for FI oil in that situation imho. We should only submit the application when the time to decision on it stretches to beyond the decision on no deal/no customs union. A rushed decision before that would be a no, sorry to say.
But make no mistake, the EU's agreement with Mercosur could be wonderful for us. The emergence of a customs union type Brexit solution would now mean no negative political pressure at all on funding decision. Before this we wouldn't get UKEF funding outside the EU customs union, and inside it the EU would exert pressure not to grant it whilst they were negotiating.
How lucky you can get by waiting! It's quite possible that now Rkh and the UK would be completely protected inside the EU customs union from political pressure/leverage behind the EU agreement, the funding application would be submitted and nodded through, and off we'd go. Worth waiting for if the stars might just align I'd say!

Ralph, you make good point - puts me in danger on that basis of being grateful that PMO have their borrowings!

Complete farce on here with Nigoil chuntering on about the RNS (didn't do much on that at the time), usual blah blah about the oil price (similarly not something that has moved this really), same old same old on irredeemable evil in bod from others and so on and on and on.
Even GS who flagged the need for political approval on EC agency loans has not followed up with how that works through. Maybe he got it all at some remove, but the current consequences are just not to do with OM and RKHs cash, for quite a while anyway if ever. Sorry mate, but grateful for the heads up on the basic subject.

GET IT - Customs Union = UK benefits from EU trade deals = UK government not trying to do trade deals with Argentina, Falklands not an issue = EC agency loans to be APPROVED.

And off we goooooo .....

This share price has been moving bang on close to every gust and blow of the customs Union news, just look back, watch and work it out! And there's been a bit of real volume.

My last lump was bed & ISAd this morning. So here's hoping.

The other things to note are mention of deals to strengthen the balance sheet. I'd possibly be ok with these as another snippet was a restatement of the 100% interest in South Falklands. This couldn't be progressed out of N Falklands for a long time given other calls on that cash flow and the project finance world in which it is being done. There is a few 100m barrels, at the least, near the Bor discovery (remember that?) and if cash flow from a modest acqui moved that from a 'phase 4' exercise to phase 2.5, say, then it needn't dilute share price performance. A lot more could be said on that.

But message is simple, forget the silly stuff (most of what's been on here, though not many less frequent posters)
it's all about the Customs Union.

rpoodle - It was me that commented using BW meant they could say to lenders the technical side is de risked as it's all just a replay of the Catcher playbook - which has been successful!
My own take is that was important to getting the financing moving and that Premiers operational success with Catcher is actually something very fortunate that has fallen into our lap.
Shame if any peeps on here have been counting on this stock performing in q1 '19!
However I still think it will do the biz later on.

The FID dates cha.ged when FPSO contractor changed. If I was guessing I'd say FID is this year and sanction Q1 2020 after new, financial only, and small stake only, equity partner comes in.

In particular I think there's a deal there somewhere because PMO will not want to reduce their phase 2 (or 3) stake much but a new partner may really want a stake in all phases. Once financing for phase 1 is in place (and PMO are only contemplating doing anything after that) then phase 2 is paid for as well - plan is to do that from phase 1 cash flow).
Anyway, we're educating Nigoil by talking too much!

Will be interested to hear any reply. (Have remarked that question arises re value of carry in a project finance scenario on here earlier.)
The other thought is that PMO may be getting a partner to pay real money for part of their equity interest in the project. RKH would only need to chuck in a small part of that to get a meaningful amount in terms of RKH's balance sheet.

And if PMO do bring in an equity partner they will be able to argue they are left with, say, 45% of phase 1 for nothing, just co trbuting their expertise and ability to project finance.
My guess is RKH will have to contribute a bit phase 2 equity. But hey, we'd all be sky high if we're contemplating phase 2!

Obvious more than enough and terms of financing dictates whether PMO's funds need to go in first or whether it's all 'pro-rata'd as the total financing is drawn. In the latter case they have three plus years to find the total. In any event it would be 2020 till most is spent even if it's 'first dollar's money. So PMOs fbalance sheet is ok for this. Rest of funding is to be project financed so not part of covenant calc.

Also I'd guess their equity partner plans involve bringing in a 15% partner for circa their equity cost on phase 1.
The unknown is whether RKH will have to help incentivise an equity partner by throwing any of their own project equity, perhaps in phase 2.
All good but, as Grey Squirrel has mentioned, contingent on post Brexit export credit funding.

See https://www.hartenergy.com/news/premier-oil-apollo-team-bid-chevrons-north-sea-assets-177873

Also I agree with Redon re a five bagger - but that is only phase 1. Also if things go to plan then the risk goes with each year and the thing co continues to go up. And phase two is worth twice as much.

What's happening as I see it is that a lot of casual observers/small shareholders assume PMO buying North sea assets is bad for the prospect of them developing Sea Lion. Or at least that is my reading
They're just wrong on this occasion. Very wrong to my mind. A lot has already been explained on here but, for me, I would be delighted to see them do it.

Fernan
I appreciate that's how the forms have to be filled in
But, if so, then the court, which has the task of deciding compensation and is not tightly specified to carrying out an investment banker's NPV calc, can only correctly identify value losses to RKH shareholders by only taxing it once. So if it's $12 per barrel gross of tax and the Italian government gets tax on the award then that's what they should do.
Then fill in the forms as before!
All imho but I do think the lawyers should argue for that.

Fernan
I appreciate that's how the forms have to be filled in
But, if so, then the court, which has the task of deciding compensation and is not tightly specified to carrying out an investment banker's NPV calc, can only correctly identify value losses to RKH shareholders by only taxing it once. So if it's $12 per barrel gross of tax and the Italian government gets tax on the award then that's what they should do.
Then fill in the forms as before!
All imho but I do think the lawyers should argue for that.