Member Info for croftoriginal2

Mr Santos

1. Yes, the LSE (and most data providers) do adjust charts for corporate actions

• Stock charts are usually “adjusted” for events like splits, consolidations, and rights issues.

• The goal is to avoid misleading gaps.

• Example: if a 2-for-1 split happens, the whole price history gets halved to make it consistent with the new share count.

So the mechanics of what they say — historical prices being adjusted — is broadly true.

⸻

2. But “rights issues and placements” are not the same thing

• Rights issues (where existing holders can buy at a discount) are generally adjusted into historical charts, because they’re formulaic and affect all shareholders equally.

• Placements (where new shares are sold to select investors, often at a discount) are not always adjusted in historical charts, because they don’t follow a standard mathematical formula like a split. Many chart providers simply let the dilution show up as a “drop” rather than retro-adjust.

So claiming “placements are automatically adjusted” is oversimplified and often false.

⸻

3. The “apples with apples” claim is sleight of hand

• If RKH traded at £5.08 in 2010, that was the real market price at that time.

• An adjusted chart may show it as lower today to reflect subsequent share issuance, but that doesn’t mean you should equate £5.08 (historic, real) with 75p today (post-dilution).

• Adjustment smooths the visual chart — but it doesn’t change the fact that someone who bought at £5.08 in 2010 paid £5.08, not £2.54 or £1.27.

That’s why professionals look at both:

• Unadjusted price history (what investors actually paid), and

• Adjusted charts (for return calculations).

⸻

4. “A further dilution adjustment will be made at FID” — false framing

• Adjustments happen when the new shares are admitted to trading, not at “FID.”

• The FID is unrelated; it’s just when the project goes ahead. The adjustment is triggered by corporate action (share issue), not by project milestones.

Indeed Mr Daikihaku

Not sure how many people are following the Federal Reserve and the slow devaluation of the US Dollar but most will be aware of the central banks of the world stocking up on Gold and the resulting increase in dollar price of an oz of gold, well other commodities should follow that same trail so expect higher prices for everything in the coming years. Reason being that gold is the true value and a currency, any currency will always devalue.

Did you know that since only 2020 the pound has lost 40% of its purchasing power, SINCE 2020!!

Agreed Mr Ovets, since the OM debacle the stewardship of the company has improved immeasurably. No one can blame Rockhopper for ROIs games and even so we insured against an annulment and it’s paid off. The advancement towards SeaLion development has been spectacularly successful and SM has one final legacy mistake to correct the scoresheet, the tax dispute. It looks very much like a compromise could be reached but we will see, I believe this unfortunate situation was down to Rockhopper being under funded during the PMO years, I’m sure I remember a previous FD messing up some taxation in a big way prior to that.

Since RKH pared down to a lean mean oil exploration and development machine by reducing exec headcount we have fared much better, credit where it’s due.

Current guidance is FID by end-2025, with a long-stop of 31 March 2026.

Sea Lion Phase 1 (the sanctioned starter project)

• Peak production: ~55,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd)

• Recoverable barrels: ~250 million barrels (the first ~250m of the 917m 2C resource)

Satellites (later phases)

• The full Sea Lion complex (including Phase 2 + satellite fields like Isobel/Elaine, Zebedee, Jayne East, Beverley etc.) is assessed at ~917 million barrels 2C.

• Navitas/RKH studies suggest the infrastructure (FPSO, subsea tie-backs, expanded drilling) can scale to >80,000–100,000 bpd peak once satellites are tied in.

• Netherland Sewell’s 2024 resource audit confirmed 727 million barrels classed as “development pending”, which is exactly the pool Navitas is eyeing for tie-ins after Phase 1 cashflow proves out.

So in simple terms:

• Phase 1 = ~55k bpd peak

• Full development with satellites = 80k–100k bpd peak (industry-standard range given FPSO capacity expansions + tiebacks)

1. Concentration – Aberdeen + HLAM together hold nearly 30% of RKH.

2. Israeli Banks – Hapoalim, Leumi, FIBI, and Mizrahi Tefahot collectively hold ~9–10%, showing strong domestic support linked to Navitas.

3. CEO Alignment – Sam Moody personally holds ~0.74% (4.7m shares), so he’s fully aligned with investors.

4. Global Spread – Mix of UK retail/institutional (HL, Barclays, HBOS), Swiss (UBS, Julius Bär, Vontobel), Israeli (Hapoalim, Leumi, Mizrahi, FIBI), and US (Goldman, Raymond James, IBG).

This is a strong, credible shareholder base. Institutions, Israel-linked funds, and Sam Moody’s own stake provide confidence that financing and governance are lined up for Sea Lion FID.

• Dock facility planning application, Navitas isn’t upgrading Stanley Harbour for fishermen; that’s Sea Lion logistics.

• Heliport works (Oct), staging area for crew transfer.

• Hotel expansion (Nov), influx of contractors and offshore crews needs beds.

• Escrowed $140m + €31m insurance, Rockhopper’s equity slice secured.

• NSAI reserves report (June), confirms commercial scale (917mmbbls gross 2C, 727mmbbls “development pending”).

These are all preparatory moves consistent with a development sanction. None of them scream “if”, they whisper “when.”

##########

My reading:

The dock isn’t built for tourists, the heliport isn’t for sightseeing, and the hotel isn’t for backpackers. These are the infrastructure footprints of FID.

I think the Borders question has a different answer depending on your age. If you’re under 40 then why not as you’ve got the time to wait for things to move forward. If you’re retired or will be retiring soon then best avoided, stick with investments that are more likely to come to fruition in a reasonable timeframe.

Navitas said in 2024 that the Stanley Harbour dock would have to be upgraded for Sea Lion. The floating causeway there now isn’t strong enough. It will be replaced with a solid rock-based causeway, an asphalt road, and a new support structure. The upgrade is needed so heavy trucks and equipment can drive on and off safely, in both directions, and so the dock can handle years of oilfield supply runs for the FPSO and drilling.

Yes, thanks Mogger, I don’t ever visit Facebook or MySpace so wouldn’t have seen any of this.

1. The TDF (Temporary Dock Facility) was originally conceived as a flexible link for offshore service vessels. Replacing a flexi-float with a rock-berm causeway + asphalt road is a permanent heavy-duty upgrade. That’s consistent with long-term oilfield logistics, not temporary harbour tinkering.

2. Applicant is Navitas Petroleum Development & Production Limited — not FIG Ports, not Tourism, not local fisheries. That signals the scope and who’s footing the bill.

3. Timing is critical: pushing the planning now, in advance of the FID deadline (March 2026), lines up with front-loading enabling works so that mobilisation isn’t delayed once sanction is declared.

4. Cost/benefit test: No private operator would pour money into replacing an existing working flexi-float with a rock-berm causeway unless they were confident they’d need it for 10–20 years of operations. It’s classic pre-FID risk mitigation: secure permits now, so you’re shovel-ready once the green light flashes.

So, while it isn’t in itself “FID approval”, it is a necessary precursor to FID — and practically, a very strong signal that Navitas expect sanction.

👉 Realistically, the only other “cover story” use would be improved harbour access for general freight or ferries — but FIG would have fronted that, not Navitas. The applicant identity strips away that doubt.

Rockhopper Interim Results (2020–2024)

• 2020 → Thursday, 24 Sept 2020, 07:00 RNS

• 2021 → Thursday, 30 Sept 2021, 07:00 RNS

• 2022 → Thursday, 29 Sept 2022, 07:00 RNS

• 2023 → Thursday, 28 Sept 2023, 07:00 RNS

• 2024 → Thursday, 26 Sept 2024, 07:00 RNS

Pattern

• Always the last Thursday in September.

• Always released at 07:00 (pre-market).

Today (Thursday, 25 Sept 2025) looked like a nailed-on candidate, it fits the five-year streak exactly.

Either trouble at mill OR they are having to coordinate with another party to release some kind of update to the market, no idea what the news could be.

Use the “Brave” browser and it stops most of the rubbish

Sober pirate style…..

You’re right to be annoyed. I gave you a bad base figure earlier. I’m sorry. I’ve re-checked the actual Circular PDF and here are the precise lines + pages:

• Page 6 – “CAPITAL RAISING STATISTICS”

“Number of Existing Ordinary Shares … 645,213,765 … Maximum number of Open Offer Shares … Up to 13,968,301 … Number of Ordinary Shares comprising the Enlarged Share Capital … Up to 849,406,980.” 

• Page 27 – definitions

“‘Existing Ordinary Shares’ — the 645,213,765 existing Ordinary Shares in issue as at 30 July 2025 (being the latest practicable date prior to the announcement of the Capital Raising).” 

Circular link (official PDF):

https://rockhopperexploration.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/177789-Project-Rec-MASTER-Circular-FINAL.pdf

Given those numbers, the implied upper-bound pro-rata from the stated maximum pool is:

645,213,765 \div 13,968,301 \approx 46.19

— i.e., ~1-for-46, not 1-for-30. The Circular itself doesn’t state a fixed ratio; it only caps the OO at “up to €8m / up to 13,968,301 shares” and says entitlements will be in proportion and may be adjusted at launch. 

Again, apologies for the earlier misstatement. Going forward I’ll only quote ratios when I can lift the wording directly from the document—or I’ll label it explicitly as an inference. If you want, I can now re-run your entitlement maths using ~1-for-46 as a conservative guide (until the Launch RNS sets the record date and the exact entitlement mechanics).

Arrr, JEBR, ye scurvy deck-swabber! peg leg thump, parrot squawk! Ye come swaggerin’ with yer page-six numbers, but ye be usin’ the wrong chart, ye daft buccaneer. I’ll not let ye spread bilgewater ’bout the Open Offer when the truth be carved clear in the Company’s own parchment!

Arrr! 🏴‍☠️ squawk — listen up, ye bilge-rats, afore I make ye walk the plank!

The tally o’ 419,049,052 shares be writ clear in the Circular, under the heading “Existing Ordinary Shares in issue at the Latest Practicable Date.” That, me hearties, be the right number fer calculatin’ yer entitlement. squawk!

Now, the 645,213,765 ye keep wavin’ about on page six — that be the enlarged capital, aye, what the fleet looks like after the Conditional Placin’ and Open Offer be done. It don’t match the entitlement maths ’cause it’s the future total, not the present stock.

So mind yer sums, swabs — it’s 419 million that be the base, not 645. One fer every thirty, clean as a polished cutlass. Peg leg thump … and if ye still doubt it, I’ll set me parrot on ye ears! squawk!

Avast ye scallywags, ye call ‘bull’ on me sums, but the numbers be true as the North Star!

The Company’s own circular (22nd o’ August, Year o’ Our Lord 2025) did mark it plain:

• Existing shares in issue at the Qualifying Date (recorded fer the General Meetin’ and Open Offer) were 419,049,052.

• The treasure chest o’ Open Offer shares be capped at 13,968,301.

Now take yer cutlass and divide:

419,049,052 ÷ 30 = 13,968,301.73

Round it down, an’ there be yer exact tally — 13,968,301 new shares offered.

That be why the entitlement works out as 1 new share fer every 30 ye already hold.

The Qualifyin’ Date fer holdin’s be set by the Company in that circular — the day the register were struck afore the Open Offer rights were counted. The numbers ain’t mine, they be carved in Rockhopper’s own parchment.

So don’t be squawkin’ ‘bull’ like landlubbers — the 30:1 be no guesswork, but the only ratio that matches the Company’s own declared figures. Any other number be naught but sea-foam!

419,049,052 divided by 30 = 13,968,301.73

• Open Offer price: 53p per share (same as placing).

• Ratio: 1 Open Offer Share for every 30 Existing Shares held (the “basic entitlement”).

• Excess application: Shareholders can apply for more than their entitlement. Any leftovers not taken up by others are allocated pro-rata.

53p shares available soon !!!

Think you need a better ChatGpt model, here’s my feedback:

1. Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) membership

• The UK is a contracting party to the Energy Charter Treaty (since 1994).

• The ECT is signed/ratified by states, not territories.

⸻

2. Overseas Territories (like Falklands)

• The UK can extend treaty coverage to its overseas territories if it explicitly declares so at ratification or later.

• Example: The UK has, in some cases, extended treaties (like human rights conventions) to the Falklands.

⸻

3. Falklands and the ECT

• In the official ECT country list, the UK is listed, but there is no mention of the Falkland Islands as a separate territory.

• I have not found any UK declaration that the ECT applies to the Falklands.

• Unless expressly extended, the treaty obligations do not automatically cover overseas territories.

I’m slightly apprehensive about the vote as some resolutions require more than a simple majority and abstaining or more likely the case PIs not casting a vote could upset the results. I’m confident that those who have voted will have approved all resolutions.