Member Info for cyan2

Good afternoon Bigred
You wrote; "this is the adults board were people debate"

HenryGroucho writes "Notice how they pursue and ridicule any dissenting opinion."

I am a very large holder who has brought my research and honest interpretations to this BB for a lot longer than some of those that chose to attack the poster rather than ague this issues logically and dispassionately.

This Board is going the way of ADVFN. I am going to leave you to it now.

Another ruined BB.

What is a 'global oil company'?

With assets in the North Sea; Mexico, and SE Asia ; I think they tick the boxes already. They indicate they can and WILL finance those; BUT, could it be that SL is a 'bridge too far'?

Can they do everything; or is SL one of those developments that won't 'make the cut'?

COOK stated that SL has to compete with all the other opportunities they see. It must be about 'make your mind up time'....

The bottom line remain; HBR have a lot of debt already and SL is expensive.
Durrant was committed to develop SL with UKEF support; COOK has not been positive.

SL could be a goer IF UKEF support was still available .

In a 5th March 2020 conference call Durrant stated ;;
"......we submitted the PIMS its called; the project information memorandum in the fourth quarter last year to UK export finance.."

My faint hope is that IF HBR want to proceed with SL development the could argue that the UKEF process has started and such support should not be excluded as the government stated it referred to NEW fossil fuel projects.

AM trying to clutch at a positive straw; IF HBR want to grasp it.

"They'd need to announce that at a key moment, but they haven't done that have they!!"

I think COOK's attention is elsewhere and we have been kicked down the road for months . HBR have not announced anything. IF they announced they were walking from SL it would impact their books; I think they will try and offload in an efficient a way as possible.

COOK showed her prejudices last year in a conference call;

" Projects like long cycle ; multi billion dollar oil developments , or, high risk frontier exploration far from existing infrastructure, are unlikely to make the cut"

When COOK was specifically questioned ( October 2020 conference call )about SEALION's prospects she pointedly stated they liked the Mexican and SE Asian assets and ignored the SEALION question. When pressed again on SEALION she indicated they would take time to review it .

IMO ; If they had the time to form the opinion that they liked the other assets ; they certainly must have already assessed and formed an opinion as to whether they favoured SEALION.

A have a VERY large shareholding in RKH and I say it as frankly & honestly as I see it.
I have been invested for long before you appeared on this BB.
i am fully aware of HBR's review and would be delighted if HBR were to surprise the market with SL sanction.
How long does it take to review SL?
The problems of funding remain and I am struggling to see how debt ridden HBR can proceed without UKEF support.

"Without Zama .."

There is no evidence HBR are going to give up on Zama . If the economics of Zama trump those of SL HBR will keep their interest.

We are stuck with a new entity that has shown absolutely no interest in SL development. I have searched for anything remotely positive from HBR; have listened carefully to public utterances and have sadly come to the conclusion we are tied to a dead horse.
We can not afford MORE delay. How long does it take to make a decision Linda?

That's not good news at HBR. Who knew what when? Some think that the issue is behind the recent sp slide there.
Where does the buck stop ?
Get a grip Linda and make a decision on SL so we can move on; one way or another.

Good afternoon buzzthomas
Zama is attractive because of the numbers. The NS tax losses are huge and will take a while to use up.
The really BIG issue is SL's costs and how it could be finance now UKEF appears to have gone.
HBR are carrying a lot of debt which does not help.

Good afternoon Lactisrule

You wrote; "So in essence you think the can will be kicked down the road again …"

The evidence is clear; COOK has had many months to assess SL . We have had plenty of clues from her statements before the takeover of PMO completed;; she 'like' Mexico ( or did months ago) and she liked SE Asia. She pointedly refused to commit on SL. You would not have taken over PMO without a deep , thorough assessment of the assets. An opinion on SL was formed and pretty early too.

Its about getting out with minimal damage to HBR, imo. Navitas have a good record for raising finance and personal links with Delek. A new consortium is our best hope.
I suppose there is the unlikely chance that POO's improvement might swing COOK but finance is the big problem.

I have yet to find any positive utterance from Linda COOK regarding SL.
I am convinced she does not see SL as a development project for HBR.
So what next.? To simply write off SL will have an impact on HBR's numbers. I think they will try and 'sell' the interest. I anticipate there will be a cleverly structured deal where NAVITAS takes over for a very modest; if any upfront payment.
It will be left to NAVITAS ( if interested) to bring in further interest and finance.
The obvious new player would be DELEK.

It appears Moody's pay is very similar to Stephen Sanderson at UKOG. Every opinion I have read all have the opinion that Sanderson is overpaid.
Based on performance and actual activity; its quite clear MOODY's remuneration is ridiculous; its twice what Boris Johnson gets paid as PM.

Interesting link Ibug;

"https://geothermalengineering.co.uk/united-downs/
About £20m. Will have to wait till next year."

I note this line "The project is expected to cost in the region of £30m."

That's a lot.

The 'out' guys are giving up, read here

"https://www.sanderson-out.org"

TH2 writes;
"He's obviously staking his reputation on this one and good luck to him..... if he's right he's going to make many of us very rich :-)"
Sanderson's 'reputation' is all he's staking here because he has not chosen to stake a penny of his MONEY buying shares so I guess he has decided that getting 'very rich' from UKOG shares is pretty unlikely .

If there's another reasonable explanation for his avoiding buying UKOG shares at all costs , lets hear it.

Ocelot writes

"Am putting you on filter now."

Now you can avoid answering reasoned, evidenced arguments and continue to post "strong buy" and misrepresent the shareholders voting for which you have been pulled up on several times.

You can spin all you like but the numbers do not lie .

Good afternoon Ocelot.

You wrote; " What is dilution?

An increase in the number of shares without a corresponding increase in net assets."

By your definition has dilution been good for UKOG in the last 4 years ?

2.59 billion to 15.98 billion shares and UKOG writing down the value of its KEY HH asset in its last annual report.

Can anyone reviewing these numbers argue that dilution has been good ?

A 6 fold increase in shares mainly as a result of raising over £52 million in loans and placing's and with what results?

The directors refuse to buy shares in their own company; says it all.

Good afternoon eddie187

You ask "Is this dilution? "

Effectively , YES. More shares will be created and UKOG will have extra working capital as a result.

About 4 years ago there were circa 2.59 billion shares

Today 15.98 billion share which is set to rise as a result of those that take up the open offer

0.17p should read. Doh!

Good evening beesty69

You wrote; "Either way someone is confident lol"

Someone sold 50 million for 17p on Friday; What was the significance of that? What coverage did that get?

For every buy, someone must be selling.....

There is no evidence of any appetite to buy shares from the board.