Member Info for cyan2

"....also determine if Sealion is in communication"

Looking at the impressive Argos interactive 3D I can not see how Rhea can possibly be 'in coimmunication"

http://www.argosresources.com/3dtour/

If there was any substance to an already formed plan to drill on Argos license, we would have heard about it by now. For Arg holders I can see the reasoning why its worth talking up a drill; just doesn't stack up with what we have already heard from our partner. Why would a new farmin partner for SEALION find it attractive? If there was any real interest in exploratory drilling on Argos license , some company could invest direct. PMO are not overly flush with cash. NFB drilling costs, a few years ago, were $50 million per drill in the NFB and about $110million in the SFB. Costs have come down so what it is today I am not so sure. However; any drill on Argos would be exploratory with no gaurantees of success. One drill would not be enough to properly assess anyway. Look how many appraisal wells SEALION had before it was considered good enough for a farmin.
I will be truly shocked if PMO sends a rig to drill on to the Argos license BEFORE SEALION is developed.

"There is likely already a pro-forma agreement in place between PMO/RKH and Argos to drill Rhea first"

I have never seen or heard anything like that form RKH or PMO. I am not sure UKEF have either. They have been approached to finance phase 1 SEALION development; NOT go off on another exploration jaunt on anothers license.

Links from Argos web site.License holding data is out of date of course.
www.argosresources.com/docs/Argos_North_FI_Basin_License_Map.pdf
http://www.argosresources.com/img/argos-large-map.png
Interesting 3D here;
http://www.argosresources.com/3dtour/

See also p5 of Rockhopper presentation;
https://rockhopperexploration.co.uk/wp-content/uploads

I see no chance of PMO opting to exploratory drill in Argos license area BEFORE Sealion.

Nigoil; you wrote;

"cyan2, Arg will be using the rig contracted by Pmo and i believe Rhia will be the very first well to be drilled ( unfinished business from 2016. )"

Where and when did PMO or RKH state that?

Remember this warning from Argos;
http://www.argosresources.com/perch/resources/arg-2018-annual-report.pdf
"General exploration risk
Whilst results in the surrounding area are encouraging with respect to the oil and gas potential of the area and interpretation of the seismic data has indicated extensive prospectivity within the Licence area, no commercial volumes of oil or gas have yet been discovered and there is no certainty that such discoveries will ever be made."

Why on Earth would PMO want to start with exploratory drilling on Argos license BEFORE developing SEALION? Makes no sense whatsoever.

"The fact is, there are 3 FPSO's planned and destined for the Falklands (I believe one for ARG, BOR and RKH - re: my recent posts)."
Have a read here;

"Falklands' Premier Oil figures commissioning three FPSOs in next seven years, reports GlobalData"
May 12th 2018
hTTps://en.mercopress.com/2018/05/12/falklands-premier-oil-figures-commissioning-three-fpsos-in-next-seven-years-reports-globaldata

"Among operators, Petrobras (23), Saipem (3), Statoil (3), Premier Oil (3) and Modec (3) are expected to have the highest FPSO additions by 2025.

Guyana and the Falkland Islands are set to have three FPSOs each"

Three FPSO's for PREMIER ....Not ARG or BOR. They need a wealthy farmin partner to fund any further activity on their licenses

In my last response I was assuming that ARG hoped to save money by using the one contracted by PMO for SEALION.
For Argos to separetely contract and mobilize a rig in the time scales mooted is a HUGE ask.
Argos need a very wealthy farmin partner willing to take the 'chance' of success. Some people write as if Argos has a certain definite find. As Argos put in on their site;
"The Company is now seeking an exploration partner to drill a selection of key prospects to unlock the value of this exciting opportunity."

"Can we therefore take it that Argos will drill its well prior to that date "; ...........(May 2021)

"The resources in Sea Lion Phase 1 will be commercialised utilising a conventional FPSO development scheme with approximately 29 subsea wells. Estimated gross capex to first oil is US$1.8 billion."

I think that ARG are going to be at the back of the drilling queue. Why would PMO & RKH want to interupt their drilling schedules?
The big question is; who will provide the cash Argos needs?

The 14th November is when Premier are updating.
Malcy does not expect any SEALION news as per his blog and the extract below;

hTTps://www.malcysblog.com/2019/10/oil-price-trinity-premier-petro-matad-and-finally/

"Premier are updating again on November 14th when we can expect more from Tolmount but probably not from Zama where the data room has been bulging with potential farminees nor from Sea Lion where the UK Government, unsurprisingly have had their eyes slightly off the ball lately. All this means that there is considerable upside within Premier for the patient investor."

"rather simplistic to say the least"

Thanks for that. The starting point is the deal PMO signed up for; $337 carry and $750 million standby loan.
DURRANT states he is "comfortable" and RKH state they are "fully funded"; Isn't that clear?
You wrote;
"So even in the best case scenario, RKH are $223M short on the costs to fund Sea Lion with no discernible cash flow to pay G&A before Sea Lion produces oil."
Are you telling me that PMO could not find $223 m to loan to RKH? Their finances are much improved and Zama is to be sold.

PMO are fully aware of what they signed up for. In the 1st May interview DURRANT stated he was "comfortable".
He obviously believes all the numbers work for SEALION to ackieve sanction.
That standby loan is important and he knows it. He wouldn't have said he was comfortable if PMO could not honour EVERYTHING they signed up to.

I find your argument very confusing. The carry of $375 million is for PMO to honour.

Rockhopper have updated their presentation to include the revised overall $1.8 billion cost

" Rockhopper’s share of Sea Lion Phase 1 development FULLY funded post"
"fully funded" means just that.

hTTps://rockhopperexploration.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Investor-Presentation-September-2019.pdf
18th September 2019
p19
"Sea Lion funding package progressing with ECAs, project finance lenders
and contractors
? Rockhopper’s share of Sea Lion Phase 1 development fully funded post
project sanction through $337 million Development Carry and $750
million Standby Loan from Premier"

Olliesky wrote;
"Listen smart arse"
i refer you back to another of your useless contributions;
RE: RKH08 Oct 2019 18:37
"Bootlejobdodger
I don't need an idiot like you to agree with my opinions. Moron."

I am leaving you guys to it. DYOR; I have done mine

Reference the Ombrina field;

MOG fulfilled all its exploration commitments and in 2008 drilled 2 wells, discovered the Ombrina oil & gas field, completed a well as producer and set up a temporary platform. The total investment by the company was around EUR23 million.

Basically the claim is to recover costs and lost profits. RKH knowingly bought into the blighted asset. Other 'bighted'cases have imposed a 50% cut in awards. So, potentially we are looking at 11.5 million Euros and half the lost profits on the production from the 40 million barrel asset. Tricky calculations.

"Why would you be happy with £50m ?"
As pointed out the EDISON indicative example of a possible payout is $50m

I think its not an unreasonable number; that's all. If memory serves me right ; that is far more than was already spent on the blighted asset.
Be even happier if its more. There's no way we will get 275 m Euros if you look at other cases.

The arbitration with the claim is for 275 million Euros PLUS interest.

Other similar cases have had the award cut by 50% because the claimant knowingly bought into the 'blighted' asset.
I think the award will be substantially less than $100m; just my thoughts.

Edison stated this;
"Indicatively, a $50m award to Rockhopper net of costs would be worth up to 8.5p/share to equity holders. On 26 June 2019, the tribunal rejected Italy's request for the suspension of the arbitration and Italy's intra-EU jurisdictional objections. Rockhopper expects a final outcome and potential damages award in Q120."

I would be happy with $50m

"Ok so at $40 Breakeven we should be ok with Brent at around $60."

In 2017 PMO's minmum proceed number was $55. Based on recent reductions in the costs down from $45 to $40 , its fair to presume they are content with $55.

2017 article;
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-13/falklands-flagship-oil-field-off-target-at-current-crude-prices

"Premier is looking for $55 a barrel, compared with a price below $50 today, to get the desired 20 percent rate of return at its Sea Lion find, Chief Executive Officer Tony Durrant said Thursday. “If it was a little bit above that, we’d be a bit more comfortable,” he said.

Actually the breakeven number is $40 now;
hTTps://rockhopperexploration.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Investor-Presentation-September-2019.pdf
~$40/bbl
cash break-even
~$25/bbl
life of field opex + lease

Shocked by some posts here like this one;
"I saw a video of this guy malcy on oil he said rockhopper was only viable iff the price of oil is above 70 dollars is he correct he owns none of these shares just talks about it ."

Complete rubbish. Breakeven is no more than $45; in fact I believe its around $43 now.

The $45 number is well known to those who have properly followed RKH. PMO's number for proceeding is $55.
hTTps://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/15/falklands-sea-lion-oil-project-break-even-price-reduced-to-us-45-a-barrel.

"Are u trying to suggest that the GPA goes through the GBA Hub...."
answer; No

Been here before with plans for Perths development;

hTTps://www.offshore-mag.com/field-development/article/16775770/perth-concepts-under-review
Extract;
"DEO expects to receive approval for its plan by Q1 2012. Discussions are in progress concerning two main options: a subsea tieback to the Tartan platform and an FPSO development."

Just have to wait and see......been a long wait.

Good afternoon Sonofthebull.
You wrote; "In fact even a hub seems big pipe dreams....
I Need convinced."
I note your interest in PMG and the perth sour hub; the GPA. If you are skeptical here I would have thought you would have been even more so of the GPA.
The Perth sour oil field was discovered in 1983 and no-one has developed it. Yes; lots of talk . But; if no-one committed when POO was North of $100; why would anyone now with $60 POO?. Where is the necessary farmin for PMG? Where is the capital coming from?. At least JOG 's verbier is not sour.

The reason the share has fallen is because shareholders have been significantly diluted and the deal loads PMG with £3.6 million in debt which matures in circa 4 years. That capital would, hopefully, be needed in 4 years for the mooted Platypus gas development .It was bound to raise eyebrows when the businees aquired is 75% owned by the wife of PMG's boss. No mention in the RNS of the huge property development (Est build cost £975k) was an error Its no good PMG going on about wind speeds and a nearby site where someone else has wind turbines and you omit the property development. PMG goes on about "potential" wind , solar and biomass but there is no gaurantee at all planning permissions will be granted. Looking at other planning processes ; it might take two years from applying for turbines to a POSSIBLE granting of permission. Couldn't PMG find other sites with extensive permissions already in place?. Was that really the best deal they could do? The buying of the farms looks like a gamble on MAYBE getting permissions. As for the two turbines permission on Tipperty Farm; that looks tricky as you have Muirden Energy and Herscha Hill renewables involved. Permission was granted in 2014 but nothings been built.