Member Info for cyan2

"40 bopd at $83 is £100k a month. Or $1.2 million a year"

The accounts for the YE 30.09.2022 showed the profit from sales was just £310K ; Barely enough to pay Sanderson's wages

The previous year they LOST £189K from sales

Overall the UKOG accounts show a huge losses every year

HH appears to be declining its production.

Thanks you ZYX098 for your clarification; "No, if UKOG go under then the Loxley licence will default back to the Govt., not any Administrator."

I thought that bankrupt rights might be able to be sold as was the case in the states when Navitas paid just $1.8m for a share in large oil field where eyewatering amounts had already been spent on appraising.

"Navitas acquired rights in the Shenandoah discover in March for only $1.8 million in cooperation with two of its partners in the Buckskin project: LLOG, one of the largest private oil companies in the US and a specialist in developing deep water oil assets, and the Blackstone fund.

The discovery was then estimated at 100-150 million barrels of oil (in three prospects) located at a depth of 1,770 meters in the Gulf of Mexico, 155 miles south of Louisiana. Six exploratory, evaluation, and verification drillings were conducted in the discovery area up until 2017 at an investment of $1.7 billion.

Navitas and its partners in Shenandoah took advantage of the bankruptcy proceedings of Cobalt International Energy to acquire the rights at a very low price, then filed a revised development plan for the reservoir."

https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-navitas-jumps-on-positive-shenandoah-report-1001264557

IF there ever was any other company interested in partnering UKOG i a Loxley drill (costs £7m) they would now be looking to likely wait and pick up the asset rights from administrators for next to nothing.

"Where are the results of the GM and the resolutions?"

Meeting was adjourned!. Funny that. Having had sight of all the votes cast one suspects the adjournment was contrived because they knew they would lose. Not acceptable practice.

There are so many red flags now.

The market was clearly informed that the company is in urgent need of new funds for general working capital let alone for new exploration drilling on fifth rate prospects in Türkiye .

The company HAD to consolidate and get authorisation to issue new shares in a hurry. Yet what happened ; the meeting was adjourned. Its obvious the votes for the desperately needed authorisations were not forthcoming . What is Sanderson going to do now? Ask again , BUT this time put a gun to shareholders heads; pass his resolutions or the company goes to the wall.

Who knows what advice he is receiving now about the company's 'going concern' status and whether administrators should be called in.

This company could fail at any moment and who is going to be left holding worthless paper when the music stops.?

UKOG do not have much time now. Sanderson has to put his ego to one side and be very blunt with the next RNS. Tell the market how it is.

Inform shareholders that failure to support consolidation and massive new issues OR alternatively allow the company to lapse into administration.

The end may be very near if UKOG perceive they can not raise capital by any means. Its seems clear to me that when the meeting started UKOG were fully aware the votes were not there and a "question" was used as a means to bat off a loss.

When have UKOG ever really considered shareholders views or questions?.. Its been a show driven by one man's grandiose visions.

I think the writing is on the wall and the "adjournment" was because it looked like the votes would be lost.

I can not see how this company can any longer be considered a going concern.

They appear to run out of road; the confetti issuing will end.

Remember this warning;

"In order to deliver the Company's stated strategy and growth objectives, it will require further funds in the near future. The Directors therefore seek specific shareholder approval for authority to issue shares and dis-apply pre-emption rights in respect of those shares in order that the Company can raise money as set out above and for general working capital."

If they can not raise 'general working capital' the company is bust.

"So what happens if they don't pass resolutions 3 and 5 and can't issue shares to pay off YA? "

Imo , UKOG will no longer be a 'going concern' and they will have to call time.

My evidence for that is founded in the Ye 30.09.2022 annual accounts published on 31 st March 2023 under "going concern" Extract: " ..... the Company, if required, will take actions to address any cash constraints by seeking to raise capital through equity or debt. Whilst there can be no certainty that sufficient funding can be obtained in the timescales required, the Directors are confident of their ability to raise capital, which is supported by successful capital placements in the past."

UKOG consider themselves a going concern as they have had a successful history of fund raising through issuing more shares.

If they can no longer issue no shares .... they are in trouble and , imo , finished

"What happens if shareholders vote against authorisation to issue more shares?"

Will be the end game for UKOG, imo.

They are in financial difficulty.

They clearly state they need to raise more money in the near future for general working capital. UKOG is a loss making business. They need to be able to continue to issue lots more shares to raise cash.

The red flag was revealed in the RNS yesterday ; UKOG ; "..will require further funds in the near future."

The amounts of cash required to continue to chase pipe dream projects and further Turkish activities will necessitate share creation on an incredible scale now. And what are the chances of Turkish success? Who is buying this?

I last posted on UKOG thread on 19th October 2022 . My opinion then was "sell"

The price then was 0.0695.

I note this line from TH2

"Yesterday's RNS had a lot in it that has not been discussed here..."

Does not look like many have taken on board and discussed the full implications of these lines from UKOG in the RNS;

"In order to deliver the Company's stated strategy and growth objectives, it will require further funds in the near future. The Directors therefore seek specific shareholder approval for authority to issue shares and dis-apply pre-emption rights in respect of those shares in order that the Company can raise money as set out above and for general working capital."

More shares to be issued on top of sooo many issued since I last posted.

"general working capital" wages of course

On 5th May Market-Dealer posted this entirely misleading line;

"Also, Argos's acerages has over 10b barrels of oil, Rhea is as big as SL (probably is bigger

Than SL) only few km from Sea Lion,"

Today , when challenged on his assertion that ARG has oil posted this;

"You are the f00l cos you haven't read anything"

Read this which I posted on 22nd October 2021;

"Good morning Falky

You wrote;

"Argos is better investment than Rkh, the risk is the more less the same,

But the rewards can be a lot higher....IMHO"

How can the risks possibly be the same ?

Argos has not found any oil let alone fully appraised a giant discovery as Rkh have.

Argos spell it out clearly;

www.argosresources.com/perch/resources/arg-2019-annual-report.pdf

page 11

'General exploration risk'

"......no commercial volumes of oil or gas have yet been discovered and there is no certainty that such discoveries will ever be made." "

That is ARG themselves clearly stating the TRUE position

Then there is the mentioned on shore Monte Grosso exploration prospect .

We have the interest from the takeover of MOG

In 2007 the split was MOG (23%), Eni (53%), TotalFina Elf (11%), SRN (13%)

That may have changed since.

RKH have a 23 % interest there and , coincidentally, its COS is estimated at 23% .

This is a very deep, challenging target; circa 6,800 metres; I understand a previous attempt to reach target depth was abandoned by British Gas years ago. Its not a cheap drill and its estimated would take well over a year to reach the target; (I have seen an estimate of 415 days).

BUT ; IF successful , the potential volumes are large.

The issues for RKH are its struggling for cash and we would need the majority interest party in the prospect to want to proceed and stump up cash for a 23% COS gamble.

What value can we ascribe?

Good morning Ovets

you wrote; "A year ago, who would have thought that Guendalina (20%) and especially Monte Grosso (23%) might have any value at all?"

Rkh indicated a while back that they wanted to dispose of the legacy Italian assets which accounts show are losing us money; (revenue $500K; COST of sales $800k) I do not see a cost free way to off these with their $14.2 million of decom liabilities. ( remember ; we tried to pay NOP to take CIVITA off our hands in 2017).

Looks like our management are trying to put off paying decom costs but they apparently cost us circa $600k per year in net losses at the moment.
The interesting question is just how each of our 2 'producing' assets are performing.? Is the loss weighted solely on one asset; likely CIVITA?

How much does Guendalina produce?. Is THAT asset NOW, in anyway, profitable?

I wish Rkh would publish the data which has been absent for years.

It really should be in the annual report for all to see.

There was a time when Sam was keen on Guendalina and would comment enthusiastically .

All looked so wonderful in 2015. An extract from ;
hTTps://www.offshore-energy.biz/eni-wraps-up-guendalina-sidetrack-italy/

"At current gas prices and exchange rates, Rockhopper says it anticipates revenue from Guendalina, net to the company, of approximately $7 million in 2016."

Wish we had revenues like that now.

Good afternoon DeusExMachina

Glad you liked my 2019 post . As you have seen ; I am a long term , long suffering investor who really wants Rkh to succeed and see a return on his investment.

At times I fear I was over optimistic and have learned by experience that everything Rkh connected seems to take longer and cost far more than expected.

I am not normally one for posting every day but when there's something of interest or concern I will post and engage politely with others. That may on occasion involve a perceived criticism of our company's performance which you should not be so oversensitive too.

Your suggestion of ulterior motives on my part does not do you credit. The conspiracy theory is utterly ridiculous ;

" a brief to keep the SP depressed so a 'topiary' of hedge funds can build a platform to launch a hostile bid -"

Here is " Just a friendly thought to ponder!"

Get real . lol

Good evening pauldrayton

Thank you for your feedback on the reassurances Sam has given to you regarding the timing of the settlement of the £3m "success fee".
you wrote;
" Sam has confirmed that they have a verbal agreement with the lawyers which they obviously can’t put in an RNS but there is no intention of paying the £3m unless/until they sell the award or the annulment proceedings get rejected."

Now the timing of the "success Fee" is to be apparently postponed with the goodwill of our lawyers as you state; Rkh will have to officially inform the market.

I disagree with the contention; " they obviously can’t put in an RNS"

With all due respect and thanks ;It can not be left hanging with just an unofficial BB posters report of the result of those "productive discussions".

Sam dropped the £3m "success fee" debt issue out of the blue in a RNS , so it is an issue now that needs official clarification .
He will now have to reassure the market that the matter has been deferred and any terms ;because that £3m GBP debt could seriously impact the company' s balance sheet .

However, whatever happens , The £3m remains a liability that will eventually HAVE TO BE PAID even if we ultimately lose the award and never receive a penny.

It will now have to be shown in the accounts as a debt liability which will have to be paid ,... one day .

And Good evening to Boboil
The £3m "success fee" , was certainly a surprise.

Going forward I am sure RKH will find the funding to fight the annulment , at a price ,and likewise the enforcement of the award.

pauldraytons post also had this line :

" there is no intention of paying the £3m unless/until they sell the award or the annulment proceedings get rejected"

Looks like selling the award is an option under active consideration.
For those that think that selling part of the award is a good way forward consider Malcy's cautionary remark that it "may be overly punishing"
Just how much would you pay for an award that MIGHT be dismissed entirely and require refighting ;or if not dismissed outright MIGHT cost time and money trying to force settlement.?
I respectfully suggest it would likely be an extremely discounted cash offer because of the risks.

We have not got many good options.

In the end, I would not be surprised to see an opportunistic all paper offer for our company from Navitas .

Good afternoon Mogger

You wrote; "Can I just check my understanding of no win, no fee?
If you lose, you don't pay anything. If you win , you have to pay your lawyers?
Rockhopper did win the arbitration didn't they?"

They won but I thought you pay your lawyers out of the cash proceeds you actually receive from the win .

I appear to be wrong here; We have to pay £3m without actually receiving any cash from the Italians ; maybe never actually receiving the win payment.

Was not made clear to me it could be POSSIBLE with this 'no win no fee " arrangement that we could end up with a huge lawyers bill but not a penny from an award.

Good afternoon Marunam2

you wrote;
"3m euros in the great scheme of things is nothing if the annulemnt is denied"

The £3m is not nothing to Rkh now because we are down to circa $10 m dollars in our coffers. Its material especially with the reported possible timescale of 18-24 months to conclusion of he annulment proceedings

Good afternoon Spacehoppa
You wrote;
"Cyan's view and say naar, I could well win Euro200million but I'm not going to risk it for £3m."

That's not what I am arguing

The ultimate payout IF we receive the award will be tens of millions to Harbour. BUT the so called 'no win no fee' agreement is not quite as straight forward as some may have thought. Who knew that Harbour would not ensure payment was received before requiring a reward ; That we would have to pay them £3m no matter what and that we were not fully supported until payment?

Rkh recently came to market to raise funds by the issue of new equity. The company was down to a few million dollars.

I think its all about being up front with shareholders and potential investors when you are trying to raise funds from such a terribly weak cash position. Liabilities current and potential should have been frankly pointed out.

It would have been nice to know that contesting any annulment request and the enforcement of any award would be unfunded; that the 'no win no fee' deal actually had a success fee that would have to be paid before any award cash arrived in Rkh's coffers; if ever.

Not unreasonable to let people know don't you think?

Good afternoon Boboil

you wrote; " Remember they did win the case for RKH and they might not get a penny"

My understanding from what RKH Rns'd is that our litigators are entitled to £3m no matter what happens next.

If that liability were to disappear if the case were annulled I think Sam would have made that clear. How its written is clear to me; its an immediate liability and he's having to sweet talk them into deferring.

"The third-party funding agreement does not cover any costs arising past the date of the Award (23 August 2022). Having anticipated Italy might attempt to annul the Award, Rockhoppper has a non-binding offer in place to fund both fighting the annulment and enforcing the Award if required. The Company will now consider this along with other funding possibilities. A separate success fee of approximately GBP3 million is due to the Company's legal representatives on establishing liability and an award requiring Italy to pay over EUR25 million in damages. This amount is not covered by either funding agreement. Given Italy's request for annulment, the Company is in productive discussions with its legal representatives as regards to this payment."

Anyone disagree that the £3m is an immediate liability? Rkh would not be in "productive discussions" if it was not an immediate concern.

You also wrote; "Now they know the outcome they will surely agree the additional monies to nudge it over the line and get paid what they deserve for doing a good job"

Rkh made it clear ; fighting the annulment request AND enforcing will have to be funded but they are NOT included in the 'no win, no fee' agreement.

There will be a cost to Rkh; either upfront cash; 'pay as you go' or likely another agreement with parties looking to take another slice of the award. Note the line :"a non-binding offer in place to fund both fighting the annulment and enforcing the Award if required"

What kind of a 'no win no fee' arrangement is it where we could end up NEVER receiving a penny BUT we owe our litigators £3m ?

A success fee should only come from the cash actually being received, imo.