London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

I agree with afish. "Been there and done it" is a powerful persuader when deciding on the composition of a management team that's looking to execute a game-changing deal. The board changes don't (to me) imply the former incumbents didn't perform with credit. The way I read it is that difficult decisions have been made so as to give JOG the best chance of achieving the best.

Les Thomas joined JOG as a non-exec in April, so it seems he's been quick to assess what action in his view is needed if JOG is to gain the most out of its rich seam of assets in the CNS. Thomas has an impressive CV:
"Les has over 35 years’ experience in the Oil and Gas industry, in various subsurface, engineering, operational and senior management positions. Les was formerly CEO of Ithaca Energy Inc. from 2013 to 2020 and previously served for eight years on the Board of John Wood Group plc, as Chief Executive of its Production Facilities business and the Group Director responsible for HSE. Prior to this, he spent 22 years with Marathon Oil UK Limited in various locations and roles, including four years as European Business Unit Leader.
Les is also an independent director of Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Limited, a joint venture between Repsol and Sinopec with a significant UK North Sea portfolio, as well as serving as a Non-Executive Director of Avingtrans Plc, an AIM quoted engineering and manufacturing business.
Les has a BSc (1st class hons) in Civil Engineering and a Masters degree in Petroleum Engineering, both from Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh".

Chris Haynes (special adviser to the Board) has a decent CV too:
"Mr Haynes is a non-executive director of Woodside Petroleum Limited and Worley Limited. Chris has a wealth of experience gained from a 39-year career with the Shell Group of Companies and their affiliates where, in 2008, Chris assumed responsibility for the delivery of Shell’s major upstream projects worldwide. He retired from Shell in August 2011. Subsequently, Chris has worked in oil and gas exploration and production, LNG and chemicals businesses, primarily in project development and delivery, and in operations. Chris graduated from the University of Manchester with a Bachelor of Science degree with Honours in Mechanical Engineering and obtained his Doctorate in Applied Sciences from the University of Sussex. He is a Chartered Engineer and Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the United Kingdom and also a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Chris was appointed to the Order of the British Empire in June 2009 for his services to the British oil and gas industry in Nigeria and is also a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering in the United Kingdom".

You can't beat talent and experience. Money is one thing, reputations are another altogether. An individual only has one, so why would he risk it on an oil junior on AIM if he didn't think it was going anywhere?

You decide

all imo - dyor

"Either they are interested or they aren't"................I don't think it's quite that simple, LONGWAIT.

I don't know any more than the next person, but I do know that JOG has been working from a moving platform ever since we were told back in March the search for a farm-out partner had begun. Reading between the lines of a number of RNSs JOG has issued since March, since the concept development plan was submitted to the OGA, the latter has taken a much closer interest in what JOG's neighbours' plans are for the future. It's said these companies have been told they aren't going to make much progress with future applications if they don't take a leaf out of JOG's book and start demonstrably thinking "net zero" PDQ. It's also said the OGA has strongly urged close collaboration between multiple parties, which would mean other oilcos in the general GBA area sharing the considerable costs of oil and gas export via the planned hub. The latter might well include re-examining whether Buchan itself is the best location to build the hub. The OGA's aim, quite clearly, would always be to minimise carbon output via cost-sharing. So all JOG's project numbers will have been moving throughout.

The same applies to JOG's "electric power from shore" proposals. Shared costs to a GBA electricity hub would considerably reduce the GBA project's carbon footprint and JOGs costs.

AB has consistently stated since the farm-out process was first launched, that there is widespread industry interest in the project. Why wouldn't there be? The oil (and some gas) is 33° API; it's in a very accessible location and my strong feeling is the projected infrastructure and (to a lesser extent) OPEX costs will be shown to have decreased considerably, when news of a farm-out finally reaches us. We're told the GBA project is the largest in the UKCS since Golden Eagle (in the 1980s I think) and there is considerably potential to increase the size when Verbier Deep, Wengen and Cortina (inter alia) are drilled in the reasonably near future (funds permitting).

Putting all the above to one side, there's been the small matters of Miss Twatesse from Sweden and certain well-meaning but utterly 'disconnected with what makes sense' types who patrol the corridors of the eco-neutered hotels the COP parties are held in: "let's assume China, India and the US etc will realise how inconsiderate they're being, shall we? Anyone for green tea? No, not you Greta - FO back to Sweden like a good girl, would you? " to work around.

OIL and gas was a complex enough business before - it's even more difficult now.

I was sorry to see Ron go and hope his exit was consensual. He'll be 71 in March so maybe it suited him? His job was more or less done anyway. I was never convinced about V Gibbs's CFO apptmt.

Les Thomas is about the best in the business. He won't tolerate nonperformance. His two former colleagues are also well- respected. I'm more optimistic than I have been for a while.

dy

I haven't got you filtered, LONGWAIT. You come across as a decent bloke to me.

I don't doubt there's an incredible amount of dishonest behaviour on these threads - or that many posters have multiple identities, in the hope/expectation they can influence others to act in ways that suit the dishonest, low-life turds.

Sadly , despite the commendable efforts of people like you to "out" what amounts to criminal behaviour, those who are in a position to do something about it rarely, if ever, prove willing to take a principled position and make an example of those found to be guilty via prosecution.

I have been engaged since mid 2015 after discovering a fraud running into tens of millions of dollars in a Guernsey registered, AIM listed company called Juridica Investments limited, which happened to be audited by the Channel Islands arm of the Firm in which I was a UK partner. You wouldn't believe how much time I spent uncovering what was easily enough even for the SFO to understand. The SFO put a couple of dimwits (called "senior investigations officers" - SIOs) on the case and kicked it as far along the road as they could before I made it impossible for them to ignore. After 17 months the two SIOs arranged to travel to my home in Devon to go through everything face to face. The more senior of the two wrote in an email in advance of the meeting as follows - I quote verbatim : "I suggest you prepare for our visit on the basis that you are speaking to people with little or no accountancy experience. That way hopefully nothing will be missed and of course it will make it easier should we need to explain the case to others". Quoi?

I had been contacted before referring the case to the SFO by an anonymous US informant, with whom I exchanged more than 60 emails over a 6 month period before he disappeared from the radar - he was almost certainly a former partner of the main fraudster (a US lawyer). I have no qualms in writing as I do - let the fraudsters/incompetents sue me for libel. They won't because "truth" will be my defence. The FRC understood the fraud - Susan Curry, head of staff, was as sharp as a razor. They couldn't pursue it though, because JIL was a Crown Dependency Company trading on AIM - had it been on the main market things would have been different. Eventually I made a complaint about PWC in the CI to the ICAEW. That was in July 2018 and they're still investigating. I submitted a 34 page report to them (plus several attachments making the position absolutely crystal clear) this time last year, just after the bloke who'd been investigating the matter retired after being"head of investigations" for the previous 18 years - he'd finally admitted to me he agreed with everything I'd written. A new person was appointed to fill his shoes and she's been "investigating" ever since. Pitiful.

They're scared s**tless - there are some big names involved and it takes effort and ability to piece it together. They think I'll give up.

If you don't mind me saying, the article you quote from is utter *******s. The ones who benefit from share buy-back programmes are the directors, for reasons that have been intelligently explained by others before me. SQZ's directors have been sitting on a huge pile of cash for too long now, as they apparently wait for another BKR to come along. It seems to me, they're too risk averse. Another BKR is unlikely to come along in a timescale that affects anyone who's presently alive and invested in SQZ.

Before Covid reared its ugly head, shareholders had been told a dividend was coming their way out of cash reserves that were around £100m at the time. A 5p dividend (which is what I was expecting) would have cost around £13m - easily manageable whatever the circs - but in response to concerns expressed generally in the market that to pay out money in dividends might be unwise given the unknowns involved in managing companies' affairs in a pandemic, SQZ shareholders were told the dividend would be restricted to 3p per share, which cost a piffling c.£8m. Roll forward 12 months, with another 12 months' cash having flowed in (or at least it should have flowed in) and with it having become clear SQZ was in a very strong all-round position (despite the huge unexpected - and so far unexplained - spend on R3) the dividend was increased to a measly 3.5p. This, to me, was an insult given how well the directors and certain key staff had been rewarded for - again inter alia - taking such a cautious approach to hedging that heavy losses had to be booked in SQZ's accounts and the combination of this, plus the vast overspend on R3, led to cash in the bank basically remaining static when the results to 30 June 2021 were finally released - and this despite the very significant increase in gas prices vs 2020, when (if my memory serves me correctly) one or more of the BKR wells had been shut in.

Stop p***ing around and pay us out some of our money via a proper dividend - and not another insulting 0.5p or 1p a share. If you're not going to put the rest of what's in the bank (or at least should be in the bank, assuming another fortune hasn't been blown on hedging at ultra cautious prices) to work in income producing assets, then pay a decent amount of it back to the people it belongs to - ie the people who've spent their own money buying shares, which doesn't include those who are getting paid a stack for making the decisions about it.

In a sentence: "show me the money". I'm fed up to the back teeth with noses and troughs.

dyor

.........spot on, NewK

I wish they were more streetwise when it comes to PR.

They're streetwise enough when it comes to paying themselves and claiming free shares, though. I have sadly reached the conclusion that certain people's attentions aren't necessarily focused on what's best for shareholders; it's what's best for them that counts. What's tipped the balance for me is the absence of a normal "directors' remuneration report" in the 2020 annual statements (which I went through recently in an effort to understand things more clearly).

Basic questions. How much of the BKR deal was down to BP’s seeming desperation to put immediate distance between itself and anything to do with Iran? I’m not saying it wasn’t an incredibly well-executed deal. But the impression I’ve always gained is that SQZ was the chosen one – possibly as a result of BP’s /ACW's history?. I’m just speculating.
What's clear to me regardless is that ACW and Flegg have done very well indeed from the award of so many free shares (and options?).

Normally, directors’ remuneration is dealt with in a comprehensive report that's part of each company's annual financial statements. Not so with SQZ. You have to dig deep in SQZ’s last full year’s financial statements to find out how well certain people have done, are still doing and will continue to do in the future as long as nothing unplanned is allowed to happen. There are probably millions more free shares still to vest. Why sell the company and lose all these? https://www.serica-energy.com/downloads/reports/annual/Serica-Annual-Report-2020.pdf.
You need to go to Note 8(b) on page 73 to find out how much the directors were paid in salary and pension contributions in 2020. You’ll note at the end of 8(b): “The Group defines key management personnel as the Directors of the Company. There are no transactions with Directors other than their remuneration as disclosed above and those described in Note 30. The Group defines key management personnel as the Directors of the Company. Deliberate intention to mislead? You decide.

To get a realistic fix on what's likely to happen next, I think you'd have to get to the bottom of what produces the best result for ACW & Flegg. I doubt they'll be too keen to give up multi years' worth of free shares under the various (supposed) long term incentive schemes that's ensured millions of fully-transferable 'nil-cost shares' have flowed into ACW's & MF's ownership, on top of half a million each on top. Note 30 throws a bit more light on the situation, but I'm far from certain the full picture is shown there.

ACW and MF are doing just fine thanks. Stop rocking the boat. If another BKR comes along (I wish) you might see some action. Otherwise forget it. "Why sell? And miss out on all those unclaimed long term incentive shares? You've got to be kidding"

Yeah - I'm having a grump. Give me a different interpretation of what I say is a serious lack of transparency and I might cheer up

LW - not sure about venomous viper, but rbonnier has said on the other site that he's vampireskitten on here and (somewhat surprisingly) also catswhiskas (as well as rbonnier) on the other forum. One would have thought that would lead to instant expulsion on "multi identities" grounds, but I suppose the board monitors probably realise he'd just create a few more email identities and fashion himself catspoo, catlitter or some other suitable name. Can't recall seeing any spats between rbonnier and catswhiskas, but it might be worth doing a bit of trawling to find out. At least it would give us a laugh.

Regardless, it's safe to ignore all 3 to 53 of him because none of him is very bright.

Good to hear from you, Jim. As you say, I did spot the £100k 'buy', but can't spot the second tranche you bought. There are loads of 1167 shs trades at 146.5p (right in the middle of the spread so unsure if these are buys or sells - or indeed why there are so many). MMs dealings are a mystery to me. MMs are supposed to make a fair market in the shares they deal in, but in fact do the opposite. To call them spivs would be to pay them a compliment.

Anyway, don't forget to notify the Company, as the onus is on you to do so. The onus will then be on the Company to issue a holdings RNS, which might cheer a few people up.

As I see things, the skill for JOG lies not only in convincing those who have expressed interest in farming into the GBA project that the oil is actually there - and in the quantities stated - but then in negotiating terms that leave JOG owning the right amount of the action and debt-free, or as close to that as makes no real difference, given the returns potentially available.

Ref the $30pb cost pb you mention, only the OPEX element of the estimated extraction cost will hit the P&L when the oil starts to flow (assuming it does). OPEX was estimated at c.$9pb the last time I saw reference made to it. Unless I've got my wires crossed, the balancing number of $21pb is a notional figure that's designed to show how much of the selling price pb of the oil produced represents capital costs associated with the project over its lifetime. These capital costs (infrastructure, pipelines, electric cables to shore etc - est cost $830m + 20% contingency for Phase 1 - probably quite a lot less if others join in with the electrification - have to be paid up-front. JOG estimates full payback inside 3 years based on forecast production volume. I don't have enough info to work out if this is realistic, but the reality is that they know a lot more than I do about the subject, so I don't intend to go digging.

There's still considerable risk here imv - at least until funding is resolved. The vast difference between JOG's present m/c and what it should be when funding questions are answered makes the risks worthwhile afaic. But that's only my opinion. There are no guarantees.

GLAL
dyor

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for dickupham

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for dickupham

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending