Member Info for Fyoz

thirdman Ships fitted with scrubbers will be able to use a wider range of fuels as they comply by extracting the sulphur from the exhaust gases. Ships that don't have scrubbers fitted will only be able to use low sulphur fuels, which are likely to cost much more and may not have the same availability. The dilemma for ship owners is whether or not to pay for a scrubber, and have access to cheaper fuels in 2020, or spend nothing and use the higher costing compliant fuel (which may also cause additional problems to equipment due to the way it is produced)

Much better for everyone involved in the RTO to take their time and get it done properly, than rush it and fall foul of the rules. We knew what we were getting ourselves into, a potential 6 month lock-in. If it takes that long so be it, I'm sure our patience will be handsomely rewarded in due time

Barclays share dealing platform has been a disaster since they re-branded it Smart Investor Classic example of how to take something that worked perfectly and totally screw it up in the name of progress

With regard to the US involvement mentioned in the RNS:- Almost certainly Jacobs. From the Saudi Elec Co. 2016 Annual Report. References emulsions and Jacobs in the same breath. I think the European end might be Alsthom who supplied the boilers at the power plant. "Some of the most important business and research work achieved during 2016: � To continue studying the economic feasibility and the preparation of the technical specifications of the pumping and storage project of the Pumped Hydro Energy Storage in the regions of Makna and Wadi Baish. � To start studying the raising of the efficiency of burning emulsified fuel (HFO & VRO) and to replace it with a blend with water instead of diesel. � To start studying the use of non-thermal plasma technology to deal with the emissions of the power stations. � To start a feasibility study on the establishment of a national laboratory for clean combustion. This study is done in cooperation between the company, Saudi Aramco and the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. The three parties hired an international consultant Jacobs to help with the study."

For those not on ii this is what I posted there earlier:- "Working in conjunction with various entities within KSA and from Europe and the US, Quadrise has taken a central coordination role, and has progressed the project to a point that it can commence immediately once all parties have agreed the multiple bilateral contracts and the triparty contract that define the overall project." The US involvement has puzzled me. What are the Yanks bringing to the party? Well, much of my career has been spent working on petro-chem projects as a structural designer, and almost all of the EPC (engineering, procurement and construction) contractors are American. Also, doing some research yesterday on the fueling requirements for the KSA trial, and the output capacity of an MMU things don't add up. One MMU (as we know it) will take almost 6 months continuous operation to provide enough fuel for the test, on just one of the 14 boilers at the power plant. Given that shut-downs to refineries are colossally expensive and take years of planning, I'm now leaning towards a theory that the refinery have installed a purpose made unit that can eventually deliver the huge volumes of MSAR that will be needed for commercial production. I no longer believe a standard MMU has been installed, I now think they've installed a bespoke MSAR production unit, that is now ready to go at the press of the start button, and it was probably designed, procured and built by an American EPC contractor. This is purely my own opinion, I have nothing to back it up other than what I've included here, but the alternative simply doesn't make sense. Otherwise they'll need maybe a dozen or more MMU's (depending on how many boilers they eventually anticipate fueling with MSAR), which would probably entail yet another shut-down at the refinery, and the subsequent costs involved. This could also explain the reason we haven't been informed of the installation of the MMU, because it isn't part of the supply agreement we have entered into with ENH engineering Opinions welcomed . . .

Thanks for your comment Rob and thanks for your insightful posts regarding what's been going on at Petro Rabigh, it pointed me in the (hopefully) right direction

"you are wasting your time and valuable money here" Well it's mine to waste, and I'm invested here, so what's your reason for wasting your valuable time? "The idea that a single 1m buy suggests that management have credibility ....is that what you are seriously suggesting??" No, the fact that KSA, Akzo Nobel, Rafid Group etc are in negotiations with them (and QFI are coordinating) gives them credibility

next step will be the notification of the general meeting to approve the relocation I'd guess we're looking at next year now

"Surely all credibility is now stripped bare from this shareholder value trashing mob." Err, judging by the trades to day, especially the 1,000,000 buy, I'd say not All depends on your point of view. For me there's lots of positives in today's RNS so I'm happy to hold. These things very rarely run to the initial time frame. I guess if you really think the BOD have lost all credibility you should sell and move on. Really don't understand the point of coming on here trashing the company that you're invested in

Is that meant to mean something?

I'm far from an expert on these things and research isn't easy as the former company usually changes name after the RTO, hence difficult to see whether or not it was a success (for shareholders). UKOG was an RTO, formerly Sarantel, so there is history of success. The shares need to be suspended during the process so as to maintain an orderly market. Certain people would know a lot about the future outcome and therefore would have significant insider information. During suspension the advisors and accountants will be crunching the numbers, valuing the assets and trying to determine a net worth of the new company. Throw into the pot fund raising, additional shares that may need issuing for the owners of the private company etc, it's a complicated business. I'm expecting significant dilution, and maybe a share consolidation (perhaps 10 to 1) so that the new SP is not fractions of a penny. But ultimately we should benefit from the process as the major shareholders will want a decent return. If the new valuation is low we won't get the multi-bag initially, but the market will then probably want the shares so we should see an increase in the SP as demand exceeds supply. The reverse will probably be true if they've over-cooked the valuation. We'll get that initial x-bagger but then there'll be a sell-off and the SP will settle at what the market believes the true value is. Exciting times that's for sure . . .

Yep, it sure can, which is basically why we chose to be locked in . . .

All valid but unanswerable questions, yet OKOG is worth �196m ANGS is worth �79m Both have producing assets However, the market values on potential, so what might we be worth once funding is in place and we can drill? If we raise �5m @ 1p then we'll have 2.254 billion shares in issue (assuming GW doesn't take more shares). If we say we're then worth �25m, that would equate to an SP of about 1.1p Just my guess of course. Is �5m enough for working capital, well we have almost �1m already. Is �25m a fair value of a company with those assets, and the means to drill them? Discuss . . .

From the last RNS:_ "until a valuation of SWE's assets is completed � technical and accounting work has been commissioned to achieve this." So, how can we possibly know yet what they're worth. Presumably the experts are still trying to figure that one out

Xmas prezzie for us . . .

But we know what's coming, it's when not if . . .

Hopefully he's far too busy to be commenting on time frames Next news coming upwill be the date of the GM to approve the RTO and relocation of headquarters?

Yes, thinking along those lines myself. If we need to raise say �5m then the placing price will be agreed between lender and our advisors? So if at say 1p that would equate to another 500 million shares being issued. So we'd be diluted by about 28% but our shares will have increased in value quite dramatically?

Thanks Robbie Do you think we might be a target for a bigger player once the RTO is sorted. Gerwyn's not old, but not a young man either, he must have considered selling if the price is right?

Presumably they have to work out how many tcf of gas is recoverable from the areas covered by Transgas's licences?