Member Info for GingerHippo

LW, as you are well aware, I'm not talking about an RNS I'm taking issue with the point of view you expressed today.

I expect the conversation will now become derailed and I do not intend to play along if it does. Everyone can scroll down and read the whole conversation.

LW, you are dodging the question inasmuch as you still haven't answered it.

Have you ever come across an EPCF partner taking anything close to 80% of a project?

If you don't answer this time I'm going to take that as a no.

It's not academic because 80% is a lot more than 50%.

LW, instead of dodging my question and going round in circles, maybe you could do some research on EPCF contracts and see how many take anything close to 80%. Then you can post that information here and we'll have something to discuss.

It's like any other business. Yes someone could potential replicate it but that doesn't change the fact that we already have a business. Whoever finances us will do very well, so they need to offer us fair terms or we'll go elsewhere.

Again, have you ever heard of an EPCF partner taking more than 50% of the project?

LW, the opposite is true.
ORCP holds the cards because the project belongs to us. Any financier or EPCF partner would have to justify taking away our equity.
There's lots of interest in this project so we could get financial backing from various sources or work with different contractors to get this done. We have no reason to be steamrolled.

For an EPCF partner to take more than 50% of the project would be very unusual. Do you know of any examples of where that has happened?

AG, what I'm saying is that I think 60-80% to the financier is way too much and we should be able to get a large proportion of the funding from a bank or consortium of banks without giving them any equity. If CET want equity in exchange for their backing and work, I would like to think that 50% is absolutely the max, and I hope Naheed and the Sheikh agree with that.

Bear in mind, we don't actually need CET. If we can get financing from elsewhere, and given a strong DFS valuation that shouldn't be too much of a problem, we can pay Thyssenkrupp and others to do the work for us. While I would want to work with CET myself, I don't think their negotiating position is so strong that they can take anything like 80%.

Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum’s office has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Defence Housing Association (DHA) Karachi to develop ultra-high-end golf view villas overlooking the newly built golf course in DHA City Karachi.

A statement said: “Having the experience in completing various international commercial and infrastructure Projects globally, the Office of His Highness is keen on expanding its investments in ****stan and bringing foreign direct investment.

The Office is also developing various other Projects in ****stan, such as developing state of art high-end luxury apartments in partnership with D.H.A Lahore, measuring an area of 50 Kanals in Sector K of Phase 5, DHA Lahore.

In the energy sector, the office is developing an 1100 MW Green Hydrogen project through its London (AIM listed) company Oracle Energy. Similarly, in the health sector, the office is working closely with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to develop first-of-kind plasma products in ****stan.

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/dha-uae-group-sign-mou-for-golf-view-villas-in-dha-city-karachi/

BTW, Brooge Energy's hydrogen project which is similar to ours is expected to cost $1.5Bn.
From memory when I calculated NPV i got around $2Bn at 12%, but hopefully the DFS will shed more light on this. I would hope Oracle don't keep this a secret because it could well be a catalyst for a major rerate. We currently own 30% of that (c $600M).

Although we are small, there is clearly a lot of interest in this project and I would think we should be offered financing from more than one backer with favourable terms. I would expect there to be a consortium with some debt and some equity. If CET for example insists on taking 50% they'd better offer very favourable financing terms and that would still leave us with 15% (c $300M). I certainly don't think we'd bow out entirely for a free 5% ride.

In terms of a raise, there almost certainly will be another one if not two. Will that happen at these levels or will we see a rerate first? Might as well flip a coin to answer that one. So 50% chance of a raise that lowers us by 10-15% and 50% chance of a rerate that pushes us up 300% or more, so I will continue to hold and wait. (300x0.5 - 0.15x0.5 = 142.5% or about 0.36p expected share price).

Del, I agree that comms has been poor.
My guess is that they're nervous to say something wrong so end up saying nothing, which is also problematic imo.

That's a far cry from being unaware of their own license progress. I don't believe that for a single second.

Frustrating as it is, they are in a difficult situation.

It's definitely not true that they'd struggle to hold a decent position elsewhere, as evidenced by the many decent positions they have held elsewhere.....

What I found:

The impact of a transition from SETSqx to SETS include:

Increased liquidity: Trading on the SETS platform can potentially attract a larger number of investors and market participants, which may lead to increased liquidity. Higher liquidity generally improves the ease and efficiency of buying and selling shares. As a result, increased liquidity could potentially contribute to more stable and efficient pricing.

Improved visibility and investor interest: Trading on the SETS platform can enhance a company's visibility among institutional investors, analysts, and a broader range of market participants. This increased exposure may generate greater investor interest in the company's shares, potentially leading to increased demand and, in turn, influencing share prices positively.

Enhanced price discovery: The continuous auction model of the SETS platform allows for real-time matching of buy and sell orders, contributing to improved price discovery. The increased transparency and efficiency of price determination can lead to more accurate and reflective pricing for the company's shares.

Market perception: The transition to the SETS platform may be perceived as a positive development by market participants, as it often indicates increased trading volume and liquidity. This positive perception could potentially result in upward pressure on share prices, driven by increased demand.

Companies like JD Sports Fashion plc and Just Eat Takeaway.com N.V. transitioned from the SETSqx platform to the SETS platform in the past. These transitions were driven by increased trading volumes and liquidity.

Toffers, it's not the lawsuits that are preventing the sale, it's the (slightly more significant) random killing of other human beings just cos they live on the other side of an imaginary line, and the sanctions that result.

it's just can kicking. It means nothing at all.
Obviously it's difficult to sell in these circumstances so there's no movement on that front.
On the other hand we're not dead in the water.
We are simply waiting for circumstances to become more favourable (unless by some miracle we can sell sooner).
So, the options will keep getting kicked every 6 months until something changes.
6 months is arbitrary based on the perceived least disruption to an orderly market. Nothing to read into.

ROTFL!!!

probably not today, mannan.

But if we have a working business model and a large pipeline of clients queuing up, all we really need to do is covert that pipeline into paying IM'd clients and we'll do very well.

I think this will snowball.

Reading more, I came across this line, which might be the key:

"In doing so, SETS bypasses traditional market makers"

Am I understanding this correctly? This means no more MM shenanigans...?

minimum market cap for a main listing is £30M, which is more that we currently have.

Basically lower requirements for revenue, reporting, free float, working capital and other things.
We're basically admitting that we're too small for LSE atm.

Was beyond obvious

We got a mention in the following article:

Brooge Energy has announced a successful technical study of its green hydrogen and green ammonia plant, conducted by thyssenkrupp Uhde.

The Abu Dhabi facility has two planned phases and targets 1,950mtpd of exported green ammonia, produced using green hydrogen from solar energy.

The company performed a comprehensive techno-economic analysis of the power-to-ammonia value chain using a proprietary modelling tool, with the aim of evaluating the influence of various factors on the overall cost-effectiveness of the plant.

Lina Salah Saheb, Interim CEO of Brooge Energy, said, “The study’s results will help us determine the optimal setup for our green ammonia plant and guide our future investment decision.”

Last year, Oracle Power appointed thyssenkrupp to undertake a technical and commercial feasibility study for its green hydrogen and ammonia project in ****stan.

https://www.h2-view.com/story/thyssenkrupp-study-highlights-uae-green-ammonia-export-potential/

Your post was "untrue doubt about UOG" precisely BECAUSE you posted quoted "directly from an RNS released today by ANOTHER oil & gas company"

It's news from ANOTHER company, not UOG. UOG cleared this issue up in the presentation yesterday.