Member Info for Harryshang

Ying Tong, Many thanks. The balance seems to be the entanglement. Harry

Ying Tong, We have on “insider authority “ that the strategy is purchase of the OGX-3 FPSO to gain a 36% approx equity in the TB field. My interpretation of the Court’s Judgment is that this awarded on re- delivery only. Are the assignment rights simply awarded to the assignee. Harry

Evening SB, If common sense and sound business practices are followed, it’s gonna be deployed in a heavy oil field in the North Sea. Harry

Sharelock, I agree on suitability and the consonance of the China Facilities company. My information in China from COSCO is that the Octo is unfinished owing to substantive costs associated with the requisite customised equipment. It would be interesting to delve into any relationship existant between COSL, COSCO and MF Devco that may encourage the completion and deployment. Harry

Good afternoon SB and YT, Some very sound detective forensics there building a strong case for the prosecution case, however, I guess the jury remains out and perhaps split on whether reasonable doubt has been proven. I would like to believe that the Polemos direction is synonymous/aligned with the target and, would undeniably benefit shareholders there with both solid revenue and profits as the assignee ( where full capacity is being approache) has coupled with the broader profit share from Royalties associated with being an MFD member. I am slightly perplexed by the proposition that there is any need for the Brazil subsidiary to reverse into the target where only Royalty is sought. I agree with SB regarding the rig from Cosl and the attendant leveraged finance. However, my opinion on non-recourse lending availability to NUOG from the Bank of China to reverse in to an equity situation is almost negligible. I am currently in China where the trade war issues weigh heavily on markets and people ( invested in the stock market). To underwrite a non-recourse loan to a western company where valuable foreign currency would be in play is unthinkable even where it was lead by the China international player ICBC. That said, it would seem that Minty’s Registration of the Brazil and China subsidiaries was corporate lawyer lead and, stand in good stead to close a Brazil deal. Harry

YT, Many thanks Harry

Good morning Ying Tong/SB I’m currently in mainland China and cannot open many links. What’s the state of play in the bankruptcy proceedings and what guarantees will affect any interested party. Thanks Harry

gggg, Credibility of charging 2 separate posters as the same person is probably dissolved: smacks of insecurity. Best stick to debate on relevant points rather than smarting from criticism of your legal knowledge on the intricacies of an MOU with PVF: what happened there and the 14mm valuation based therein. Harry

There were, of course, a plethora of RTO’s in the US by Chinese Companies which made gullible US PI’s into paupers ( I am not laughing where honest hard working people are succoured) : the alternative big short What historical earnings and measure of success would allow financiers to contemplate underwriting funds to MFDevco to facilitate the RTO of a producing field albeit open to enhancement. If so, I guess Minty will be the real winner. What will be the percentage to NUOG. Harry

Good Morning C Perkin, I purchase a box of B.B. Cartridges for the 12 bore this morning-hope you are well. Harry

Agreed. A course of action I had proposed: retention of tha asset and deployment of MFD. Let’s see production test from PAP 3 and deployment of ESP. Harry

Seadog, That is a very subjective interpretation of a statement that should be read in the wider context. An objective analysis of “enable the early booking of reserves” may well be better adjudged to be a strong motivation for the equity holders to ascribe a Royalty. Harry

RNS 21 December 2017: Minty states royalty for the “facilitating party”. I presume that party is MFD. However, it would appear that my conclusions are in the minority as the majority assert it will be equity. Harry

to NF execution on terms. SP holding below last dilution. Perhaps, Brazil RNS on a royalty deal. That would realise 5p to 9p. I would be happy with anything in between.’ Harry

You misquote me. An MOU is not legally binding. Mainland China has a doctrine of “bad faith” (I worked in Beijing for 12 years), we have estoppel in equity which may only be used as a shield not a sword, in other words, not a cause of action but a defence, however, the pertinent law in Newfoundland/ England &Wales is the Common Law. The HOT is not legally binding. Harry

or MOU et al is often utilised in negotiations. In law it is considered in negotiations or in simple terms offer and counter offer. A contract in law must have offer, acceptance and consideration passing between the parties : as the latter, to our current knowledge has not occurred, there is no contract. In short, a HOT is not legally binding save for whatever NDA may be incorporated. Harry

Evening SB, Agreed. News from NF required as leverage to execute managed fields. News from Brazil required to substantiate DD costs. Harry

Seadog, Love is blind. Harry

The subjectivity of over exposure speaks. Harry

Mattel, Cutting your cloth has its origins in the tailor trade and often quoted by my father as a golden rule. PVF have some 14 days to execute the HOD. There has been little or no updates on the flow test. There has been no further updates on the shark or other Brazil target. However, we have tweets on the North Sea- a distraction. I remain invested here, albeit reduced, as hedged in my portfolio and would be delighted to accrue. I remain sceptical of subjective posters who cry 20p to £1 on the sole reason they are over exposed. The valuations extrapolated by such subjective posters assume 50% equity in any deal. I believe such is untenable. MFD are an agency for such and would only acquire a consultancy fee. In any event, should a deal and its detail be achieved, my investment protocols would look afresh. Harry