Member Info for HeidHoncho

Let me get this straight.

There is a deluded lunatic on here promoting that there is a “certainty” that not only will there be an RTO by Xmas, but that fantastically this will be conducted at an astronomical price.

Given that the company will be (as this particular poster has stated previously) a cash shell, and that the RTO is being conducted so as to get the bidder a market listing through utilising RRL’s current listing, why on earth would they offer up such an incredulous price.

The poster in question not only states that it is their belief that this will be conducted at a price of 0.5p per share, but he further postulates that there will be a short squeeze (a short squeeze on a company with circa 12 billion shares, that is comical, especially as there are no recorded shorts even on this share) and this may cause the sp to rise as high as 1.0p per share.

With circa 12 billion shares, a price of 0.5p per share would equate to circa £60 million, and at an sp of 1.0p per share that would equate to circa £120 million.

What sane thinking individual honestly (and the use of “honestly” is arguably pertinent here) believes that the listing of a cash shell would be valued at £60 million, far less the incredulously fantastical £120 million.

There are a number of currently existing cash shell listings that could be secured in an RTO at a rate of circa £5 million, or less, so why would someone who is merely looking to RTO to achieve a listing (as has been postulated) would offer RRL circa £60 million to achieve their goal when they could do so substantially cheaper.

It cannot be for RRL’s good name (given its previous history), so it is logical to assume that the poster is either deluded/insane, or is being purposefully disingenuous.

Far be it from me to postulate why, only you yourselves can come to an opinion yourselves.

All of the above, in the manner that the poster utilises, IMO.

Is it only me that sees the irony in the statement “His implication is that by implying and inferring I am gay that it is detrimental to my reputation: if that is not the definition of homophobic I don't know what is.” ?

Surely, by stating that being called gay is detrimental to your reputation, is in itself homophobic.

Just a thought.

You do realise that Google utilises the last traded price, and not the closing mid point, don’t you slipanchor ?

Comparing apples to oranges there.

I can confirm that they have been chartered.

The Brage Viking, the Njord Viking, and the Magne Viking.

Al. Three vessels, are more than capable, and the Viking fleet have a good track record.

What you have failed to make allowance for in your estimated time frame of a “maximum” of 4 days from receiving approval of the permit to the well spudding is that projection is a technical limit projection, and far from being a “maximum” projection.

Especially so given that as the days pass we slide further into the autumn period, and the increasing risk to adverse weather conditions, regularly witnessed around the time of the spring and autumn equinox, potentially delaying the possibility of the rig move being able to be concluded.

The time of the permit approval would require to also coincide with a period (entire duration of rig move from anchors being recovered at the current location until the anchors were laid at the next location) where the sea state offshore did not exceed a significant sea state of greater than 3 metres at any point in time during that operation.

So, as is logically stated above, your projection is far from being a “maximum”, it is instead closer to being a minimum duration, and is at an indefinite risk to the duration were it to coincide with a period of adverse weather.

IMHO.

Generally speaking, once you have discounted the illogical you will arrive at the logical.

IMHO

“as heavy as steel”, seriously ?

I can assure you that one cubic metre of steel far exceeds the weight of one cubic metre of barite.

There are none so blind as those who choose to fail to see.

IMHO

It would appear that you are missing the crux of the point that I made in it’s entirety.

It was not BP PLC that apparently provided a portion of the funding that the company received, it was a fund managed by BP Oil International Ltd that did.

BP Oil International Ltd are a company involved in “the acquisition, transportation, storage, processing and marketing of crude oil and petroleum products as well as in the buying, selling, dealing and underwriting of future and option contracts related to the same commodities.”, for fellow BP group subsidiaries.

It is not a direct investment by either BP PLC, or even by BP Oil International Ltd, but by a fund managed by BP Oil International Ltd.

If you want to research further then look at the sort of arrangement that the likes of Hurricane have with them.

It is not a direct investment in the company, nor should it be intimated/portrayed that it is.

IMHO.

“BP Oil International Ltd is one of the parties funding the development” Is not entirely reflective of reality, now is it ?

It is a fund managed by BP Oil International Ltd.

That is akin to portraying that if a pension fund managed by Royal Dutch Shell were to buy shares in BP that Shell may be looking to mount a bid for BP.

Not only is it merely a fund, and not the company itself, but isn’t BP Oil International Ltd the refinery and lubricants side of BP that has nothing to do with the more commonly known BP E&P company.

BP Oil International gets involved in numerous off take arrangements for other E&P companies outside of BP, so there is nothing singularly special about one of their funds being involved in I3e, it is most likely to be an investment of one of their funds, and a decision made by one of the fund managers.

IMHO

Then you would have to ask yourself, who is unloading their position to cause this slide in the sp.

The previously postulated culprit was Lombard, but now the facts refute that, then who ?

“threat to civilisation” (sic) is a bit over dramatic, don’t you think.

Isn’t that 0.44p in “old money”, not 4.4p ?

For example, if you had a daily production rate of 300 in day 1, 300 in day 2, 300 in day 3, then 100 in day 4, 100 in day 5, and 100 in day 6, there are 3 ways in which to publish that data.

1. We had an average daily production of “up to” 300 per day (as this was what was achieved in the first 3 days but is now not sustainable).
2. We have had an average production rate of 200 per day over the period. (As that has been the average over the entire period).
3. We are currently producing at 100 per day (as that is the currently sustainable rate).

Please note, none of those figures are respective of what was achieved, but merely an example of how you could utilise a phrase such as “average daily rate”, when allied to also utilising “up to”.

The devil is in the detail, IMHO.

No, not stated as 307 bopd, but a daily average up to 307 bopd.

That means that this was the best average daily production rate over the period, the utilisation of the words “up to”, indicates that it was the best that was achieved at some point in time over the period, and not necessarily what they are producing at now.

At least that’s how it reads to me.

“I would like to believe that they are almost done”.

But doesn’t the lack of a stream of TR1s indicate that this is not the case.

I thought they were obligated to issue a TR1 every time they passed through a singular percentage figure.

Yeah, it’s not like they picked that volume up in a placement, now is it.

Doh.

“nothing new is expected for 6 months” ?

What, not even the result of drilling on WC, for example.

Transocean Leader must be now moored up on the WC location, as the AHTS’s are heading back to port now.

If things run sweetly we may get a spud RNS on Monday morning, if not, then Tuesday morning.

Hopefully the placement will not get discounted lower than 7.5p, otherwise it is a total stitch up of we LTHs.