Member Info for highlandmatt

Not sure how the Irish government plans to implement 'state owned' FSRU? Are they planning to buy a ship and operate it? Or do they mean have an arms length company that has the licence, which then subcontracts?

On that basis you need to pull forward the initial acquisition agreement and bank discussions to way before Cas 4 started.

I can imagine the brokers offered say 18p, and OAK offered more in concert Portillion. As registered entities in London, I have some sympathy with PB for expecting the contract to be honoured. As highlighted, it is unheard of for pledged placing funds to not materialise.

Acquisition announced December - $23m + balances

Acquisition update April - $23m + balances + abandonment

Q1 + ops update May - Cas 4 gone sideways and placement.

I agree the licensing scenarios are different. However, the important precedent is proving and enforcing rights and responsibilities under the European Energy Charter Treaty. Basically if a licence holder has satisfied all the criteria, then a government cannot withhold a licence just because of its particular party policy.

I think you are ignoring sequencing here. The CB acquisition was mooted before Cas 4 started. There would have been a reasonable expectation of cashflows from that and 5 by the time of the transaction. Additionally, it would have been reasonable to obtain RBL on a sum of less than $20m against CB. Unfortunately, both sides of that equation went in the wrong direction.

I'd happily support a figure halfway between zero and the theoretical value calculated by PG. I'm sure tens of millions is closer.

So instead of less than $20m, it became 'we need $28m+.'

I suspect that the bank might have made positive noises when the initial price of $23m was mooted, with production from the effective date set off against the price, so a smaller cheque to write. It then transpired that Shell wanted the whole cash up front, plus the decom cash, and TXP wouldn't get any cash in return for months, and would have to outlay millions to deal with Shell's high cost base. At that point, the sums didn't stack up and the bank wanted more cash on the balance sheet.

I suspect one of the options presented is 'settle out of court' i.e. surrender the licence for agreed lower compensation. Let's say a few million?

My take on it. Initial arbitration found against Italy for the Minister declining a production licence when the Ministry had already passed it. No cause for refusal. At appeal, Italy contended that a) the Rockhopper Counsel had a previous conviction, so couldn't be trusted; b) there was no obligation; c) the proposed field would not be economical; d) climate change laws.

I would suggest that a) to c) do/will not apply and d) is overridden by the European obligations on energy security.

With respect to costs, I believe we are partnering with EOG?

Production stated as 292bopd top left of page 7.

Page 3 states:

Execution of Production & Field Services Management Agreements

•No exposure to field operating & staff costs & licence work programme commitments

•Minimum 20% & maximum 30% of sales revenues less tax & government royalties – ensures profitability @ US$40/barrel

•Carried in 4 infill development wells & 15 heavy workovers over the next 12 months

I've used $60 a barrel average. WTI has only just dropped to $58.

All the info has been given for the numbers to be calculated, so yes, happy with the calculation.

We don't know what the proposals are at this stage, but I would agree - issuing ultimatums to governments rarely works. However, we are in a Rockhopper situation, and I support not letting the issue drift. If we are serious about standing up for our rights (and shareholder interests), then that should include initiating legal action for licence award or compensation. It is reasonable to advise that if engagement is not forthcoming, then we will start legal proceedings.

It seems the next area of focus is Ireland. "The Company has proposed three options to the DECC to conclude the evaluation process by no later than

31 October 2025"

Guess you didn't read my post yesterday, then do some thinking for yourself?

1. Net to PRD 148.92 barrels per day.

2. Net to PRD $15.75 per barrel.

Folks have been complaining about cash burn and wanting an update on T&T. They get a detailed update showing production and revenue. Then complain about 'the focus on T&T'. I continue to wonder why we get waves of negative posters all at once.

I invested in all three projects. T&T is now producing revenue. Don't forget the major asset is Cory Moruga which is 100% PRD.

Apologies, cutting and pasting from excel. I have lined up the columns, but this site decided to ignore that.

So, taking oil @$60 and royalty at 12.5%. No SPT at this level. PRD has 51% of the Caribbean Rex (now Steeldrum) JV.

Field Bonasse Innis trinity etc Cory Moruga

Production / day 10 282

Production / year 3,650 102,930 -

Revenue £219,000 £6,175,800

Deal 30% after royalties 30% after royalties

Royalty £27,375 £771,975

Top line Revenue £191,625 £5,403,825

Percentage to JV 30% 30%

JV Revenue 57,487.50 1,621,147.50

Percentage to PRD 51% 51% 100%

Profit to PRD £29,318.63 £826,785.23

Plus, we get a percentage of any increase, once costs paid for. Minus, we have to pay CEG for the acquisition.

So, doesn't cover the whole company costs yet, but a revenue stream that should build over time.

Under the PAFSMA, The Company will receive 30% of gross sales receipts at the sales point, after 12.5% government royalty ("revenues"). All investment costs and field operating costs will be solely for the NABI account.

· In the event of any new drilling by NABI, and not the Company, the Company will receive 20% of revenues after NABI recovers its drilling costs.