Member Info for InJamesweTrust

Cadger13 Think a report showed around 19 currently not utilised. Most are conversions in global fleet. Not the type of vessel to be built prospectively but in conjunction with a partner and we are not in that market. The idea was more that a newer FPSO than the AM may be unused or coming off charter which with some planning could be refurbished to WoS spec for less than the work on the AM. Depending on condition etc. Even if it cannot a full EPS can be funded from cashflow by mid-2020 if FOIL achieved in Q3'18. Depending on drilling budgets..... All depending on success of flow rates and how much actually comes out of the ground of course.

Cadger13 The FPSO isn't off the shelf I'm expecting work hence the $100m but.perhaps.less scope and upfront cost than in this case. Either way time and budget would remain on company side in event of FOIL this year. HtL Not for a.minute suggesting it would go from 30p to £8. What I am saying is incremental rises from 30p annoy Bernstein but if an offer was made public of 100p plus (should one have been made) the SP would immediately rocket and he could cash in at the higher level and not be a continued forced seller for every incremental increase.

Interestingly a "low ball" £1.00 bid now while a significant return for many PIs would yield c.£45m for.particpants of the VCP while going onto get £3.00 a share yields £240m for the participants of the VCP. So the question for management may be jam today or enough money to buy the jam factory and all the farms tomorrow........ Think RB is pee'd off off because a big bid today solves his ownership problem but incremental increases to EPS2 alwayshave to be sold into.

If you Google Global FPSO fleet there is a good poster (July 2017) from offshore mag showing global FPSO usage. Have since seen a Clarksons report that mentioned around 19 or 20 FPSO currently unutilised so laid up somewhere. For this EPS we have had to pay out a large lump sum to refurb the vessel as it is 19yo and BW are not going to take the hit based on our financial position and a 6yr charter that could crater. However, if and when FB is producing and the MCAP is significant and revenue is flowing securing a straight charter is much easier and I envisage (one for the techies) sub sea could be designed around the spec of the vessel....such that any prep may be as simple as hull recoating and greenwatee protection based on North Sea usage. Knock $160m off refurb (leaving $50m for greenwater, 5yr survey and repainting and a further $50m for vessel 'upfront payment') and the EPS reduces by 35% in cost terms. Depending on vessel secured productivity could be much higher too (with the understanding of concomitant impact in sub Sea costs coming from 10 wells to use a 100k bopd FPSO for instance). 100k bopd at $60 oil with $30 OpEx (CapEx funded from cashflow) and 85% uptime gives a fairly healthy $930m a year free cashflow plus the c.f. from EPS1 ($250m more). Take that on a 7-8 x p.e. ratio and it takes you up to $4.00 a share forgetting reserve valuations (but usable to.prove up the 2.6bn or 5bn or whatever the fields hold). Hence, if feasible why the IFD of a 2nd FPSO makes alot of sense....all done with little or no debt/dilution to existing shareholder base and online in Q4-19 or late Q1-20 if FOIL achieved this year (based on previous lead in times and depending on weather windows). Jimo

SiPP Their facilities that used to be popular but banks are a bit less free with the cash for them nowadays. In terms of bang for (devlopment) buck particularly if you can get an off the shelf FPSO then an EPS solution takes some beating. From a time perspective too. As mentioned, two would self fund an FFD.....

Wrong board Casapinos?

Bank of America posits $80 oil shortly....

Gives plenty of time for AM to be commissioned and sub sea to be complete. Should also ensure an easy weather window and does.not jeopardise early hook up if AM arrives in timely fashion.

These indications of intention should start to attract other investors and see the price moving. 27% up since 2nd March. Do the same another 6 weeks as the PBLJ starts to move and there is more definitive news on AM. Imagine BoD keen to have a compelling story to tell at the AGM to take any sting out of the Q&A but more importantly to achieve the goals laid out. Many have repeatedly dismissed the multi FPSO option but for the fields as they are it is the most cost efficient way for HUR to develop the producing capacity in the absence of a partner. They would soon create enough revenue to fund an FFD independently over the multi-year window it takes to achieve.

DSPP does seem to have some idea of how the company can go it alone of necessary and they are quite compelling. Following the presentation I had the inclination the company was looking to drill new wells early next year (timing dictated by availability of revenue). Linking these in to the AM for flow testing is great if it can be made to work. The time it would take to drill these and complete sub sea to link them in (given the constraint of funding from free cash) means the Lancaster well should be significantly proved up. Indeed if an extended shut in is needed to prove up the BHP then having other wells flowing into AM is a significant boon is it not. Someone mentioned the gas flaring is an average of that produced by 30k bopd production based on expected GOR. Given the first few months will have various testing flow rates and average production way below 30k bopd this leaves quite alot of room to manoeuvre on gas flaring I expect. We have companies set up for GWA and GLA is it so difficult to envisage a separate entity GLP (Greater Lancaster Pipeline) company being established to build a transport pipeline for gas and oil as part of IFD or FFD. Dare say an infrastructure fund would jump at the chance of funding with revenue from ops by GLa/GWA and who else WoS. Some clever moves/hints by the board as to how they move the game on. For 2020 if we are looking at another EPS it would (depending on availability) be quite possible to get more directly from the market with potentially less adjustment cost than the AM has incurred.

AdUK I think the buyers strike is a reference to company acquisition rather than the oil.produced. However, CEO self interest is likely to see any such quorum very short lived if it looks promising.

Extrader If the resources are as I think (8-10bn barrels recoverable) then each area (GL and GW) will easily stand alone as a resource to exploit with FFD planning. The decision may then be more around whether any offer is worth it now or better for the extra wait to prove up. If of course the oil flows....

ADUK it is the GLA and GWA for a reason and the company structure/asset ownership reflects that. Hence, in the event we prove up fields to the extent bidders appear if GLA is proved up to a greater extent than GWA it makes little or no sense to let the GWA go cheaply (relatively speaking). To be ahead on the long lead (if Lancaster is producing) requires likely only a few million dollars out of the revenue and if this ends up being a sunk cost so be it. I for one would prefer they were prepared for such eventualities if they come to pass.

Ricfle Am sure the buoy can be manufactured a new if necessary. Timing wise such scenarios (as DSPP) alludes to would likely not come to pass until late'19 early'2020. By which point we would have established cashflow and consequently could likely hire an FPSO via charter not an upfront $250m plus charter making the economics much more robust. Does this mean the multi-FPSO strategy derided by many may yet come to pass. It is definitely an option but probably more just a way of HUR signalling they can go it alone if needed but likelihood of them doing so is more limited.

Currently in a nightclub at 2.30am for a 40th and kiling time while friends smoke (and.quite literaĺy kill time). What DSPP is saying makes alot of sense. The buoy has not been designed for the multi.well capacity by accident and the fact it can accommodate so many lines is quite a revelation - particularly given proximity of Lincoln/Warwick. In reality his concerns around shutting down Lancaster to.prove up the others are probably unfounded as it is the cashflow from Lancaster that will pay for the initial drills on these fields. Hence, we should have data on.Lancaster to.prove the field then be capable of flow testing Lincoln and Warwick all the while doing interference testing to.prove up three quarters of the ridges multi million barrel potential and possibly all be end 2019......this RT chap may have his Head screwed on right!

Cebo Apple.....Amazon 10bn barrels at a NPV of $20 A barrel the sky is the limit ;-))))))))

AdUK In terms of assets, let's not forget BP (and most majors) have some fairly significant liabilities to offset the value of many of these through their Senior Debt, Working Capital and off balance sheet facilities. If you prove up much of LanFax to a level of comfort that allows RPS to use a higher RF than the current 20% you probably get close to 3bn barrels (possibly much more) of recoverable oil. Manybsaynoil in the ground is worth $5.00-$7.50 so let's say $3.50 instead.of thinking about NPV of an FFD. That gets you to $10.5bn. Let's say the pound rebounds to a $1.40 and the convis all convert you then get £7.5bn across 2.5bn shares or £3.00 for Lancaster. I'm not saying the above will happen but even with part payment and carry to FFD the way the market values the assets and hence prices the shares changes materially so the figures mentioned are far from ridiculous. There is a lot of drilling and much good fortune required before we would get to these levels but DSPP is much quoted as a source here and he reckons post further drilling in late 2019/early 2020 9f £5.00 plus.

AdUK BP have a few.more shares in issue than little old HUR by a factor of around 10. Yes our production is a fraction of theirs but even current 2C (estimate of which is to me conservative) we have potential reserves equal to a fifth of what BP has booked (bearing in mind some of which is probably only economical at prices far north of our own breakeven). The fiver isn't completely outlandish......it needs a very fair wind of EPS success and drilling results but is not a ridiculous notion.

Pijoe The flowline from well to vessel are up to 6km according to the presentation. If this is what you're asking?

If - and an FFD is alot more dilutive than a $400m pa free cashflow EPS - potentially. If there is a buyers strike that is but again we may never get near such a stage but no harm in planning