Member Info for JEBR

Friendly correction, Nikb:

“Global warming” vs “climate change”: Both terms have been used since the 1970s. “Global warming” points to the rise in average surface temperature; “climate change” covers the wider knock-on effects (rainfall shifts, sea-level, extreme events). Scientists still use both, so no “re-brand” to hide failed forecasts.

Life can boom in gradual warm phases, but the record also shows rapid greenhouse warmings (End-Permian, End-Triassic, PETM) wiping out huge shares of species. Speed matters: the current 1 °C rise in 150 years is roughly ten times faster than natural shifts that caused past extinctions.

During natural de-glaciations, warming oceans released CO₂ first, and the extra CO₂ then amplified the warming. Today the order is reversed: humans emit ~40 Gt a year, measurements show the CO₂ build-up preceding today’s warming—not lagging behind it.

What doubled European bills in 2022–23 was Russia’s squeeze on pipeline gas. Wind and solar actually capped wholesale prices in many hours. Globally, fossil-fuel subsidies still dwarf renewable support by roughly 10 : 1.

Chess it's very misleading to say that funding failed for 4 years. Like we mentioned many many times, funding is the last part before FID. You were already complaining that funding still wasn't arranged when they were for example still working on the environmental reports.

Chess, why do you keep changing your name? Don't you want others to know what nonsense you've been saying all these years?

Not at all ... OscarIndiaLima is extremely positive on the future of RKH. His end of year prediction is 292p!

If they resubmit the case, they should fall under the new 2022 regulations/guidelines where they attempt to have a verdict within 240 days. In most annulment cases that have been resubmitted where the reasons for annulment had nothing to do with the content of the case, they conclusions remained the same.

Charles PONCET (Swiss) was appointed by the Claimant(s). So it wasn't the Italians that picked him, it was us.

Do we know for sure that this is why it has been annulled?

I'm confused... Because one of the arbitrators didn't disclose a "criminal" past, the arbitration conclusion was unlawful? Does this mean that the entire arbitration can start again from the beginning? Does this mean that this one arbitrator can be sued for 190 million plus interest?

Around the last OM arbitration news, I looked at the time differences between the submission of costs and what follows. If I remember correctly there was between 1 and 79 days between the decision and closing with an average of about a month. In other words, news is imminent

@ZYX very insightful and I totally agree with what you say. The golden age is here and the key is linking the "gray" experience with the newbie data/modelling insights. You need to know what the data means, how it's collected, what mistakes are in it, etc.

@ Mirasol: Yes, assumptions matter, but when interpreting Ralphs comment somewhat freely, he is right that modern techniques are explicitly designed to handle uncertainty and complexity. The idea that “the subsurface is too complex” has often been used, yet our understanding continues to improve, chasing away the complexity piece by piece. Take 4D seismic imaging, which is just plain awesome! Interpreting that data is challenging due to the many interacting variables and natural variation, but machine learning helps significantly with for example seismic interpretation, drill optimization, and reservoir forecasting, delivering measurable improvements. It’s not about silver bullets, it’s about smarter tools for probabilistic reasoning and faster, more informed decisions. In other words, the guesstimates keep getting better.

And ... The cloud is just someone else's computer ;)

Ralph, what you say is quite misleading. The oil industry has had access to high-performance computing for decades. For example Shell have long used supercomputers for seismic processing, reservoir simulation, and data modelin, which goes far beyond just linear regression. Cloud computing has indeed expanded capacity and accessibility, but the industry didn’t wait for the cloud to use advanced algorithms. Also, unstructured data (like seismic traces or drilling logs) has been analyzed for years using not only SVMs but also deep learning, geostatistics, and more. Data science in the oil industry is (and has been) very advanced.

The estimated Capex amount to approximately $1.4 billion.

The scope of the project financing (senior debt) is expected to amount to approximately $1 billion.

RKH's share is 35%

2/3 of the money is covered by Navitas.

This seems to imply that RKH need (1400-1000) * 0.35 * 0.33 = $46.7m. The currently have around £20m/$26.7m, which means they still need around $20m to cover the costs. Even the insurance payment would easily pay for that.

Wouldn't it be an option for RKH to secure another loan from Navitas in case OM doesn't drop in time? That will prevent a share issue or delays. The loan can be paid back either when OM drops or it comes on top of the other loan that is being paid from the profits.

Seems like MD can't access LinkedIn, so let me help you. On the picture it shows:

Name: Sealion

Country: Flag of Falkland Islands

Build type: conversion

Status: announced

Operator: Navitas Petroleum

Equity share: Navitas Petroleum LP (65.00%); Rockhopper Explorations PLC (35.00%)

Associated Field: Sealion

Start: 2027

Crude capacity (mbd): 85

Gas capacity (mmcfd): 120

Citizen noticed that a certain poster being negative could be good news for RKH. Just two months after that post, RKH's rise started. What if grim is the same person? I wouldn't be surprised if in roughly two months the share price will again shoot up. Below is the post I was referring to:

CitizenTS

Posted in: RKH

Posts: 1,528

Price: 14.70

No Opinion

RE: RE: No stopping this train now1 Oct 2024 12:15

Yeaay, when James Godbold of Clapham, more recently know as aiminvestor, is negative it's usually a sign the share price is about to go up. Good contra-indicator though having such a poor fix on the world could be horrific for an investor.

As an out-of-step marker, it's if Janes turns pisitive that a second look would be indicated

Marum, I believe most of the lawyer fee was already paid from the 45m from tranche 1. Depending how difficult it is to obtain the money from Italy, there will probably be some extra costs. The 200% will be at least €220m (2 * (45m+65m). The minimum amount Italy will have to pay assuming annulment was unsuccessful is around €260-270m now and increasing every day due to interest. This means that tranche 3 will probably be 20% of 40-80m or €8-16m for RKH. Tranche 2 (or the insurance payment) will be transformational. Tranche 3 will be a nice bonus but hardly effect the share price

I'm not an expert, so I might be mistaken. But from memory, the operational expenditure (OPEX) is estimated at around $17 per barrel, and the capital expenditure (CAPEX) at about $7 per barrel. The CAPEX includes the repayment of loans with interest, which are jointly taken out by the partnership of Navitas and Rockhopper (RKH), possibly alongside a new partner. This financing likely makes up the bulk of the $1.3–1.4 billion total project cost.

If we assume that $300–500 million in project financing still needs to be secured, RKH would be responsible for 35% of that amount — or approximately $105–175 million. Of this, RKH can borrow two-thirds from Navitas, equating to a loan of around $70–117 million. That would leave RKH needing to contribute the remaining $35–58 million themselves.

Assuming RKH already has around £18 million (roughly $24 million) in cash, then the minimum €30+ million outcome from the OM case should be enough to cover the rest. As for the loan from Navitas, RKH is expected to repay it using 85% of their net profits, which means the loan could potentially easily be repaid within the first year of production.

Sam currently own 4,713,584 shares. Would be nice of course of he buys more to show confidence, but then again ... He already has a lot of shares!

Here's the article without the pay wall https://archive.is/RRP3N

They talk about the oil price Saudi Arabia needs to balance its budget but this is a bit misleading. Saudi Arabia doesn't have a lot of nationa debt and can easily borrow money cheaply if needed. Furthermore, they have a huge wealth fund of roughly 1 trillion dollars. They are already working on transitioning from an oil economy to a more diversified economy. Based on their assets and future diversification, they don't need these $90-100 oil prices. Lower oil prices mainly hurt the US shale industry and other countries with a high break even price. As said before, Sealion is a perfect investment opportunity due to the extremely low break even price of $24 per barrel. And you know what they say: the best remedy for low oil prices are low oil prices.