We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Just adding a rider to Ovets comments on the subject of future use of gas. In Germany in some parts of the energy network they feed Hydrogen into the normal gas system to make it 'cleaner' from the perspective of hydrocarbon emissions. This is done through a UK AIM company ITM which develops hydrogen related systems.
You can see one of their hydrogen supply systems for cars/trucks on the M25 Cobham service station, I think.
I was a marginal remainer, but have found the EU negotiating stance singularly off putting, and was drifting to Leave.Unfortunately, the sight of Rees Mogg, and Farage leading the charge is rather sickening, and I think will put off a lot of people. A lot their claims are spurious, just as much as some of the remainers scare tactics have been.Boris Johnson will cure nothing. The Leavers will find that he deserts them just as he has deserted various other causes he has espoused in the past.I just don't think the British people will vote for Jeremy Corbyn, and his Marxist acolytes. Unfortunately the Labour split much hoped for, has been shot in the foot by the Change party, which appears as a Vanity project for those who in the main who egos don't sit well in their own parties.So its hard to see where we go on these issues, and the political maths could let in the loonies of the Left in, but more likely it will be a melange of the same stalemate elements.So, hopefully someone in Whitehall has their sights on the longer horizon for funding of the his FI project, but as others have rightly said politics has a nasty habit of cocking things up. Perhaps we will end up looking like Argentina unless politicians get their act together.
Interesting that significant International Companies are returning to Argentinian waters, given the Repsol debacle. perhaps they think the Macri Govt is one they can do business with.
But note how in the informative article from Penicton etc, how there is someone always ready to highlight previous FI involvement in exploration as an implied negative, given the Argentinian assertion that FIG an illegal body. It would take a brave or confident Argentinian politician to march into that area, as its too easy a punchbag to use.
A partner farm out for PMO will probably have to be from a strong independent, with no interests in Argentina, until some political sense enters into Argentinian thinking. That makes PMO's task slightly harder as I am sure the big boys would already have sniffed around if not for potential Argentinian sanctions.
Anyone who thinks that Directors love attending AGM's with shareholders is operating under a delusion. Generally from experience, I know they regard it as a necessary evil.
They only enjoy it when they have good news to report.
So you imagine how Sam and team really look forward to annually mumbling out their year-on-year extended timelines.
The oil history had a history of handing out big salaries to CEO's etc., but the market generally is changing, and so is sentiment, so they know they are going to potentially to get some questions on the matter, but the fact is that the ship sails on, and they are not going to give them up, unless forced to.
I have been in RKH for longer than I care to think about. I consider it lost money, with an increasingly remote potential of upside. I personally was never convinced by the Management team's idea of the Mediterranean oil adventure, and the notion it would cover operating overheads (i.e their salaries).
Anyone who has invested in this share big time, unless they are trading, hopefully are doing so knowing they could lose the lot very quickly, and can afford it.
That said I wish for all investors that there will be positive future news, as they deserve some luck breaks.
Buy on good news by all means, but don't rely on this stock to make your fortune.
Hi GE17
The share price has been showing an upward trend for a little while, with the odd retrace.
I was surprised to hear that Trainline is slated to float in the not too distant, and is being touted as a British Unicorn (make of that what you will).
I wonder if that has put some institutional money out there looking at transport related stocks, of which there are few.
I know its a stretch from Trainline to Tracsis, but anything that helps a sector re-rate is OK by me!
I agree that there are a few potential negatives out there, and there is always the suspicion that a successful young entrepreneur got out when he knew something the market didn't, or couldn't know.
It maybe that the acquisition market place is proving more expensive these days, making progress more of a slog.
Regards
JM officially plays no role in the Direction of the Company now, having resigned from the Board. However, he will maintain some role as a consultant for acquisitions. Hope its not like the Putin approach to the Presidency!:-)
Small acquisition of software business they have worked with previously, which will contribute £0.7m profit to next fin year, if all goes well.
On that basis looks like an acquisition on around 7 x earnings, which should it proves consistent or hopefully better make the business circa £14m in accretive value given it trades on circa 21 x earnings.
The downside is that small business easily go off the boil if not managed well, and they don't really move the dial significantly for shareholders in terms of upside value. So there is a balance of risk to be struck.
It will be interesting to see the new CEO's take on the business after he's got his feet under the desk.
Just to add to our woes the Cristina political corpse is being to rise again, because of Argentina's current economic pressures. Doesn't matter if you near bankrupt the country, steal from its resources, and kill the whistle blowers, apparently the Argentinians, or some of them, will still be prepared to vote for you!
Saw some rumblings in the press of the possibility of OPEC/Russia increasing production because of concerns about US production taking their share of the market.
Could lead to another price plunge in oil if that happens. Wouldn't be great news for the industry or PMO.
Given US laws on price collusion it is unlikely that shale etc producers could rig their market, like OPEC tries to do.
Worth keeping an eye on any further statement in this mode.
I don't know whether there is any precedent for a Farm Out partner attempting to take over the Farming Company. I strongly suspect any Farm out agreement would specifically exclude this, especially for publicly quoted vehicles. There is a strong possibility of conflicting interests,
Manipulation, market forces, could theoretically allow the target company's shareprice to drop below the cost of the obligations they have in the Farm out arrangement, allowing them to be effectively cancelled on acquisition, and dumping the obligation should it be uneconomic.
Also, in this instance, and I suspect the licencing party (FI) have rights to intervene where they believe their interests are not best served. For instance takeovers are subject to scrutiny (because of the Argentine element). Can't see the FI saying how wonderful PMO are, so its OK to acquire RKH, when they haven't managed to sanction any development in X years.
They will want the parties to realise their obligations, or sacrifice the licence. A takeover muddies the waters.
Thirdly, self-interest, RKH Directors are unlikely to vote effectively for their own termination without ample reward. Most of them do not bring any particular expertise to the project, that couldn't be done in house by another, so would be superfluous, losing salary, option awards etc. Better to keep collecting that nice salary et al!
Can't see Sam recommending anything unless it involves a big pay day
I have no idea how that post was duplicated multiple times. Apologies, to all
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.
Maybe some RKH has also been involved with Bowleven?
Its a long story, as always with Oil Companies, but the previous board of that Company were burning through cash pretty merrily, but were fortunate to farm down some of their interest to Lukoil before the great oil price meltdown.
Then on a subsidiary opportunity in the same region, the board carried on burning cash, with no development and a major cost overrun on drilling through a poorly performing rig supplier (sounding familiar).
The board was stacked with a panoply of Non-execs, and established execs.
Cameroon, is the region they are operating in, so everything took an age to work its way through labyrinthine Govt processes, with plenty of obstacles raised by self-serving interests of bureaucrats.
The oil price tanked, and although technically the Company was not producing, it started to stir up more discontent with the performance of the board, and its costs, and habit of burning cash with no positives to offer.
Its still had a fair chunk of change because of the farm-out, but then an outside investor starting buying up the shares, reaching the point where it forced the company to hold an EGM to vote on getting rid of members of the board.
I guess the low share price, the value of the remaining cash made it a game worth playing.
To cut the tale short, they turfed off members of the board, and appointed a new CEO, and went into cash preservation mode. In fact noting nothing was happening they returned 15p of cash per share back to shareholders (and of course itself), preserving a low cash profile for the next stage of development to flourish.
Boards by their nature are instruments of self-preservation. The old saying that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas is true.
For the RKH board all their strategies have not won their shareholders any real benefit. As always this is mixture of good luck/bad luck, but we have to remember that no matter what a board gets a monetary dividend every year in their salaries, and sees cash flow issues less as a project issue, rather than threatening their futures. Most of them have no cost options, so there is generally zero exposure to risk, apart from their salaries not continuing.
At the end of the day, as small shareholders we do not have individual clout to influence board behaviour, other than buy or sell. Institutional shareholders will take a philosophical view, unless there is obvious bad practice.
Small non-producing oil companies are inherently risky. Shareholders rights are really buy/sell.