We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
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.
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.