Member Info for NigelHaemoglobin

You don't understand what is happening my turkey twizzler. Research what placings are! The endless posts re 'no debt' are totally superfluous. There are minimal assets to secure debt on and so far there has been no RBL (as far as I'm aware). Bob, why not just listen??

For the literate amongst you (not many).

A Weasel, invented by H.H.Munro

I honestly think that PG is related. To the weasel, not Saki.

Only kidding.

To be honest even I was surprised, the recent update explained to the devout that all short term commitments were fully funded. My rationale for that was Titanoduster was not going to happen until late Summer, early Autumn 2025.

Now, and without bashing in any way there exists a possible opportunity to punt on a V high risk H reward wildie at 1-2 English pence late next year.

What is the point in topping up? If, and it's a big if EG is farmed out they could punch out a placing at 3p. If things stagnate then wait for the placing and add or bail now and move on.

I have earnestly tried my best here. Chaos? Wells not tested, wellheads/trees strewn around Guercif: untested. Inexplicable departure of Lenny Steinbeck, chaos and confusion spread by the likes of Oz with the flare watching from space über drivel.

Obfuscation, pretty much everything that arrives by rns feed.

Haven't read the TW article but their short calls are way better than longs. No need to though, it is clear that MOU-5 is not funded. Well it's just doable but would leave you on vapours.

If anyone is in to wildcatting you'll probably get a punt in at 4p.

All this time wasted! The alleged discovery area could have been professionally surveyed by 3D seismic and a year spent refining the results.

Looks highly probable with today's dire numbers, farm out or not!

Donal

Is this correct? You conducted surveillance of various well pads and the you published that you sold a large tranche of shares "from Guercif".

I mean, very happy to retract this post and apologise if I misread your post.

Just had a 14hr day, thankfully not from an RSPCA facility!

Back the truck up! Sefton repeatedly threatened me with being assaulted, euthanised, sent to Coventry etc.

To be fair to him I don't recollect any defamation though re my strong sense (and action) re civic responsibilities. Maybe there was a point of moral agreement? He certainly is a real bloke and not one of the Game Boy Advance Generation Z gooners and pansexuals.

To be clear, who has carked it exactly? I'm happy to show some respect and pipe down, no matter how daft they may have been in life.

It's hard work, similar to teaching maths to the bottom group in a South London Comp.

All subjects whether resident in the OT's or on the Mothership have equal access to the law.

Had enough, going to explain it to the garden grey squirrel.

a 767-300er heavily loaded i think burns 4,000kg of kerosene from start up to first cruising altitude. over twenty years since i studied it, have a graph somewhere.

puts horse hill into context haha, dozens of much larger jets than a 767 launching off from ***wick everyday!

Auson, with respect your post is complete word salad. I have posted a lot of information about HMCTS and how case law is 'persuasive' dependent upon which quote made the judgement.

I have been open and honest in my uncertainty with regard to the Supreme Court and the Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council.

Horse Hill was very straightforwards, a direct effect was the futility in holding a hearing in a County Court re the Wressle case. A more complex judgement was arrived at in the Island Magee case.

Raving though it is the UK has committed itself in law to Net Zero by 2050. Those responsible for it should be committed but that's another argument.

Beginning to feel like a waste of time here, not enough neurones to go around.

Alma you have altered the premise of the deduction.

PRI is neither readily available or affordable. In the F.I case months of analysis would be required. Affordable? I would say that it would be good business practise to take it.

You see, it's not the exactly the same actuarial principle as the pooling of risk between a million car drivers.

If Navitas don't have PRI if it was available one would have to say poor decision.

If it wasn't available then why take a risk although, they are very smart and capable of making complex risk decisions. They would most probably have taken advice though.

Case law is now having a huge effect, North Lincs Council in the Wressle case threw down their arms on the basis of ONE letter from a concerned environmentalist.

Nothing wrong with caring for our planet, not all environmentalists are watermelons...

Madman I agree with you and the company that funds may be repurposed. At the expense of the testing program? Probably not as information gathered from testing can be used to optimise TitanoDuster.

Only a fool would buy and hold an oiler unless a BP/Shell etc. Even then I wait years for buying opps.

Strong words from Garbled, did he trade the gusset out of FI oilers during the frenzy 13-14 years ago? Who cares?

Argue my legal points and opinion that Navitas have PRI or go back to your whelk stall.

Also Paul, on balance I think SL will succeed but it is undeniable that the watermelons have muddied the water recently. Island Magee, Horse Hill, Wressle expansion. The situation at Rosebank is unclear, well to me anyway.

Not a basher, in and out of RKH many times as events took over. Did anyone seriously believe that UKEF would underwrite bank loans?

Fair point, it's a good question. My answer is that laws are tested and refined by the courts system. A case progresses up through the various tiers i.e in the statute law County Court-High Court of Justice-Court of Appeal-Supreme Court (used to be the House of Lords until Blair changed it). The higher the court is the more 'persuasive' judgements are to equal courts ie the JCPC and Supreme Court (same justices!) and in particular very persuasive or virtually an edict to courts lower in the tier system.

Moreover, and as far as my study into this has progressed so far a climate case brought by another Overseas Territory could set a precedent for other Overseas Territories or at the very least be 'persuasive'.

A legal mind is required to unravel the complexities of devolved powers. One positive is that laws of the common good are fully derogated to the FI assembly.

To try and understand the relationship between executive powers of OT Governors and the various OT assemblies is a multi evening study in itself.

Finley, intelligent post: thank you. Unionjack, I overestimated you. Typical reaction of the standard punter.

My conclusion is that Navitas have Political Risk Insurance, taken out before Reform temporarily collapsed our parliament gifting Westminster on a plate to the far left and the sub literate. I mean haha, Lammy as Foreign Secretary. 'Men can grow cervixes', 'Marie Antoinette discovered Radium and Polonium', 'Henry VII was the successor to Henry V111'. Azerbaijan 'liberated' Nagorno Karabakh and did not brutally ethnically cleanse it.

Pure speculation but I wager, if they do have PRI, that the premium was $50 mil.

It is possible to take out PRI on private share holdings but the start point for a premium is 50k STG.

We may never know if Delek have PRI re Rosebank.

What is clear though is that with the raving, frothing climate is boiling wackos in Westminster new PRI contracts are difficult to initiate.

One or possibly two answers worth response. UnionJ, fair point but consider your 'judicial interference' from another dimension i.e the right of person(s) or groups to have recourse to law. The FI are self governing within a set of parameters decided by the Privy Council. If a Rosemount, Horse Hill or Island Magee type case were to be brought the case would rise quicky through the tiered court system (due precedence) and arrive at the Court of Appeal stage. Some months would elapse then the Appeal Court justices would be flown down to the F.I to preside.

Delek are bogged down with Rosebank as we speak. Barking as it is Westminster have decided to make Net Zero an actual law. Raving? yes but they have power and we do not!

Take the premise that Ed Milliband and in fact most of the cabinet are raving closet Marxists who do not believe in borders. Also, for the sake of argument agree that most CO2 fruitloops are also watermelons.

If the EIS is legally challenged and if UK Supreme Court case law does not apply to the Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council (the reverse is not the case) then any plaintiff (FOE for example) will worm their case up to the F.I Court of Appeal. They are UK based justices and would fly down to sit in the F.I.

So far so complicated. If the case goes up to Privy Council level it would be heard by the JCPC.

The above are verifiable facts, now, areas of uncertainty open to debate.

Most BOT's apart from Brunei can raise their cases, where permissible, to the JCPC. If the JCPC make a judgement then that case law is 'highly persuasive' to ALL other BOT's, possibly binding. This is where uncertainty lies.

To try and conclude. The legal system is complicated, ancient and slow (the JCPC stipulate what type of A4 to use, how many lines/page etc etc.

Why mention Mad McMad Milliband?

Because I think they are going to inflict an expansion of wind power (already in process) and energy storage system on the FI. Make the bills very very cheap via subsidy and most will be happy, particularly new and existing industries.

Just a few thoughts and very much a work in progress.

Or, the SP is being fluffed for a placing :(