The latest London South East Webinar takes place on July 6. Come and hear CEO’s from Orosur Mining, Caledonia Mining, Glantus Holdings and Tekcapital speak. Please register here.
It should also be noted, that in the green current clamour for ditching fossil fuels, there've been quite a few announcements about cutting and even stopping the use of coal, (e.g. for generating electricity), but I don't recall a single similar announcement about oil and/or gas.
That's the essence of HBR's business strategy and they ain't stupid!
Things change, so one can't put too much on HBR's press conference last October, except that if they're changing their business strategy, they'll have to say so pretty soon.
Last October, part of their strategic vision was to grow substantially as a major producer and the only way they can fulfil that is by acquiring/exploiting newer resources than simply adding on declining assets.
We know they're not stupid, or unprofessional and they've unashamedly stated their strategy around growing oil (and probably gas) production.
I'm still inclined to believe that Zama will be "monetised", as they'll never be "in control" there (one of their important stated criteria).
And as someone else recently posted, good new assets are only going to increase in cost, if the PoO takes off as looks likely.
So, if you're already sitting on a major asset and you're a dynamic, well-managed organisation, what would you do?
With very limited cash reserves, but the prospect of real and considerable rewards, any prudent management would have announced that their priority is to keep the company solvent (rather than continue to milk it) by exercising restraint, especially at a time when virtually the whole population is having to reign-in.
So I disagree CTS - we're not proposing to sack them, but merely trying to exercise the very sensible prudence that they seem unable to do on their own.
It's not just the CO2 (and I agree that we contribute FAR more than all the volcanoes in the World), it's all the other things, like dumping our rubbish/sewage in the sea, and now, dumping our rubbish in space, as well as (of course) dumping our rubbish in parks, beauty spots, beaches, etc., etc.
Humans are generally pretty selfish, greedy and thoughtless, so we're now getting what we deserve.
It wasn't all that long ago that most people believed that our planet is big enough to "lose" all our rubbish without any consequences.
There are just too many of us (or at least too many of us to behave badly) for such a small planet and now it really shows.
Let's not be hypocrites- we would all like to make a few bob on RKH, but we all know that humans are trashing the planet. Anyone who doesn't is living in a dream World.
Fossil fuels will have give way to others, and we all know that we can't carry on living the way we have.
Most of that has more to do with our greedy life-style where fossil fuels will be needed for some time to come - HBR have staked their business model and reputation on that.
So, I'm afraid that in the long run, Greta's right. Brainwashing doesn't come into it.
Not sure if this helps, but I sent my "REQUISITION FOR SHAREHOLDER RESOLUTION" Email to Keith Lough & Jan Davies, CC: to firstname.lastname@example.org
This was so that Glenrothes got it at the same, and KL & JD can see it was copied to email@example.com, in case there's any disagreement/dispute about the numbers later on.
By the way we're treated, the BoD appear to regard RKH as their own private fiefdom to do with what they like.
They had to involve shareholders all those years ago, in order to raise the cash and now some of those shareholders (i.e. us) are a bit of a bloody nuisance.
I think they need to be taught a lesson that they won't forget in a hurry, so get those emails in and vote against those resolutions everyone.
Not sure if it helps, but I've made a couple of changes to the text, making the "attached resolutions" plural, instead of singular and rewording item 4 under "I confirm that:":
In accordance with section 153 of The Companies Act 2006, I hereby request Rockhopper Exploration p.l.c. to give to members of the company entitled to receive notice of the 2021 Annual General Meeting of Rockhopper Exploration p.l.c., notice of the attached resolutions and the text of the supporting statement (which I have electronically signed for the purposes of identification), which resolutions are resolutions that may properly be moved and is intended to be moved at the Annual General Meeting on 29 June 2021.
I remind you of Section 153 (2) (a) of the Companies Act 2006, inside quotes below,
“153 Exercise of rights where shares held on behalf of others: members’ requests
(2)A company is required to act under any of those sections if it receives a request in relation to which the following conditions are met—
(a)it is made by at least 100 persons;”
Statement made pursuant to section 153(2) of The Companies Act 2006
I confirm that:
1. The full name and address of the person who is a member of the company (that is the person whose name appears on Rockhopper Exploration p.l.c.’s Register of Members) - “the member” - and who holds the shares on my behalf is:
The member holds the shares on my behalf in the course of business;
[ Full name of Nominee Broker ]
[ Address of Nominee Broker ]
[ Your Brokerage Account number (URN) ]
2. The member holds the shares on my behalf in the course of business;
3. The number of shares held on my behalf is: [ Total Number of Shares ] Shares
4. All shares held on my behalf are fully paid.
5. These shares are not held on behalf of anyone other than myself;
6. Some or all of these shares confer voting rights that are relevant for the purposes of making requests under sections 314 and 338 of the Companies Act 2006;
7. I have the right to instruct the member how to exercise the voting rights referred to in paragraph 6 above.
Folks, I'm ready to press the "send" button, but not quite sure about this new 6th Ordinary Resolution, as raised by Surfit.
Can someone please confirm that following Glenrothes latest instructions is OK, as I don't want to mess things up?
Glenr, being a bit thick here. Are you asking us all to resubmit our emails to RKH (forwarding a copy to firstname.lastname@example.org), using the updated version shown on "https://wetheshareholders.tumblr.com/", which now has 6 Ordinary Resolutions instead of the original 5 (which I believe are the same)?
I'm also going to ask how many submissions were rejected and on what grounds, so that we don't make the same mistakes again.
If they were honest, they would have given the qualifying total in their reply, plus how many may have been disqualified and for what reason.
Being secretive isn't clever. It merely shows that they don't like being accountable.
I'm going to ask and I suggest everyone else does too, so they understand that we're not imbeciles, nor are we finished.
It could be that there's a great OM award and that HBR go ahead with SL, etc., etc., but that won't excuse their condescending treatment of their shareholders when it really mattered.
I didn't appreciate the "fallen well short" comment, as I believe we were pretty close, if not over, the required number, but certainly NOT "well short".
I took that as almost a taunt at our "pathetic attempt" to rock the boat, when if fact, we'd done pretty well, especially at such short notice.
Once again, well done Glenrothes.
RedSparrow, I'm not sure it's a case of "the Chinese just won't play ball", so much as "the Chinese CAN'T play ball".
They've expanded to the point that their ancient and slow rural economy has rushed into vast new cities, and they are on the verge of overtaking the US.
However, their population is ageing and despite efforts to increase population to support the old, the birth rate continues to fall, as the younger generations enjoy the promised rewards of a technologically driven society.
Their economy is too big to be supported by importing low-cost immigrant labour and in any case, who in their right mind would go to China, if you've got the West to go to and where would all those cheap-labour immigrants come from - Mars?
Basically, their demographic model is buggered, but one thing that might keep things from falling apart (at least for a while) is cheap energy. So they really can't join the Green Revolution at the moment, without the risk of serious civil unrest, as China disintegrates.
I have a feeling that the West's best defence against the threats from China is to watch the whole thing implode. In the mean time, they're going to need plenty of oil & gas, as will India (nearly 1.4 billion).
Absolutely LTT, but the basis of their entire business model is that oil & gas will be needed for longer than the sceptics say, so they acquire old, declining fields (picking-up some lovely tax breaks in the process), which the bigger oil companies want to abandon.
But those declining fields come with earlier de-commissioning costs and less (or no) opportunity for expansion.
HBR BoD have said that their greater future involves taking on something(s) much greater than the big oil companies' ageing cast-offs, as long as they (HBR) are "in control".
Well, that's what they've said in public, so I leave it to you to decide what to believe and what will happen, but with PoO currently over $71, things look pretty good for SL, especially if FIG give a bit of ground to get things started.
HBR would then have the option to pack up once SL is done (but everyone will have done very nicely from it), or if the PoO continues to remain strong, have a poke around Isobel, Elaine, etc., etc. (but those are for another day).