Member Info for Ovets

So carrot, like I asked Godders, why are you wasting even more of your time here?

At least Godders was honest enough to say.

So your sort of philosophy, let's say when your car breaks down, instead of trying to fix it, or sell it for the best price you can get, you smash it into pieces, broadcast it and slag-off everyone associated with it?

As I've said before, you were the one who bought the shares at too high a price believing the story and probably being just a bit greedy.
Presumably at some point, you lost confidence in the story, but just hung on, hoping it would work out, but instead it got worse and worse.

How do you know that Std Chartered have done nothing? What evidence do you have that this is a dead duck?

I do feel for you, but I also believe that slagging-off those who are probably working to bring this project to fruition isn't really going to solve anything, certainly not for you.

So why are you wasting even more of your time here Godders?

Fernan, when you come back to us with the report about how you got on, we're expecting something like this:

https://dissolve.com/video/Man-celebrates-signing-contract-signed-royalty-free-stock-video-footage/001-D437-6-021

So Fernan, you "insist" do you?
Well, you'd better go and tell them, right now.

If you stop and think about it, isn't that what EC funding is about?

There are plenty of examples where, once EC funding has been approved, commercial participants are far less nervous about joining in.

As for the carrot's posts, all completely plausible if it wasn't for:
- that PMO project team
- those job ads
- the FIG approval for that new port
- identification of equipment storage & construction sites around Port Stanley
- etc.

Do you guys suffer from selective amnesia?

Perhaps with contractor LoIs, PMO dictates the rules of disclosure, whereas with EC funding, PMO are told what they can and can't publicise?

I know it's not what you asked, but I'm not quite sure what you expect - are you hoping for the video clip with TD and, say, Boris Johnson signing the EC funding document with David Dimbleby commentating?

How do we know whether or not there's an LoI, if no one's supposed to be broadcasting the details until it's sewn-up?

In August 2017: TD "told the Financial Times he is hopeful of securing about $800m in export credit finance — a cheap form of government funding to help UK companies exploit opportunities abroad.  He expects about $600m of the $800m to come from the UK and the remainder from export finance agencies overseas".

On 7/3/19 in the PMO full year results statement, TD said: "The critical path to a final investment decision remains securing a senior debt funding structure, likely involving a combination of export credit financing and project bank funding" and "The critical path to a final investment decision remains securing a senior debt funding structure, likely involving a combination of export credit financing and project bank funding. The industry continues to follow closely our progress and it remains our preference to bring in an additional equity partner to the project once we have finalised the funding structure."

All the PMO job ads that the likes of Mogger has found are for appointments relating to an FI project and nothing so far regarding Zama, Mexico, etc.
Also, that team of 60 - maybe it's only a rumour, but there does seem to be a team, regularly topped-up according to the job ads, with very skilled professionals relevant to the SL project.

Then there's that stuff Mogger found about FIG approving a new port project, which as someone else pointed out, is far too big and the wrong sort of design for squid fishing boats and/or tourists.

Then there are the people (some working in the FI) that I spoke to, who confirm that sites are being identified and earmarked for rig construction and other oil-related activities.

Then there are the other people I spoke to who confirmed that PMO would prefer to monetise Zama-1 to be able to
pursue its preferred option: SL and then the other FI region fields, using much the same technology as they're already successfully using for Catcher.

Do I need to continue, or is the picture clear enough?

Carrot, if you think all that could happen, which as fecm says would be pretty unlikely, then you should invest in a HL managed fund, or something like that and certainly not here.

If you've placed your bets here, then you clearly understand the risks, so what's the problem?
If you haven't placed a bet on RKH, then why are you wasting your/our time here?

I think you'll find that TD got perilously near to announcing something he wasn't supposed to, regarding EC funding and since then has remained astonishingly silent, so probably was told to button his lip if he wants it all to go through without problems.

Regarding "I´m sure that if the "security of supply" was such an important issue for HMG, by now the UKEF agenty would have produced at least a non binding letter of intent to participate in the project, with indicative terms of the funding/guarantee scheme":

Security of energy supply in a modern society is absolutely fundamental to its survival.

As for LOIs, as this would be sp sensitive, is HMG/PMO obliged to publish such commitments? I reckon EC funding commitments have already been given, with the conditions for fulfilment, which Std Chartered are currently putting together..
Now everyone's awaiting FEED figures and Zama-1 appraisal, with the actual figures to move to the next stage to FID.

It's alleged that a PMO team of 60 is already assembled, supported by Mogger's excellent finds of job ads, etc. By any standards, that's a BIG team. You don't need a project team of 60 to decide which asset to sell next, or which filling TD should have in his lunchtime sandwiches.

Unfortunately nutjobs often make the most noise and create comparable fear, thereby gaining disproportionate traction, especially amongst the less educated and/or easily led and those with an axe to grind.

Our "leaders" seem to lack any imagination in being able to come up with a plan acceptable to the majority and, in the process, don't appear to be making many friends abroad with the people we're going to have to negotiate all those new trade agreements - Out of Liam Fox's 40+ agreements that he said would be ready for signature on 29/3/2019, apparently only 8 are going anywhere and even those aren't anywhere near complete.

So, if/when Brexit occurs, guaranteed low cost energy independence would be at least one critical hurdle that the FI and SL could help solve.

Renewables are progressing well, but not enough to supply all our needs, nuclear is floundering badly, if not collapsing, so fossil fuels will continue to be essential for a while yet.
Just to remind the sceptics, energy supply cuts will have a devastating effect on a sophisticated economy such as the UK's, so don't under-estimate its importance. If you still don't get it, just start thinking about all the things that'll fail without guaranteed energy supply and think a bit more imaginatively than, say, your kettle and the fridge!

That's why I'm happy to hang on to about 1Million RKH shares, bought unbelievably cheap (thanks to the excellent work of those derampers/shorters) and nearly all in tax-free ISAs.

Agreed and with the collapse in the PoO at the end of 2014 (and another brief wobble at the end of 2018), the oil giants desperately trying to re-engineer their business models before it's too late, etc., etc., oil exploration appears to have been somewhat subordinated to replacing fossil fuels ASAP for the survival of the planet.

In this environment, sitting on known mega reserves (even in a remote pristine area) should be quite a good place to be, shouldn't it?

FFS, carrot, don’t tell me that we agree AGAIN about something? Must be something in the air.

Carrot, I agree with the general principle that leaving accountants to run companies often results in disaster, because while they keep an eye on the numbers, they frequently don't have that entrepreneurial flair needed to make a company succeed.

However, had Simon Lockett been left in charge of PMO, it would have gone under because his entrepreneurial vision was a bit too "visionary", especially with what was about to hit the oil industry.
In the case of PMO, TD was just what it needed at the time to take over.
However, is he still the right man at the helm?

Still trying to spook those "desperate sellers" carrot?