Member Info for Ovets

Would you like to share with us " the well documented inability of Standard Chartered to make any headway in securing any funding for the SeaLion project"?

I think it's a bit pointless trying to guess RKH's valuation in 5-7 years' time - just look at what happened to the PoO in 2014/15 and then again, between August 2018 and now.

Personally, I believe it'll be a LOT (but wouldn't put a figure on it), or it'll have been swallowed-up and not exist as a separate entity.

Other than that, I'm not prepared to guess, so imagine how difficult it must be for TD to produce solid figures, enough to convince prospective investors.
If the EC funding is agreed/announced (presumably once Zama-1 has been fully appraised), that'll give you an idea of what others believe it's potentially worth.

Come on nervous Ollie - crawled back into your cheese again?
Be a big boy and explain yourself to everyone here.

I have and you said "beware this guy and ovets", and I'm asking you to explain yourself, which, as usual, you can't.

that you might be proven wrong, never doing anything but moaning all the time?

Once again Ollie, don't misquote me or refer to me as a ramper.
I have always said that there are serious grey, or even black, clouds about the RKH story and advise punters only to bet what you can afford to lose. Clearly you've conveniently forgotten to mention them. Would you like me to list them AGAIN?

If you think what career criminals are prepared to do/risk to get their hands on sums far less than is involved here, no one should be surprised if there are shenanigans going on behind the scenes for personal and gang profits and egomania.

Don't forget, these guys are fuelled by the prospect of "loads-a-money" AND personal prestige.
So why would one such, on the brink of becoming top dog (god even?) in an outfit he's helped to create from the start, trade that for being subservient and accountable to some Apollo outfit?

It's not in their make up.

He and Ollie have had "a bit of a night" on the carrot wine, I think!

Please don't attribute the Zama-1 "monetisation" to me - as I've now said several times, I was merely reporting what I heard.
Shooting messengers isn't a good idea, as sooner, or later, you run out of them!

When you've sobered-up, why don't you piss off Ollie - you know I don't claim info which isn't mine, so stop being a pratt.
Like I said, the Oiks are back and you're one of them.

Oops, we're supposed to be mates aren't we!

Funny how the oiks reappear when it looks as though a bit of deramping/shorting is back on the menu.

Look Godders, you seem to be the sort of guy that looks for an argument.

I think you'll find that I merely reported what TD promised us on 23/8/18, which was that FID would be in 3 to 6 months.
I'm in no position to promise anything, but I can report what others say/promise and I can correct the impatient, who were saying FID would be announced before it was scheduled, so why don't you find someone else to argue with.

Godders, I think you've got the wrong chap, as I don't remember ever saying for definite that SL sanction would be this year.
I may have said that it would be "nice" (something of an understatement), but that there are a few grey clouds, which could turn black and then I went on to list them.

Nige is the guy who unrepentantly states that both FID & sanction WILL be this year, which may turn out to be true, but I'm not assuming it.

Which rather supports the "monetising" of Zama-1 theory.

If you add that to EC funding, SL suddenly becomes affordable, even for a company with the debt pile of PMO.

Something that tips things in SL's favour is that HMG is much more likely to approve EC funding for ready fully appraised FI project, with known/benign government, defended by the UK, so that the oil fields there would be under its own protection.
Once EC funding is approved, that will give confidence to other would be lenders to join the party.

Noe of that applies in Mexico

I completely agree about distinguishing between wishful thinking and being sensibly positive, but the Zama-1 "monetisation" idea came from VERY well informed and closely involved people at a relevant AGM.
I can assure you I didn't make it up - I wouldn't have known enough about and Zama, but, of course that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

I couldn't get that link to work, but visiting the Global Arbitration Review pages, I stumbled across this (specifically about a Spanish claim, but referring generally to all). I wonder if it's relevant to the ECT discussions we've been having here about any award being reduced by up to 50% if due diligence wasn't adequately conducted by the claimant:

"Mr Born took issue with the majority’s position in respect of the investors’ due diligence. He asserted that ‘it is not the role of the tribunal to pass abstract judgment on the quality of [the investors’] due diligence’[23] and that ‘an investor is under no abstract duty to conduct due diligence’[24] as a condition to investment protection as a matter of international law. In this respect, Mr Born differentiated the impact of an investor’s due diligence between cases in which such work would have contradicted asserted expectations, on the one hand, and scenarios where such efforts would have merely confirmed what the investor claimed, on the other.

As previously noted, the impact of an investor’s due diligence has been a battleground in a significant number of energy arbitrations during the past three years. It will be interesting to see the extent to which Mr Born’s dissenting opinion in Antaris is utilised by investors in the future".

IANAA, I don't claim to have inside info on this, except perhaps by attending various AGMs and speaking to people who OUGHT to know - assuming they don't speak with forked tongue (e.g. at one RKH AGM, Fiona tried to convince me what a fantastic success the 2015 Eirik Raude drilling project had been)!

At one, there was unusual unanimity and excitement about PMO preferring to "monetise" Zama-1, once its full value had been properly appraised.
So there you are - it's a "take it or leave it" bit of info, but which makes pretty good sense.

If you look back over my posts, this is what I've said more than once and I'm getting even more convinced.
It's been said that PMO would much prefer to exploit its FI interests, with benign local government, than, say, in Mexico.
So the informed rumour continues to be that PMO would prefer to sell its Zama-1 interests as soon as the full appraisal results are in.
That way, raising the SL funding will be that much easier and may also be part of the explanation for the continuing delay.

What "brought that on" was that you spelt his name wrong.

BTW, we all welcome and need some positive news, but preferably from a credible source and not just Nige repeating the same old ""BUY BUY BUY" etc.
I know you say we can trust your posts as authentic, but that's what the bloke said when he sold me a car with a duff gearbox.

Cheers Ollie, I knew you'd be pleased to have me aboard and I get how you're using your pseudo abuse to give me a warm welcome!

Now, where would you like me to start? Who should I demolish?
I think Nig's asking for it, don't you?