Member Info for Ovets

Christ, buddy - you're a bit publicly prickly.
That can only be explained because you haven't just lost a shed load of money on this bet, but more like a container ship load, and probably the Mrs hasn't been told yet?

Anyway, to cheer us all up, tell us how much.

and there I was thinking this was a discussion forum, where, if someone asks a question, contributors are expected to answer - silly me!

I completely agree and would welcome well-argued negative comments, as those help to put things into perspective.

Which is why I was asking these oiks to produce the evidence supporting their anti-postings, but they've been completely unable to produce even one.

It's sort-of like the Russians and the Skripals - if the Russians were genuine, they'd be the first to want to know who's going round trying to discredit them by using Novichok, etc., but instead they deny all knowledge and mock us for even suggesting it.
So it is with these 3 - they post mocking and argumentative comments, but ask them to produce just one piece of evidence to support them and they can't.

That's an interesting response:
Ask any of them to support their negative RKH posts by producing just ONE RECENT:
- broker downgrade.
- broker "Hold" or "Sell" recommendation (i.e. anything other than "Buy").
- negative/adverse investment article?
- negative/adverse announcement (e.g. RNS)?
- something else negative, other than their own.
and they call you a "ramper" and/or put you on ignore.!!!

I think that proves to any visitor to this BB, to beware of these posters' comments.

We all agree that the waiting is frustrating (it rhymes), but that doesn't make RKH a bad bet, nor does it make Sam Moody a villain (or the rest of the BoD).

NO - you're the one's being asked to, so do it

What I don't understand is those who post blatantly negative, argumentative, but completely unsubstantiated stuff here.
These people must have some reason to keep writing this stuff, but if they hold RKH shares, then aren't they only shooting themselves in the foot?
If they don't hold RKH shares, then what are they doing sticking in their beaks here?

Following a post I've read on another forum and to clarify their negativity, why don't Ralph, Kurgan, Ollie and others produce just ONE RECENT:
- broker downgrade.
- broker "Hold" or "Sell" recommendation (i.e. anything other than "Buy").
- negative/adverse investment article?
- negative/adverse announcement (e.g. RNS)?
- something else negative, other than their own.

Like FIH Group?

Absolutely - I'm afraid it's not looking great for the environment, but for the RKH sp,that's a very different story!

Just imagine how much energy would be needed to make all those replacement cars, before any electricity is generated to make them go anywhere!

Surely you can't be attempting to argue that because someone else may have said the same thing earlier, the point is invalid?
Doesn't matter where he got it from - if RF repeats it, it makes it even more credible.

As usual, Ollie, you miss the point, by making yet another irrelevant reply.

It may be getting a bit late now to start researching RKH now, unless you’re a complete newcomer, but betting without researching is lunacy. It reminds me of what Roger Federer said after an interviewer said what a “lucky” win he had just achieved. RF replied that he finds it interesting how he seems more lucky the more he practices. And that’s a bit how it is with research, the more you do, the “luckier” you can be. That’s not the same as someone putting “DYOR” at the end of a post.

Of course it's a punt - I've never said different.
What I'm saying now, which you seem not to understand, is that oil demand is going to continue for decades.
The relevance of that to RKH is that the oil will be needed one day, but when, exactly, is the gamble.
So, we probably agree on most points, but you seem to want to argue much of the time.

If you're betting your savings on RKH, or any other such E&P share, I'd have thought you'd have done at least a bit of research, otherwise you're bonkers.

And if you've done that research, then I'd also expect you to have done just a tiny bit of research into the prospects for oil and gas generally, with fossil fuels getting such bad publicity and renewables so much in favour.

Assuming you've done that research and you're not placing a bet on something you hardly understand, then you'll know that even the most pessimistic oil "experts" believe that oil will be in demand for at least another 50 years, assuming there's still an inhabitable planet!
So even if electric car makers crack all those practical problems tomorrow, oil will still be in demand, probably until after Sea Lion and all the rest of the FI Basin oil fields just have water left in them, so find something else to worry about!

Fewer!

Depends on what the "sanctions" are.
The best theory about the collapse in PoO from 2014 is that US and other major oil producers colluded to undermine the PoO with the idea of unseating Putin (Russian economy is almost 100% reliant on oil/gas), so that wasn't anything to do with UN sanctions, but an "undercover" operation, which no one could publicly admit to.

Publicised sanctions, on the other hand might well lead to an increase in oil/gas prices, except that with winter approaching, many European states won't want the Russians retaliating by turning down/off their supplies.

Quite possible and also, maybe some shorters have moved back in, spotting an opportunity, while the funding is sorted - some may have had their fingers burnt when the sp unexpectedly and suddenly took-off in May.
There may even be a little nervousness about what sanctions UN members might take against Russia - I don't think they're going to try and de-stabilise the PoO again, as that didn't work and caused other, unforeseen problems, but some may be worried about the PoO dropping again to below $30, which wouldn't help Sea Lion.

As previously said, some PIs can find it counter-intuitive to hang-on, or even buy more, when it looks as though others are running for the exits - what do they know that I don't? Probably nothing.

I agree GS, it's almost certain to be anodyne, because if there was exciting news to announce, that would be via RNS and we'd have heard it.

Otherwise, just bland stuff to meet regulatory requirements, which those hoping for excitement will find disappointing.

One reason why electric cars have taken so long to develop is that the big oil barons suppressed the development of alternative energy and two World Wars then accelerated the development of fossil fuel-powered equipment, so electricity and steam got left behind.

Had as much effort been dedicated to electric-powered equipment, we might be living in a different world, but humans are essentially lazy and profit-driven, so fossil fuels were the easiest route to providing portable & immediate energy.

P.S. - it's being done on a "No Win, No Fee" basis, so not only must the lawyers be confident, but we don't carry the costs either.

That's what a competent BoD is paid to do, so those moaning about Sam and his hair might try their hand at doing a better job, starting with suggestions how they'd do it.

There's one today about the impending collapse of the Italian economy, but if it's the claim for OM you're worried about, that's why RKH BoD is using the ECT, rather than through the Italian Courts.

If judgement is in favour of RKH, then Italian assets in the UK can be seized - like all litigation, it's a bit of a fag, but it means we get paid.