Member Info for Ovets

OK, understood !

You don’t have to be too literal.

I lost my mind to the point of buying a few more when it dipped to around 43p

i expect someone has already done this and i missed it, but just in case, some *** packet calculations.

when the om annulment news broke, sp was flying high, a very positive new reserves report, shenandoah about to produce first oil and not a care in the world.

then the annulment news and we all lost our minds.

many had been dismissing om as a mere side-show, so why such a flap after the announcement?

if the announcement had been positive and rkh received the €65m for tranche 2, add to that the €19m received this time last year for tranche 1, then pay zodiac €5.5m to wind up rkh's italian affairs, and the 10% to 15% tax that sam believes would be payable on the om award income and we would have had about €70m net - very nice.

instead, we received €19m last year, we expect to receive €31m now (instead of the €65m), pay zodiac €3m and no tax to pay on the €31m. surely rkh can't be made to pay tax on an insurance payout because rkh didn't receive any income from its om activities, which would have been taxable? my *** packet says that leaves us with about €47m.

ok, €70m is better than €47m (by €23m actually), but in the greater scheme of things, is it that a catastrophe?

something we have forgotten to mention is that instead of saying 'you can forget about an annulment as that will never happen', sam took it as a serious possibility to the extent of investigating the options to safeguard rkh should that happen and paying €4m of rkh's cash reserves for the insurance premium, just in case. think it deserves a mention - maybe i missed that too?

if rkh management can anticipate that outcome and take action to address it, don't you think the same management hasn't left everything else to look after itself do you?

ChesSvvanker says: 'Proof being Navitas have been seeking a partner for 4 years to share the risk and still haven't secured one

Early in those 4 years SL looked as though it might not happen, so Navitas wouldn't even have been looking for another JV partner and no one would have joined in in those circumstances.

The Peronists were in power in Argentina. Once Milei became president of Argentina, he went as far as saying he wished to become an Israeli citizen and he admired Margaret Thatcher. He has over 2 years still to go and he has already started to turn the Argentine economy around, unlike the Peronists.

Navitas has shown its astonishing capability, with revenue from Shenandoah about to underpin their next step to SL and the FI region, so are now in the position to be looking for and attracting a partner (or partners).

From what I am hearing, it is likely that Navitas has already found and chosen their new SL JV partner and are now sorting out the extensive contractual agreements needed.

So where's your 'proof' ChesSvvanker?

O I L, where did you get that from?

Please share the reference so we can all verify it.

Thanks

Thanks

I wasn’t expecting, or asking for a detailed update from Sam, but more of a reassurance by RKH that the claim process is already under way, there’s nothing to panic about, but (like you say) it may take a while, so everyone chillax while we get on with it and you should get an update by or at the AGM.

The current sp seems to indicate an underlying unease that all may not be 100%. It doesn’t need me to remind everyone that RKH has quite a record of going wobbly just at the wrong time. I suspect that’s in the back of everyone’s mind, just as everything was looking so good.

So a bit of management leadership would be appreciated.

Just asking, as some appear to be overreacting, especially if they don't know the person or the circumstances.

If you really think her action is clumsy and/or inconsiderate at such a time, you should complain to Sam rather than moaning here.

If anyone owes us an explanation about the conduct of directors, perhaps the CEO might be the person. While he is doing so, he might give us all an indication of what's happening about the insurance payout.

Why are so many supposedly intelligent shareholders so ready to complain about this director, who they probably don't know and have no idea why she sold some of her shares?

Do you know something the rest of us don't? If so, what is it please?

Rolf, as I already said, do you have to be objectionable to make a comment?

'Sam could have lent her £20k from petty cash.'

No, for an ISA you have to prove the money is your own and anyway, that would only have worsened her CGT liability problems, so nice try Ralph.

FFS, I do wish people didn't start flapping the moment anything moves.

As already stated, plenty of good reasons for selling a few shares.

Directors can't buy/sell whenever they wish, so this is probably a brief window of opportunity to sell a few to maximise the ridiculously meagre CGT allowance (£3,000/yr). Tweedle Even Dummer might struggle to meet such awesome profit, judging by its posts.

Anyway, she sells a few shares, (as already posted, she didn't sell the lot) to maximise her CGT allowance before FID.

If I were her, I'd use that to top-up her ISA and then buy back the shares, now protected from any tax, ready for the big announcement soon and before Directors are again barred from trading.

Or she might just want a new outfit for Wimbledon and taking the opportunity now. She's probably fed up that she couldn't do it last week, when she could have got the same profit by selling fewer shares, but at least it shows she's mortal, like the rest of us.

In the mean time, please stop flapping as you're making me nervous.

Sell what? Your granny?

Regarding OM, I think the most important thing right now is to get that €31M insurance pay out and focus on SL.

As for what happens about the claim, I doubt if any of the participants has decided what to do next.

With a rather unusual situation, I believe most will need to clarify what can and can't be done, by whom and what the options would cost. I very much doubt all of that is known now by the various participants.

What IS beyond doubt is that:

- RKH had a 100% legitimate claim against RoI for their appalling dishonesty in the way OM was handled.

- RKH won the claim with a unanimous tribunal decision.

- RKH was awarded substantial compensation.

- the successful annulment does not question the legitimacy of RKH's claim and the resulting award to RKH.

So a re-claim would appear to be perfectly feasible and those involved would be vanishingly unlikely to do nothing further and just walk away.

Participants must have learnt a lot from their experiences since 2017, which would be applied to any new claim. They now know all the tricks RoI might try, so it's possible even greater compensation could be awarded.

Even if RKH could make the same claim again, they may decide that by the time they have won again (even with the revised rules), they would still need to enforce it, or sell any award to be enforced. By then, while a €200M award would be very agreeable RKH might take the view that there's more to be gained by concentrating on NFB oil revenues.

Whatever the case, I'm sure we haven't seen the last of the OM claim as there are too many participants with unfinished business to resolve.

'A head must roll at Rockhopper or a Director must pay a price'.

Agreed if there has been serious incompetence and/or dishonesty.

So, O I L, what is the incompetence and/or dishonesty to justify your comment?

I have to agree with Rolf on this one, although some basic principles must still apply, such as RKH should have disclosed everything they could reasonably have known at the relevant time.

What's holding this up?

Not your todger, that's for sure

As for O I L's silly posts, he's having a tantrum because he effed it up yesterday, but he'll calm down when he's had his pills.

Clearly Sam should have disclosed anything he knew to K&S and Harbour, when the claim was initiated and then again to the insurers, when that was taken out, but I am confident Sam wouldn't have withheld critical information.

Otherwise, it would have been the responsibility for the various professionals to have carried out due diligence, especially on the tribunal member representing RKH.

As far as I know, Poncet's history was well known and was discounted as irrelevant, or even acceptable, in his role.

ICSID wouldn't have wanted their reputation sullied by a dodgy participant.

So the statements about Sam should have carried out due diligence are borrox, as long as he disclosed everything he could reasonably have known at the relevant time.

O I L, I take it you didn’t have the nerve to buy more shares yesterday, when the sp fell to 43p, and now you’re having a sulk?

Where have you been since last week, when this was published?