Member Info for Ovets

Hi buffit - I think there’s quite a range of potential takeover suitors, depending on the strategy envisaged.

Because of the hostile (rather than constructive discussion) reaction of some here, all I’ll say is that there are many good reasons for a large and experienced company to take over and manage a visionary strategic development of the FI oil and gas region before too many get involved and things become fragmented.

A large, efficient organisation could enter the FI region for peanuts (for them), taking the whole thing by the scruff of its neck.

Certainly not wait for SL 1st oil before making a move.

We may not have heard about this before, but I would be surprised if certain organisations haven’t been keeping a close eye on the FI for many years. They’ve certainly had the opportunity.

'Taken out before divis'

Agreed. I see RKH being taken over much sooner than some here say.

ZYX098, as this is the RKH board, maybe check it out before posting here and leaving it to the rest of us to find out if it’s relevant?

Thanks

That’s why I’m thinking a takeover might not be as ridiculous as some suggest.

LseRkh, of course they can do that and many probably have. I suspect that some may have already sold such 'other' shares to get the cash available to apply for a very large number of additional shares, so those people may not have other 'other' shares to sell any more (because they've already sold all they've got in order to try and get extra RKH OO shares at 53p).

I'm making a bit of an assumption that most people invest in things they believe in and don't want to be frog-marched into selling something prematurely

Others may not have that many investments to sell.

The point I'm making is there IS a potential 'greed penalty' for having asked for too many 53p RKH shares, where the scale-back factor is significantly large. While having to wait for their refund, the RKH sp recovers strngly in front of their eyes and there's nothing they can do except watch until they get their refund.

JEBR, having reviewed the situation, I regret to have to tell you that (drum roll, etc.), it looks as though you are absolutely right and the scale-down will leave everyone with b*gg*r all of the extra shares they asked for. But we'll have to wait until next week for the actual number. The missing, unpublished number we need, is how many qualifying shareholders applied for their entitlement (or part of it) and what was that total to be subtracted from the 13,188,036 shares being offered.

For those who were greedy, there turns out to have been a penalty after all, although not imposed on them by RKH directors, or anyone else. Simply 'self-inflicted injury', as they used to say to us, for having been greedy.

That penalty is that we all had to put-up the full amount to pay for ALL of the extras shares we applied for, which was taken from our accounts. For those asking for, say, 1,000,000 extra shares, that would mean tying-up £530,000.

Here's the 'penalty': While we'll all receive a refund of the money remaining after our extra shares have been paid for, we won't get that refund until next week. In the mean time, as the RKH sp starts to recover (currently up 3.6p / 5.37%) and all we can do is watch it recover until we get our refunds. This especially applies to those invested in ISAs, where you can't just add more cash beyond your annual allowance.

JEBR, you could be right - I'll go over the numbers again.

In the mean time, it was just to say that there could be quite a lot of money returning to, or new to RKH in the near future

The OO is/was quite simple, if not entirely intuitive:

1. You got your entitlement allocation of 1 x 53p share for every 49 held on 19/12/25, rounded down to a whole number. I think we all agree about that.

2. Additional shares: As long as you were a qualifying shareholder on 19/12/25, you could apply for as many extra shares as you could afford, BUT you would have had to provide the full payment price (@ 53p/share) in your account for ALL the extra shares you're asking for. Those who understood the rules could have requested 1,000,000, and would have had to have £530,000 in their account to pay for them, in addition to whatever was needed to pay for their basic entitlement allocation. That request for 1,000,000 will be scaled-down to around 13%, i.e. about 130,000 new shares, which would cost £68,900. The difference (£461,100) will be refunded on 21/1/26.

Of course, it's all very well after the event, but no one knew exactly what would happen on the day, which we do now.

There was no penalty for being greedy, as has happened for some offers. It was just a case of, the more you ask for, the more you'll get, as long as you put up the money in advance to pay for ALL the shares you have requested and don't mind waiting a few days for the refund.

I've said it before Rolf, but surely someone who likes to think he is intelligent, can find ways of making his points without being quite so objectionable?

At the moment, they're taking the full payment for your basic allocation and ALL the excess shares you requested. The scaling-down has yet to be done, once the total number of additional shares requested is matched against the actual number of unallocated shares available.

The rules are that you have to be able to pay for all the additional shares you requested, even if you get fewer, or none. Once the reconciliation is done, you will be refunded the difference.

I think that's a particularly good point. I've attended meetings, where I have heard haughty 'experts' refer to SL (and all the rest of the FI reserves) as 'stranded assets', 'complete no-hopers', to be avoided, etc.

So when they get FID, Sanction and Financial Close coming all together, it might have proved too much for some to compute, having watched the likes of Sam Moody trying to push this particular piece of wet string uphill for years, while being made to feel foolish for even bothering to waste his time on such a fool's errand.

And the haughty experts needed no more proof that, apart from B&S, all the other FI exploration companies had disappeared,

Add to that the growing notion of hydrocarbons being considered an unattractive (even undesirable) investment category, to be avoided at all costs, and an awful lot of people probably still can't believe what's happening, with the FI about to become a potentially vast new oil/gas region.

I'm struggling with this one too.

If a company issues new shares to raise cash, say, to head-off bankruptcy, then I would certainly expect the share price to fall to the placing price, or even lower, if the prospect of survival is in doubt. But when the new shares are to fund something as significant and company-changing as this (FID + Sanction + Financial Close), once the new shares are trading, one might expect the share price to rise, or at least remain unchanged, despite the dilution. That's especially true if a risky project/situation has been de-risked by the fund-raise, as in this case.

Add to that Trump's threats against Iran, with Brent Crude now above $66, plus longer term crude forecasts looking more bullish than for some time, and the now de-risked and fully funded SL project looks like a good bet.

It looks to me as though other influences are at work at the moment. I would be inclined to use the current low sp as an opportunity to buy more shares than you can expect from the somewhat meagre OO allocation. OK, they're @ 53p and no dealing costs, but you don't get very many, even if you also manage to get a few extra, which isn't guaranteed, (e.g. if you held 1 Million shares on the qualifying date, you'd only be allocated 20,408 new shares @53p).

For those feeling confused and/or depressed, just wait for the dilution confusion to subside. Hopefully Navitas will have an announcement or two to make about their plans to first oil, the price of crude will firm-upwards and suddenly there should be a realisation that this is the real winner that it already is.

Very sorry to see you leave, as you have provided many excellent insights.

Thanks for your contributions and enjoy yourself.

Santos, that’s very interesting.

One thing, the HL website shows RKH’s market cap as £459.05M, which is about 655M shares, so the new shares don’t appear to have been included yet.

For HL customers, this is what they say:

"I can confirm that the team are aware of this open offer.

We are awaiting for official communication which will be reciprocated to clients accordingly."

So, as with everything else to do with RKH, it's a matter of waiting (again).

Happy Christmas

No Happy, it's not 'technically' a rights issue, it's just NOT a rights issue and you can't sell your entitlement, as one can with a rights issue.

With the OO, you first have to request how many new shares of your entitlement you wish to take up (and you can ask for more in case any become available), for which you have to have the funds ready and then you have to pay for what you have been allocated. Only then you can sell those shares for a profit, assuming the sp rises.

In a rights issue, you don't have to buy anything, you can just sell the rights to new shares that you have decided not to take.

A considerable difference, which if you don't understand, casts doubt on everything else you post here.

As it's the festive season, I'll try to be kind, but Happy now believing the OO is a rights issue does cast rather cast doubt on his grasp of the situation and the validity of his other comments..

JPDM, really good to hear someone mention Alistair Cooke's 'Letter From America'. I wonder what he would have made of Trump and his antics.

Regarding where the RKH sp goes after financial close, I would expect to see a much firmer floor under the sp, perhaps around the mid-80s, or even higher, particularly as there is likely to be more publicity following that, which will attract some punters who may not even have heard about Sea Lion yet.

Buzz, you seem to be arguing against yourself ther.

Mirasol, I was hoping for a little more discussion, rather than a blunt 'NO' and I believe there are many factors why BC is the current benchmark reference for SL, until it has been in production long enough for it to establish its own rating, so to dismiss my suggested factors without even considering them doesn't amount to much of a discussion - it's more like dealing with a chat bot.

The true long term desirability and value of SL oil is very important to reaching Financial Closure without any more distractions, such as the funding bank(s) imposing a postponement of FC, in order to go over the numbers one more time.

My research suggests, with possible changes in World oil demand, that SL's low sulfur waxy oil could be the price of BC + $x, rather than BC - $x, as you suggest.