Member Info for Ovets

I'd add that Moody thought it so "obvious" that everyone would be banging on his door for a share of the SL spoils that he never thought it necessary to consider developing a Plan B.

It's precisely BECAUSE it's in the middle of nowhere that it makes such a good base.
You'd hardly locate a strategic base near to loads of facilities would you?
Funded by oil/gas revenues and it makes even more sense.

You also have to remember that it was a key strategic naval location before the Panama Canal was constructed, after which it did lose its importance to Britain. As it was left in decline over decades, Galtieri & Co believed we'd completely lost interest in it, and thought it worth giving it a try.

With Boris' new unashamed Global Britain vision, it starts to make sense again, in an increasingly China-dominated World. AND, we've just seen the Suez Canal closed for over a week just because of a freak gust of wind. Imagine if someone with evil intent decided to close both Suez and Panama canals, just to screw-up the Global economy. Not so far-fetched if you think back to 11/9/2001 - a date which changed things for ever.

Can you imagine Boris abandoning the FI, surrounded by literally £Billions-worth of energy reserves, to Argentina just as the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War approaches?
Imagine the hullabaloo by a UK public that's argued for the last 5 years about restoring the GREAT to Britain?

Bootledodger, you're entitled to your opinion, but we'll just have to wait and see.

There are other considerations around Zama, such as corruption, piracy, etc., which can be added to the reasons why HBR might be careful about getting too involved, regardless of the superficially low cost of development.

On the other hand, with the 40th Anniversary of the Falklands War approaching, I see a great opportunity for a joint announcement with FIG, HBR and Boris (telling us how he's the one who managed to finish-off what Maggie started in 1982), launching the FI as Britain's new strategic base, as part of Boris' vision of a new Global Britain.

It seems to me that HBR could approach the SL project on a number of levels, initially only committing to what they can currently afford and how the oil/gas market is looking to grow/shrink.

With Isobel/Elaine and more regional potential, the FI region offers them all the longer-term expansion they could reasonably expect to cope with, while allowing them to start SL on a smaller scale:
- establishing the necessary infrastructure for "Phase 1" of the project, which can be enhanced/developed as the region expands, funded from Phase 1 revenue (i.e. not committing to the MEGA expenditure at the outset);
- as Phase 1 progresses, the longer-term Global requirement for oil/gas becomes clearer;
- if oil/gas are suddenly overtaken by some amazing new technological breakthrough (which would inevitably take some time to develop commercially), HBR would not have committed MEGA sums to what suddenly becomes a white elephant;

I only see SL being "TOO BIG in everyway" if HBR chose to go for broke, by throwing all its resources at the project, rather than take a more measured approach.

None of us wants to fry, or drown, but the truth of the matter is that all the renewables in the World, with everyone rushing to switch to electric everything, still can't yet provide a reliable and plentiful substitute for oil/gas for some time to come.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, quite a bit of discussion about the move to electric stuff.
With current (pun intended) technology, over-dependence on Lithium. While there's a lot around, not much is easily accessible, with Australia, Chile, Argentina and China as major sources. UK thinking of reopening old Cornish mines, but nowhere near enough to be self-sufficient.

So electricity on its own isn't the "silver bullet". Either another technological breakthrough is needed, or maybe consider switching to another energy source (e.g. hydrogen?).

Hindsight is so wonderful, especially when applied by those suffering from amnesia.

Regarding being "in control", we're at risk of splitting hairs. I'm merely reporting what I heard, rather than spinning it to what I'd have like to have heard.
In the Chrysaor presentation, the term being "in control" was specifically stated, rather than "operator" or any other similar word/term.

On the face of it, Zama is very attractive, except for a few important details, which don't fit what Linda Cook said at that time.
Clearly, if big profits are to be made, then any stated strategic objective/plan can be adjusted accordingly. Inflexible adherence to an out-dated strategy/policy has been the death of many previously great organisations.

I'm not sure what you mean by " SL is TOO BIG in everyway", because some of those aspects can be exploited or just ignored, depending on the circumstances.
I think there are many participants who stand to gain greatly by SL going ahead, so have incentives to moderate their immediate demands/expectations, which could lead to greater rewards later on.

I said that Sam's AGM presentation sounded like a sales pitch from a weary salesman, who'd rather be doing something else.
Trouble is, who else would he be pitching to? Clearly not to anyone already bashing at his door.

CTS, on the face of it quite an easy decision for HBR to make, but you have to remember the very clear business objective statements made by HBR and Linda in particular.
A critical stated consideration in their decision making is that they must "be in control", so whatever the cost of Zama production, there are some other considerations there that might make HBR flinch.

I'm basing my comments only on what HBR senior management has said in public.

As far as SL is concerned, we're awaiting some news about OM arbitration, an announcement from HBR about SL, but a VERY important indicator would be HBR's announcement about their plans for Zama, which they may choose to make before saying anything about SL.

CTS, the context of my post was why FIG made the decisions it did in and around 2017, not the decisions they may make now.

Things are very different now, as we all know.

HBR have got to appear seriously interested in Zama, if they're going to "monetise" it for a decent sum.

If you're selling your house/car/whatever, you're hardly going to say: "it's a bit of a dog and not really worth hanging on to" are you?

I seem to remember that all this has been discussed to the Nth degree here and previously on the ii BB and that all the correct procedures have been observed to the letter.

In a no-win-no-fee claim, the lawyers would go to great lengths to ensure that they don't forfeit their share of the winnings.
I'm not saying it's impossible, as the Italians are masters of gamesmanship (e.g. reference to the football and why RKH are following the ECT route, rather than Italian courts), but I reckon all that's covered.

Just watched how Italy stymied Belgium in the last minutes of the Euro match tonight. I think it illustrated very well what it would be like trying to extract an OoC settlement from Italy. Better to wait a bit longer, keeping their "gamesmanship" to a minimum.

Agreed, but Italy is known to be slippery when it comes to litigation, so it would have to be 100% water (and everything else) tight.

Except, this time it isn't PMO.
They've done all the donkey work, but were caught out by unforeseen circumstances and picked-off by a smarter outfit, HBR.

OOC settlement isn't an option with Italy, because they can't be trusted to honour such a commitment.
A change of government (which happens quite often) and they'd say it has nothing to do with them.

Remember that in Keith Padgett's farewell speech in September 2016, he warned the FIG against those nasty, greedy oilies, who'd walk all over them and steal their precious reserves for a song. He said about oil company representatives:

"...................some of them initially thought (and perhaps still think) that we are simple yokels that can be quickly dealt with and quietly ignored. I can assure you that the next time those individuals were in my office those views were quickly dispelled!...................
............I am confident that we don’t need oil to have a successful future. Of course it could be tremendously beneficial but the bottom line is that the Islands can and will continue to prosper and grow with or without oil. My primary goal has always been that, when the final negotiations with oil companies are complete, the proceeds from the industry must be to the benefit and the long-term future of the Islands, not just company shareholders. As far as I’m concerned, a bad deal would be worse than no deal. In the final analysis, if a mutually beneficial situation cannot be achieved, the oil should be left in the ground (or under the sea) until conditions are such that a full and proper return for the Islands can be realized. We should not let the concerted actions of a few individuals override the national interest!".

It was with words like that ringing in their ears that the FIG made their decisions at that time.

I'd say that things are very different now and FIG know this is their last opportunity, if they want it at all.

While it might seem appealing to receive a MEGA arbitration award like some used to discuss, it would probably be far better to be awarded a more modest amount, enough to survive. That's because the Italians are much more likely to cough-up for a more reasonable sum, rather than one as big as awarded to Cairn v. India.
Anyway, if RKH were awarded much more, could we trust Sam & Co not to squander it?

"The Tribunal has made significant progress..........":
i.e. they've just enjoyed a delicious dinner and now onto the entertainment and ...................?

No, this was about preserving company cash AND signalling to the markets and shareholders that management not only understands the worry and ill-feeling, but actually doing something about it.

If they ever get this thing to work (i.e. SL into production) there'll be plenty of opportunities for all of them to fill plenty of very large boots without anyone bothering even to notice, but until then, the BoD have to demonstrate leadership and good sense - that's what it's about, so go back into your hole Godders, or polish that Tesla of yours or anything else except wasting our time here.

I have to say that Sam's AGM presentation sounded more like a sales pitch to me.