Member Info for Ovets

I would agree harpman if HBR were negotiating to buy a 60% share of SL, but that isn't the case - HBR got it in the "job lot", when acquiring PMO, so is in a fundamentally different position.

Yes, there's a lot of cost involved, plus other issues, but on balance, if HBR can renegotiate some of the detail (taxation with FIG, service contract details, etc.), that's otherwise ready to go, with high quality oil as the product, they'd be mad to walk away.
What are their alternative options? Not many, where they'd "be in control" and with such growth potential, despite what people say.

I suppose it depends on what the "confirmation" includes.
If it's no more than: "We'll let you know the outcome on 20th July (or whatever)", then no big deal, but if it's more like: "Your claim has been successful and the award will be announced on 20th July (or whatever)", then that's surely significant enough for RNS.

BB, I'm still waiting to hear your explanation about why the building of new military and other accommodation on the FI already progressing, if nothing's going to happen there.

First, if the UK is to become a more World-focused power (as Boris seems to envisage), it's going to need staging points in more remote areas and being near to the Antarctic is quite useful too.

Second, considering the TPP, which Boris wants to join, then Chile is just round the corner.

Third, as I've said, the naval base probably isn't the main priority, but having such a staging point, subsidised by oil/gas revenues, in such a remote area, would be very useful. The US would probably find it useful too. World order is changing and the UK needs to prepare for it.

BB, That's exactly why some sort of base/foothold is needed, because there's nothing there.

Regarding distance to the Far East, which route are you considering? We've just seen the Suez Canal blocked for over a week merely because of a freak gust of wind (apparently) and Panama could be shut down just as easily. Then what?

Not saying the Naval thing is the main objective necessarily, but would be a useful combination of resources and facilities.

Access to ASEAN/RCEP is just the other side of Cape Horn and the UK has stated that as being it's major trading objective. Signing a trade agreement with Australia was part of the plan to gain access to it.

You haven't explained why brand new military accommodation is all-of-a-sudden being built on the FI, rather than just refurbishing what's already there.

Which is what I've been saying from long before HBR hit the scene.

Look at what's going on around the World and the recent events in the Black Sea with HMS Defender, with the support of the new HMS Queen Elizabeth in the Med.
There's no doubt that under Boris and post-Brexit, we're starting to see a much less Europe-focussed UK, as he promised, with greater focus on the Far East and elsewhere.
That much less Europe-focused UK is going to need closer allegiance with the USA and some footholds around the World to support the new "Great" Britain vision.

My guess is that the FI is destined to become one such VERY important foothold on the other side of the World, where it would be very useful, particularly for the Royal Navy, supported by new energy production in the region.
Maybe that's why new military accommodation in the FI is already being built (i.e. they're already quietly getting on with it)?

My guess is that the negotiations are pretty advanced with all the parties involved. I expect one of Boris' BIG announcements, scheduled for spring 2022, just before the 40th Anniversary of the Falklands War, with Boris showing that he's finishing-off what Maggie started back in 1982 and HBR will be an important part of that.

So, yes this is going ahead, but in a much more spectacular way than most currently anticipate.

You have until close of business today to submit an AGM question to:
info@rockhopperexploration.co.uk

Here's an idea that you may wish to use as a draft/skeleton question:
Draft Question---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following today's trading and operations update from Harbour Energy, it appears that Sea Lion is still being "reviewed".

In that context, it would seem sensible for Rockhopper Exploration management to exercise prudence with what little resources the company has left.
Even if a good sum is awarded from the Ombrina Mare arbitration, that money should be used to ensure the stability of the company and not squandered on management remuneration.

At this year's AGM, shareholders would like to see significant acknowledgement and practical evidence that Rockhopper management is preserving our limited resources for the benefit of the company.

To restore shareholder flagging confidence in our Board of Directors, will you please make it a priority to state publicly that company resources will be preserved at least until Sea Lion first oil is reached, rather than continuing to award yourselves remuneration that does not appear to have been earned?
If it has been earned, shareholders wish to hear about it and the AGM is the moment and opportunity to do so.

Regards,

I think that is as much, possibly more, than we could have expected them to say, unless HBR were going to announce SL FID outright today, which they weren't going to do.

Especially as they have Zama to deal with. If they plan to monetise that, then they don't want to put too much of the spotlight on SL for the time being.

While negotiations with many, especially FIG, probably continue, today's announcement should be considered very positive.

In the mean time, you have until end of business today to submit in those RKH AGM questions to make our BoD face the music and maybe squirm a bit.
Email them to: info@rockhopperexploration.co.uk

It should also be noted, that in the green current clamour for ditching fossil fuels, there've been quite a few announcements about cutting and even stopping the use of coal, (e.g. for generating electricity), but I don't recall a single similar announcement about oil and/or gas.

That's the essence of HBR's business strategy and they ain't stupid!

It's not just the CO2 (and I agree that we contribute FAR more than all the volcanoes in the World), it's all the other things, like dumping our rubbish/sewage in the sea, and now, dumping our rubbish in space, as well as (of course) dumping our rubbish in parks, beauty spots, beaches, etc., etc.
Humans are generally pretty selfish, greedy and thoughtless, so we're now getting what we deserve.
It wasn't all that long ago that most people believed that our planet is big enough to "lose" all our rubbish without any consequences.
There are just too many of us (or at least too many of us to behave badly) for such a small planet and now it really shows.

Let's not be hypocrites- we would all like to make a few bob on RKH, but we all know that humans are trashing the planet. Anyone who doesn't is living in a dream World.

Fossil fuels will have give way to others, and we all know that we can't carry on living the way we have.
Most of that has more to do with our greedy life-style where fossil fuels will be needed for some time to come - HBR have staked their business model and reputation on that.

So, I'm afraid that in the long run, Greta's right. Brainwashing doesn't come into it.

Not sure if this helps, but I sent my "REQUISITION FOR SHAREHOLDER RESOLUTION" Email to Keith Lough & Jan Davies, CC: to rkhlse@outlook.com
This was so that Glenrothes got it at the same, and KL & JD can see it was copied to rkhlse@outlook.com, in case there's any disagreement/dispute about the numbers later on.

By the way we're treated, the BoD appear to regard RKH as their own private fiefdom to do with what they like.
They had to involve shareholders all those years ago, in order to raise the cash and now some of those shareholders (i.e. us) are a bit of a bloody nuisance.

I think they need to be taught a lesson that they won't forget in a hurry, so get those emails in and vote against those resolutions everyone.

Good work Glenrothes.

Thanks to your efforts, now we should be able to see if we are "well short of the requirements", either in the number of shares, or number of shareholders.

Brilliant!

If they were honest, they would have given the qualifying total in their reply, plus how many may have been disqualified and for what reason.
Being secretive isn't clever. It merely shows that they don't like being accountable.
I'm going to ask and I suggest everyone else does too, so they understand that we're not imbeciles, nor are we finished.

It could be that there's a great OM award and that HBR go ahead with SL, etc., etc., but that won't excuse their condescending treatment of their shareholders when it really mattered.

I didn't appreciate the "fallen well short" comment, as I believe we were pretty close, if not over, the required number, but certainly NOT "well short".

I took that as almost a taunt at our "pathetic attempt" to rock the boat, when if fact, we'd done pretty well, especially at such short notice.

Once again, well done Glenrothes.

"In fact, your request has fallen well short of the requirements that would enable your Company to place your resolutions before shareholders generally".

How can we be sure of this?

Not yet, but I suspect the timing could be to coincide with the OM award announcement??

I suspect they're relying on COVID restrictions preventing most people from attending.

P.S. what I meant to add is that HBR BoD saw this very clearly when establishing their business model, when so many others were saying that oil/gas are finished.