Member Info for Ovets

I doubt if even HE management REALLY know what's going to happen (in every detail), particularly after everything that's happened recently (remember crazy PoO going negative, even if that was an anomaly?).

If I were them, I'd be going over all the numbers in microscopic detail, while the money rolls in from existing NS production to pay the bills, but not to expand the business.
I'd certainly not be committing publicly to anything in the first days of the new company. HE shareholders/potential shareholders would be right to view this as being very unprofessional and incautious.

I agree with Croft, as well as everything else, unless there was some compelling reason to act immediately, perhaps also waiting for the OM outcome.

In the mean time , FIG can stew in their own juice, unless/until they can come up with something a bit more attractive to HE management to take on SL and beyond.
Perhaps UKEF funding would help?

I think that's a very misleading post.

The outcome depends on the validity/strength of the claim as well as the competence of the claimants' representatives, much like any legal dispute.

I've combed through the archives and legitimate, well-managed claims usually end with an award. The awards vary and may sometimes disappoint, but to post that it "will be an exception" is misleading.
Perhaps you'd like to support your claim it with some real data.

And I nearly forgot: "Free" is the abbreviation for "free of charge", so "for free" is meaningless, wrong and a horrible Americanism.

Lots of English homework tonight, I fear Stevo!

Actually, it should be "First", "Second", "Third" and "important".

Please try to get it right next time!

Just popped in for a "good night's" read, to find everyone's going bonkers.

Maybe I'm thick, but if the "Belgian Question" (made last year) applies to the RKH claim, shouldn't there have been some reference to it in today's RNS, if not a lot earlier in the year?

Can't believe that I'm siding with Ralphybabes, of all posters, but isn't he right?
(Apologies Ralph, but our normal relationship is to beat the hell out of each other, isn't it?)
Anyway, could someone explain how this can possibly apply to the RKH/Italy claim?

Thanks.

P.S. - instead of a nice restful night, it looks another sleepless one for me!

It's NOT the "same old".

There have been a great many significant changes - whether they have the desired effect is another matter, but it isn't the "same old".
If it doesn't fly now, then it was never going to, which will make fools of us all.

Bloobird, trying selling something on ebay, listing it as "a load of old tat" and you can't wait to get rid of it, and see how that goes!

Don't blame me if I'm wrong, but I reckon the current geopolitical situation has put some urgency behind this. Those thinking that everything will go back to "normal" post-COVID will be very disappointed.

I don't necessarily see the FI being developed as a blatant military base, but more with a greatly improved airport for "tourists" and port facilities for cruise and oil ships.

In any case, the urgency for oil will be immediately post-COVID. As others have posted, the window for possible UKEF funding is very short (perhaps a matter of a few weeks) and from there to FID & sanctioning pretty short too.

Gas has a longer-term future and there's plenty of that, especially in the SFB, but that's a very long way off, if ever. However, if that's got any chance of going into production, NFB has to be established first.

Yes it's "binary", but then it always was - i.e. either it will go ahead, or it won't!!

Godders, here's a bone to chew on:

A rather large boat stuck in the Suez Canal reminds everyone what can happen to World trade if someone gets the idea of dropping a few bombs on the Suez Canal, and/or Panama.
World shipping routes re-directed round South Africa and Cape Horn, etc. for months, even years.
That shipping might need some protection.

The EU vaccination issues may have surprised some by how quickly and acrimonious relationships became between "friends", who were supposedly trying to help each other achieve the same objectives against a common threat.
Imagine how those relationships might be strained to the point of collapse in other circumstances, where the "friends" become competitors and it's every man for himself. Remember the French sold Exocet missiles to the Argentineans? Who knows what might happen in the future, except that if you paid attention during history lessons, you can't be sure of anyone, except for yourself.

Post-Brexit UK has announced its new strategic alliances could be more in the east, while at the same time relationships with China are deteriorating. The Chinese are controlling more of the South China Sea, even into the Pacific.

Imagine all this happening to a relatively small European country, that's decided to go it alone. Then Scotland goes independent, taking much of what's left of the NS oil & gas fields.
The UK will have a new Army of about 70,000, a reduced RAF, etc., etc.

However, if the UK made a loan of about £500M to £700M to develop proven oil and gas fields in the South Atlantic, a small fraction of the revenue could fund a strategic base in that area, at no cost to the UK tax payer, the loan would be repaid with interest and the strategic base would provide a much needed foothold in a potentially critical region.

If you ask me, Joe Biden may even be leaning on Boris to get on with it, so that the US could share the facilities of such a safe strategic base, should the need arise.

So, Godders, if you ask me, this is going ahead whatever anyone else says, because in troubled times at a national strategic level, the UK, which has chosen to go it alone, hasn't got many options.

Which is what I've been saying for at least 3 years.

Why not both?

Under TD, PMO was pretty well certain to "monetise" Zama.

Having listened to/read as much of the available material that I can find, I still reckon HE will do the same, but there is a major difference under the new management, which is that they have the freedom to re-evaluate all the decisions made by PMO, in a very different economic situation to what it was a just year ago.

Their October 2020 presentation/Q&A was right in the middle of a very bleak period, when effective COVID vaccines weren't yet a certainty, but they seemed very bullish about their forthcoming acquisition and the need for oil and gas and have remained so.
Unlike TD, they haven't mistakenly made premature comments, which fail to materialise.
So far, they look very competent and professional.

Back to Zama: In the light of all that, I'd be amazed if they weren't running over all the figures in minute detail and if those numbers stack-up, then Zama could be "ON". But one big negative is that they wouldn't be "in control", which was one of their major stated requirements.
They have to continue to look as though they're going to sanction Zama, if they stand any hope of getting the best price for their share, in a World of rising PoO (very probable over the next few years) and they can afford to do so, unlike PMO.

Equally, while SL looks very good and ready to go, they're bound to be reviewing those numbers too, including all the other things like FIG taxation, threat from Argentina, etc. An if that doesn't stack-up, then that could be "OFF".

On balance, however, from the statements made by HE so far and whatever Stevo says, I reckon Zama is more likely to be monetised and SL will go ahead, with all the opportunities presented by the NFB, forgetting what the SFB could add, in due course.

If you had something very valuable you wanted to sell, unless it was a fire sale, you'd be trying to make it look as though you're reluctant to let it go, so the price must be good enough to persuade you to do so.

The same sort of negotiating strategy applies to SL - keep FIG guessing and perhaps put some pressure on them to modify their taxation, etc.

e.g. to the FIG: "We've got Zama to develop, so why would we bother going to all the trouble of opening-up a new oil/gas region when we've got that? Although you could do a few things to make it more attractive and we might have another think about it".
And to Mexico and Pemex: "We've got great opportunities in the FI, which are 'oven ready' and it's so difficult to decide which one to do first. We can't really do both at the same time and the days for fossil fuels are numbered".

Regarding Zama, Stevo, you clearly didn't listen to the October 20 presentation, where HE said they'd only be interested in new projects, where they would be in control.
No chance of that with Zama, but they'll still want to get as much for it as they can, so keeping everyone guessing is what you should expect.

Regarding SL, they're going to keep their powder dry until after the PMO merger/takeover, as well as keeping FIG on their toes as to whether SL will go ahead, probably to renegotiate certain aspects, especially taxation.
If you're not convinced this'll go ahead, I reckon that shows HE are doing a good job at keeping everyone guessing about everything.
That's why listening to and understanding their presentation and Q&A is so important

So your assessment is probably wrong.

I agree with those who say that their old declining assets have been their "bread & butter", which is what you need to support your business if you're thinking of embarking on a project like the FI.

However, I disagree with those who say that means they're never going to venture into anything else/new , but just sticking to what they know.

If you listen very carefully to their October 2020 press/analysts presentation, this is not an outfit that plans just to stick to what they've been doing.
Some of the questioners were full of thanks for the "helpful" answers given, so it pays to listen carefully and work out just what that "help" was.
They were very definite in saying that they intend to venture into new projects, where they would be in control (i.e. not Zama), but very likely SL.
Anyway, Mexico looks a really dodgy place to get too involved, if you've got a benign FIG just itching to get going, where you're going to be in control and markets for your product in all directions.

Well, WTF would I know, but I'm betting my shirt and underpants on this going ahead, so if it doesn't, I'll certainly stand out, as I won't have anything left to buy new ones!!
Suppose there could be yet another banana skin waiting for us round the corner, but my view over the last year was that if I don't make the most of the sp being at this level (i.e. around 4p to 6p), I'm going to kick myself to death when things recover, which they seem to be doing right now.

I certainly don't have any problem with a great manager making a lot of money from running his company very well, rewarding everyone involved by his/her brilliance.
I agree that Sam probably doesn't want to see RKH fail, or be bought out for a song, but that doesn't make him any good at running the company.

I'm not sure I really know what he's good at - maybe at coordinating a good, multi-skilled team?
But RKH can't afford such a team (even if the team members were known and available), so Sam has to do much/most of it on his own, even down to answering emails, which shows how busy he is.

I wouldn't necessarily throw him overboard, but we need a good leader, who knows what he's doing and bring it all together, make really good decisions and communicate with shareholders.

Glenrothes suggestion sounds like a good proposition, especially merging RKH & ARG before one, or the other is taken out. Not so sure about BOR just yet - maybe in the future, when FI infrastructure is in place and the long-term prospects for oil & gas are better understood.

Nothing to do with RKH and SL, but I still work and having a great leader at the helm, instead of a Wally, makes an amazing difference, even if the rest of the team is the same.
Knowing there's someone at the top you can trust/depend on to make the right decisions, to consult when needed, to have the right contacts and know how to use them without abusing them, etc., etc. is beyond words.
Sam ISN'T one of them.

Cheers - if it's agreed that Sam hasn't managed RKH well, then what to do about it.

We've previously discussed endlessly what the options might be, but there he stays, lining his pockets.
What also troubles me is that if/when the sp takes off, there'll be plenty of shareholders who'll just forget about Sam's dreadful management, or at least not mind any more.
Once the ball's rolling, those who feel it doesn't matter any more, are a danger, as having an incompetent in the driving seat is not ideal/desirable. OK, even an incompetent may get us to the destination eventually, but perhaps with too many wrong turnings, bad decisions, etc., etc.
Sam's got to go.

If we've come here to split hairs, then you win.

In the context, I think you know what I mean.
The essential issue is whether Sam is a good manager custodian, so maybe stick to that?

Don't believe you can attribute much of the current sp rise to Sam.

If, as CEO, his priorities are to manage the company well and in so doing create shareholder value, maintain a healthy sp, communicate effectively with shareholders (the company's owners) and through all this, create healthy relationships with analysts and market commentators, perhaps Texasoil you could shed some light on where Sam has succeeded and now deserves to continue doing the same?