Member Info for pijoe1212

You what? How do you know? As stated I am 3 miles away..is it my cats or have the neighbours broken in to drink my beers? Could you just check if the washing machine is on spin cycle yet? Thanks..

In her who must be obeyed garden with beers and food and posting shite...and no planes into fairford so Iran is ok for a few hours at least

Stratigic review..is that the same as putting a valued pet to sleep when it just can not go on?

Which no gasser? You got fires no gasser....you got Ast (almost no gasser).. you got Ophr ( always the bridesmaid gasser) .. you got Iog ( ops we sold the co last year gasser)...you got f*uckup gasser ( Panr)... and now add aex ( ex gasser)... fire just got in early...

Welcome back...was it fires jokes or Ast sp what did you in?

So who�s going to own up to buying something that they know is a momentum play with no mcap under pinnings...I know degseywalnut or mrcalm in a storm...

He needs lots of pies! Do not forget log own 60%+ of iog so in my view the mcap needs to be multiplied by 3 to see starting point of the investment case. Given the funding needed I remain very concerned that equity raise will see current shareholders see little of the Npv...and that�s before you risk it! I would also add I see the departure of mr and py as log taking control Anyway good luck all but I would suggest be careful

Why I told you this was a pile of steaming and the Nigerian approval was a distant dream? I was told to s*d off by most of you. But Aberdeenman more than most. Glad your insults made you very rich

the whole point of a BB is to exchange views and info.. that is both negative and positive. on that basis investors are better able to judge the investment case. for your info i have a holding here. it is modest and is purely profit shares from prior trades. so i think your post is a little miss-guided?

give the way the AT trades have been i personally think a large holder of two is selling down stake(s). dont forget at sub 5% holding overseas holders do not have to tr1.

Tonight with a south Hams councillor...

ad.. there is nothing wrong with investing to obtain gain- in fact its why i invest!..but no gain occurs without a sale. CA have done well for themselves but also for all other hur shareholders by funding when the oily world was a dark place. FWIW i would be sorry to see CA withdraw all hur investment..that would signal time for lifeboats (or more like an alt investment).

does everyone get these? latest is for yellow fever jabs in abingdon!am i just lucky i need a booster?

anyone know where his taking the ale? be good to meet him - easy to spot i understand as hes the one with 3 rottweilers as needed to pull the local wigan birds when at home....

not had any problems buying..other than my timing!

steve brown has published a number of very good review articles i have read (wish i had kept copies!). that one is good, if a little old - that moves the cost profiles down for many schemes. not one i recall reading. hes a heavy oil specialist - i expect to see him involved with bentley when that moves!

i have been thinking for some time that rkh will look to monetise issy sooner rather than later. the driver for the fogl deal was to simplify farm-out. the idea that issy would sit for 5 years waiting for sl phase 1 to start never looked to me like the business strategy. clearly nothing was going to happen prior to oil price moving. now to me the kpi's are putting in place the "reward" side of executing the business strategy. so long as SL goes ahead (and baring oil price collapse i think it will), one can see issy being an attractive farmin option.

as posted: That's a fair question. According to the RKH annual report the tax liability becomes due (inter alia) "the date of which Rockhopper disposes of all or a substantial part of the Group's remaining licence interests in the North Falkland Basin". I don't think any of us PIs can know for certain how FIG would apply this in the scenario that I described, however, my personal view is that they would not require RKH to immediately pay a material portion of the outstanding tax liability. My rationale is as follows: 1) I do not believe that this scenario is consistent with the intent of the text quoted above. The tax liability relates to the original farm-out with PMO. The overwhelming majority of the value at that stage related to SL Phases 1 and 2. Immediately prior to that farm out RKH only had 40% of PL004 and Isobel / Elaine were undrilled prospects with a CoS of 25%. I believe that the intent of the text related to RKH substantially exiting the NFB, which is certainly not the case in the scenario that I described 2) For tax purposes, the FI are a sovereign entity and they do not have to worry too much about precedents given the narrow range of companies involved. Hence, they should be willing to facilitate a new farm out deal that would also benefit themselves (the introduction of a new paying partner who could accelerate Isobel / Elaine by 5 years is definitely in their interests). Why would they attempt to do something that could scupper such a deal? 3) FIG has already shown some willingness to use tax policy to encourage development of their oil resources; - a) RKH's outstanding liability has already been reduced from �64.4m to �59.6m as a result of using the full PMO exploration carry on the NFB - b) FIG is carrying out a major review of tax policy in 2018 to help support sanctioning of SL Notwithstanding the above, I would emphasise that the whole scenario that I described is just something that I invented in response to some cryptic words that were added to KPI#3. The chances of reality turning out like this are slim - hence the title of my post!

noble have to be an interested party and without question pmo/ rkh will know all the people (via the rig share deal etc). they are retaining their current interest in nfb via arg. i think sfb is dead in the water..noble walked away and the comments made to me by rkh dirs were very negative (was 2 years ago but what has changed?) - "too gassy" was the comment.

as posted by brightside 111: I�m still curious about 2018 KPI#3 and in particular how RKH will �strengthen the Company�s balance sheet which could be by way of a new venture.� First, I assume that even RKH�s directors would not be sick enough to claim achievement of this KPI by strengthening the balance sheet via an equity placement. Furthermore, they would be mad to do an equity placement at anything like the current share and prior to the outcome of the Feb 2019 Ombrina Mare arbitration being known (we might possibly be rolling in cash after that). Second, I note that 2018 KPI#1 already refers to �Bringing an additional paying partner into the Sea Lion Development project�. It would be very disappointing (but, sadly, not impossible) for the directors to claim achievement of both KPI#1 and #3 through the same farm out of SL. However, the markedly different wording used for the two KPIs suggests to me that the directors have something else in mind for KPI#3. What could it be? Realistically, the only way to strengthen the balance sheet in 2018 via a new venture is to monetise an existing asset. I�m assuming that they do not mean SL Phase 1 as this is already covered by KPI#1. SL Phase 2 is likely to be part of any SL Phase 1 deal for operational and unitisation reasons � e.g. during a recent interview Tony D of PMO mentioned how the reservoir performance risk for Phase 1 was mitigated by the fact that they could just drill additional wells in the Phase 2 area to plug into the Phase 1 FPSO to make up for any shortfall. What does that leave? The Med? Obviously not as its capital value is too small and it is throwing off enough cash to pay for the directors� salaries / bonuses. South Falkands basin? During the take-over (oops, sorry, merger) of FOGL, RKH directors stressed that they attributed zero value to this and Nobel just walked away from it. That only leaves Isobel / Elaine and the other non-SL North Basin assets. Thinking further about this, a deal relating to these assets prior to SL Phase 1 sanction makes a lot of sense. RKH�s latest presentation shows Isobel / Elaine production starting in 2031, assuming FOIL for SL Phase 1 in late 2022 (interestingly, PMO�s latest presentation and RKH�s annual report do not show the production profile for Isobel / Elaine). By 2031 we really will be getting into squeaky bum time regarding the medium term outlook for oil given the rise of renewables and EVs. Bringing Isobel / Elaine forward by 5 years would not only double its value from a pure DCF perspective (based on 5 yrs discounting at 15% p.a.) but would also materially reduce the stranding risk. However, bringing it forward by 5 years would align the timing with SL Phase 2 which could cause an over load / over commitment of capex for the existing JV partners (RKH and PMO). Hence, a new venture with a different operator might be the best way