Member Info for rpoodle

FOGL—had no exploration luck in the SFB but signed proper contracts (remember BHP paying a $40m compensation fee to leave the license?) and managed to sell itself despite having a cash balance of minus $8m. Remember who it was who bought FOGL despite it having a negative cash??
Borders—managed to basically stay in business for the past 8 years with only $16m in the bank (Rockhopper spend that about every 9 months). Management earn half of Rockhopper and took a 50% pay cut last year.
Tullow—its CEO resigned (we wish Sam had a shred of that decency)
Desire—perhaps the only management who could rival Rockhopper for outright incompetence and spendthrift behaviour.
Argos—too small to compare, and it never had the winning cards that Rockhopper were dealt (and wasted)

NEXT!!!

Apologies for being a bit off topic, but cash position is another difference arguably between DME and HE1.
DME already have over C$13m in the bank, and, if their share price remains above C$3.50 for just two more business days, they can trigger warrants worth over C$16m. They claim that will give them enough money to get to first production—which is pretty remarkable given that they’d still have fewer than 80 million shares.

Scott22: there’s next to no hydrocarbons in DME’s acreage, and they’re not drilling horizontal wells. But the rest looked spot on to me.

I hold DME. There are some similarities and some differences.
In terms of similarities:
1) they’re both planning simple, vertical wells.
2) next to no hydrocarbons in both of their acreages—the main gas is expected to be nitrogen for HE1, as it has been thus far for DME.
3) Despite Holbrook’s helium history, DME is exploring various layers that have never produced before—so in a sense they’re both chasing wildcats
4) helium concentration--both companies are chasing levels of helium far above the norm (DME had 4% and 7% in its two tested wells, and HE1 could be chasing 10%—most helium is provided at levels below 1%)
Differences:
1) size—HE1 is chasing elephants, while DME’s targets are far more modest (though still very very attractive)
2) location— Big one this. DME is based in Arizona and all its clients could end up being within a 200 mile radius. HE1’s location is clearly less advantageous.
3) exploration risk—DME claims that it has hit three for three (their third well was not tested, however, but I heard that there was helium in the drilling fluids). Obviously HE1 is higher risk, but all that could change after one well of course ;0)

I hold them both, so I’m embracing the differences and similarities....

Me too! I managed to get in yesterday at 9p. I’m also a DME holder since early 2020; helium is definitely a lucrative commodity right now....

Trying again ...

I am definitely NOT a fan of Argos. I wrote about them on ADVFN a few months back, and, even with today’s news (which it should be noted will only buy them 12 months), they look in a perilous state to me.
Here’s my old post (now, admittedly, a little out of date):
“I would not touch Argos with the longest of long barge poles. It has almost no money, is going to need to raise money in the next 12 months, and at an exceptionally low price, or it’s out of business.
Meanwhile, its acreage is pretty thin. Most of its prospects are very low chances of success, and it’s only got one and a half decent prospects- Rhea and Tyche. Rhea is a nice looking prospect, but Rockhopper have said in the past it is too far away from Sea Lion to tie back to an FPSO, and it’s not really big enough to be an attractive stand-alone . Tyche looks like an extension of Chatham, and probably could be tied back to Chatham, but it’s never been drilled and not that large.
Great play is made of Noble’s (now abandoned) farm-out with Argos for Rhea, but the timing says it all in my view. Noble was CONTRACTED for two wells in the Falklands, and then the oil price collapsed. It was planning to drill two wells in the southern basin, each costing $100m a pop. With no way out of their contract, they decided to save money and drill the northern basin (Rhea) which was estimated to cost around $50m. Of course, in the end, the rig was a piece of junk and Rhea was not drilled (and Premier also abandoned its last well too). It was unlucky for Argos, but I cannot see them ever getting another farm-in. If Rockhopper had to effectively give up $600m in development carries, and hand over 10% of its (drilled and appraised) acreage, to get a farm-in (with Navitas), god knows what chance Argos has....

I am definitely NOT a fan of Argos. I wrote about them on ADVFN a few months back, and, even with today’s news (which it should be noted will only buy them 12 months), they look in a perilous state to me.
Here’s my old post (now, admittedly, a little out of date):

Iwould not touch Argos with the longest of long barge poles. It has almost no money—it’s going to need to raise money in the next 12 months, and at an exceptionally low price, or it’s out of business.
Meanwhile, it’s acreage is pretty thin. Most of its prospects are very low chances of success, and it’s only got one and a half decent prospects- Rhea and Tyche. Rhea is a nice looking prospect, but Rockhopper have said in the past it is too far away from Sea Lion to tie back to an FPSO, and it’s not really big enough as a stand—alone . Tyche looks like an extension of Chatham, and probably could be tied back to Chatham, but it’s never been drilled and not that large.
Great play is made of Noble’s (now abandoned) farm-out with Argos for Rhea, but the timing says it all in my view. Noble was CONTRACTED for two wells in the Falklands, and then the oil price collapsed. It was planning to drill two wells in the southern basin, each costing $100m a pop. With no way out of their contract, they decided to save money and drill the northern basin (Rhea) which was estimated to cost around $50m. Of course, in the end, the rig was a piece of junk and Rhea was not drilled (and Premier also abandoned its last well too). It was unlucky for Argos, but I cannot see them ever getting another farm-in. If Rockhopper had to effectively give up $600m in development carries, and hand over 10% of its (drilled and appraised) acreage, to get a farm-in (with Navitas), god knows what chance Argos has....

would not touch Argos with the longest of long barge poles. It has almost no money, and ”it’s going to need to raise money in the next 12 months, and at an exceptionally low price, or it’s out of business.
Meanwhile, it’s acreage is pretty thin. Most of its prospects are very low chances of success, and it’s only got one and a half decent prospects- Rhea and Tyche. Rhea is a nice looking prospect, but Rockhopper have said in the past it is too far away from Sea Lion to tie back to an FPSO, and it’s not really big enough as a stand—alone . Tyche looks like an extension of Chatham, and probably could be tied back to Chatham, but it’s never been drilled and not that large.
Great play is made of Noble’s (now abandoned) farm-out with Argos for Rhea, but the timing says it all in my view. Noble was CONTRACTED for two wells in the Falklands, and then the oil price collapsed. It was planning to drill two wells in the southern basin, each costing $100m a pop. With no way out of their contract, they decided to save money and drill the northern basin (Rhea) which was estimated to cost around $50m. Of course, in the end, the rig was a piece of junk and Rhea was not drilled (and Premier also ab

I’ve no idea what the Falklands islands government is thinking, but the fact that they have not reduced, or eliminated, the royalty on oil production yet makes me wonder if they ever will. Tony Durant had mentioned a few years, in an interview with the Times, that Premier was looking to have the royalty removed, and FIG squashed the idea very quickly.
FIG’s stance does seem odd, though, as they’d still make a fortune from oil even without a royalty (both indirectly and via corporation tax revenue). But then again, perhaps people in the Falklands are less driven by material matters than the rest of us?
For full disclosure, I (probably over-hastily) sold my shares again today. Made a few hundred quid. I’ll buy back in if the stock falls further, or I’ll simply miss out if the Ombrina Mare case is resolved In Rockhopper’s favor. Best of luck to all holders here.

Hi Stevo. Yep; I’m aware of all of that. Thus my comment: “ Whatever the case, though, I won’t be hanging around”.
The management at Rockhopper are shockingly hopeless. Even if Rockhopper won the full amount, I strongly expect that they would just **** away the money over a few years.

I’m clearly insane, but I just bought back in (not much, mind, just 25,000 shares). This is despite my firmly held belief that Rockhopper will not survive to first production in the Falklands (if that ever even happens), that the management at Rockhopper is among the worst on AIM (and that’s quite a feat), and that their current cash position is not sustainable.
Instead, my bet is solely rooted in the ICSID case related to Ombrina Mare, and the recent two pieces of news relevant to that case:
1) the lawyer representing the Italian government was interviewed recently, and said a judgement will be arriving “soon” (thanks to Mogger for finding the article). If Sam had said this I would pay it no heed at all, but the Italian government’s lawyer is a different story entirely.
2) Italy now has a technocrat in as PM (Mario Draghi), increasing the chances (at least a little) that Italy will honour the court’s decision—especially compared with some of the earlier administrations led by populists.
And then there’s the basic risk-reward calculation. On the top-side, if rockhopper won the entire amount that they are asking for, the cash would be around four times the current market cap. Even half the amount would still see the share price at least double, I’d guess.
On the downside, if they lose the case, I’d think the near term hit would not be much more than 30%.

Whatever the case, though, I won’t be hanging around, whatever direction the court case goes.

Best of luck to all, as always, whatever investment path you choose.

Thanks Phil. He’s on ignore, so he can post as much *******s as he likes and I won’t see it. He reminds me of that poisonous wart chrisoil

A beyond irrelevant point. Take a look at the trades either side: if you were smart (which you’re clearly not) you’d be able to work it out, ******* you very much.
Toys still in pram; aimgambler in diaper bin.

Forget it you thick *******. If you don’t know that the buys/sell markers are simply a guide based on the average at that moment, then there’s no point wasting another moment on you. In the ignore bucket you go. To everyone else: best of luck with the future of this stock. I hope it comes good.

“ no sells at 0.95, try again”
Try at 13:30

I bought a handful at 0.73 a few months back and just sold for 0.95. I’m now out of all Falkland oilies. This remains the most high-potential stock I know, but the risk is simply too high for me. All the very best to everyone

I’m no longer in Rockhopper but had been in touch with Premier about the write-off. It basically relates to the phase 2 wells (in license 4b). They no longer expect that part of the field to be developed in a “reasonable time frame”. You can make of that what you will....

An investment is about putting money into a venture in order to yield a return. That could be short term or long term. In reality, it’s vanishingly rare that AIM oil stocks go on and become successful majors. Most tend to sink without trace. Patience rarely pays here. But it’s quite common to see AIM oil stocks enjoy massive, temporary price spikes that can yield enormous profits for those sufficiently nimble. Today’s news significantly undermined such a scenario for BPC, owing to the level of dilution, the meager assets being acquired, and the obvious management preference for safety (and their salaries) over shareholder return. That has both long and short term consequences and makes BPC a poorer investment as a consequence.

This whole episode seems to be taken straight out of the Rockhopper rule book of destroying value. The takeover will necessitate significant dilution for very minimal production and a loss of upside.
Fundamentally it’s about a misalignment of management and shareholder priorities. Many, if not most, shareholders are here to seek massive possible gains in the run-up to and, fortune willing, following the Perseverance well. Simply put, it’s a risk-reward gamble. However, the management are primarily focused on their jobs, and maintaining their salaries. Thus sacrificing the potential of major riches for the safety of modest production.
Fortunately, I bought my shares at 1.3p so sold most of my holding today at a healthy profit (I’ll keep a few for the drill, just for fun).
I wish everyone the best of luck whatever decision they make.

I don’t believe this. Is it too late for April’s fool? BPC, through a combination of begging and borrowing, have been able to raise sufficient funds to undertake one high risk, high reward exploration well. And with all that risk and uncertainty to contend with, they decide to buy another exploration license?? In a country in which they’ve never worked? And have no funds to explore in? This is recklessness and idiocy, in equal measure. I pray I’m missing something because they may have just set fire to all remaining shareholder goodwill with this act of vanity and commercial incontinence.

I sold out of these a few weeks/months back (at 2.05 and a smidgen over 1p) for around a 35% loss. Back in Friday, though, for a few at 0.73. To be honest, it remains the longest of long shots that Borders will ever get a farm-in partner but I’m gambling that it has some promise as a trading share. And, despite their low-cash position, Borders tend to burn through it so slowly they should be good for three more years. Anyhow, if/when it gets back to 2p,
I’ll be out again.....
Best of luck to all here, and with your individual trading strategies.