Member Info for Santos1

A few more thoughts on Rolf's bizarre claim that ' the straits will return to being the main route , and insurance will be back to a dollar a tanker soon enough':

As I mentioned previously, look at what is happening in the Red Sea. Traffic is down 60-70% compared to pre- Gaza days. Most major container shipping lines avoid the Red Sea/ Suez canal. They have reconfigured the way they do business. Re-routing around S. Africa adds 10-14 days to Asia -Europe voyages and increases marine fuel consumption by 20-23%.

Insurance rates have not returned even close to 'normal' in the Red Sea, despite area patrols, and escorted convoys through the Bab al-Mandab Strait conducted by at least 12 countries. There are also targeted attacks on Houthi weapon launching sites, but note - none of those land based strikes are conducted by European countries- they are US strikes.

If the US withdraws from Hormuz, European and other countries may operate patrols and convoys, but will they attack launch sites in Iran ? The answer looks like NO- that would ( further?) involve them in the war.

Despite all this protection in the Red Sea for Suez traffic , Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander, US Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that 'The Houthis retain capabilities that hold our partners at risk, and they continue to expand their influence and ties with a broad range of threat groups along the Red Sea littoral'.

Hormuz is clearly going to be the same situation again, except on a bigger scale. If the US withdraws from Hormuz, European and other countries who volunteer for patrols etc will be operating with one arm tied behind their backs , unable or unwilling to strike land based launching sites. Even if the US stay, in the words of Admiral Cooper last week , 'Iran retains nuisance capability- harrassment , low end drone and rocket attacks'.

The Chair of the Lloyds insurance market told an audience last week in Washington that shipowners are refusing to risk their crews and vessels without a

'credible guarantee of safe passage' [ which can't be delivered even now in the Red Sea] and that ' premiums will ultimately depend on perceived risk when the strait reopens'.

The level of ' perceived risk' is clearly going to be ' HIGH'. That will be reflected in insurance rates.

The longer term 5-10 year outlook has to be that gulf countries will look to pipelines and railway construction- Oman to Haifa.

Great find again Mogger, thank you.

.....and regime change per se doesn't guarantee a return to 'business as usual' as civil war would then be likely

'The straits will return to being the main route, insurance will be back to a dollar a tanker soon enough'.

You are overlooking the fact that despite reduced Houthi attacks Suez canal revenues collapsed and remain at low levels and red sea insurance markets have not normalised. Hormuz will be the same on an even bigger scale. Its reliability has been permanently damaged. That means insurance rates will not return to ' a dollar a tanker', as you put it. Tanker owners won't pay inflated war risk premium rates, and insurers are not going to reduce rates to pre-conflict levels while the possibility remains that a couple of IRG guards can launch a small drone costing peanuts. That possibility will never disappear unless there is a regime change. And tanker owners aren't going to pay mafia style protection money to Iran for 'safe transit' on top of, or instead of, war risk insurance. The industry is already reconfiguring itself and the Cape of Good Hope has become the default route, adding 10-14 days to voyage times.

In summary- reopening Hormuz , if that happens, is not a resolution. It will remain permanently unreliable , even if all tankers are permanently escorted by warships ( and how likely is that?). Traffic will not return. Costs will not normalise.

' Current events in middle east will be ancient history in commercial terms when Sea lion phase 1 comes on stream'. Personally I think this crisis is going to last for a decade or more. Iran will never give up control of the strait unless there is a regime change- which is even less likely likely now than it might have been before the war. Yesterday Iran's Deputy Foreign Minster issued a clear warning that any 'extra-regional destroyers deployed under the pretext of protecting shipping will only escalate the crisis'.

So much for Starmer and Macron's 'multi-national mission' , which is supposed to take place 'after the war is over'.

As Jimmy says, Israeli interests holding a combined 19 .02% - Noked 9.16%, Brosh/Exodus 6.03%, Ion 3.83%. All of them have activist or hedge fund investment strategies . Then there is Aedos - a UK hedge fund with 7.83%, which takes ' active' investment positions. That's a combined 27%- i.e. just 3% below the 30% level where a mandatory offer is required. Of course there is no evidence that they are a ' concert party' for Takeover Code purposes - and the definition of a ' concert party' is a complex legal matter- nor that they would be interested in making a takeover. However they might be interested at some point in squeezing/ influencing the board into selling its assets at a large premium. My simple point is that these types of investors add a lot of spice to the situation, to supplement the fundamental attractions of RKH as an excellent entry into an emerging new oil province. I am a long term holder and will remain so. Exciting times ahead, no doubt with a few ups and downs on the way, but big gains in prospect for patient investors,imo.

Hi Donalb- that relates to the 5.1% holding announced in January. A 5% holding is a key threshold that allows activists to requisition general meetings, propose resolutions such as appointing additional directors, or initiate a public campaign to get passive investors to vote with them. An increase to 6% - as announced today- might mean they intend to increase further, say to 10% -which is another threshold with additional powers.

Hi Donalb- that relates to the 5.1% holding announced in January. A 5% holding is a key threshold that allows activists to requisition general meetings, propose resolutions such as appointing additional directors, or initiate a public campaign to get passive investors to vote with them. An increase to 6% - as announced today- might mean they intend to increase further, say to 10% -which is another threshold with additional powers.

Just re-read the announcement. Brosh Capital Partners LP and Brosh Equity Partners LP are indeed part of the consortium with Exodus Management Israel Ltd. They have increased their combined stake to 6%. As mentioned, Brosh Capital Partners are Israeli based investors in Israeli- related special situations. They are described as activist investors seeking to create value for shareholders by taking significant stakes.

Investors often benefit by riding on the activist investor's coat-tails. All looking very positive.

Just re-read the announcement. Brosh Capital Partners LP and Brosh Equity Partners LP are indeed part of the consortium with Exodus Management Israel Ltd. They have increased their combined stake to 6%. As mentioned, Brosh Capital Partners are Israeli based investors in Israeli- related special situations. They are described as activist investors seeking to create value for shareholders by taking significant stakes.

Investors often benefit by riding on the activist investor's coat-tails. All looking very positive.

Or maybe Brosh Capital Partners is part of the Exodus consortium

I see Exodus frequently acts together with Israeli based Brosh Capital Partners which is an activist firm focusing on special situations and which seeks to create value for shareholders by taking significant stakes. Not clear if Brosh is involved on this occasion or just Exodus. Either way it is very positive.

Rolf- you need to get professional help. And a dictionary.

Rolf- people who can be bothered to read your offensive language to all and sundry in this chat room can draw their own conclusions about your level of intelligence.

Rolf- i cant remember a single message of yours in this chatroom that doesn't contain a personal insult to someone. That is arrogance to the highest degree. You are too dumb to realise that however.

Ovets- sadly you are right. Too many people are put off from applying.

I think the US administration is lucky to have someone like Scott Bessant. Rolf has the arrogance and sheer ignorance to say ' I guess he wasn't very sure of his facts for about 40 years of his professional life'. In fact he was one of the most successful money managers of his generation. He wouldn't have achieved that without a total dedication to finding out the facts.

Rolf-on Feb 4 Bessent told the House Financial Services Committee he was wrong when he told his partners in 2024 that tariffs are inflationary. He said that the US economy is growing and inflation is coming down despite a slew of tariffs imposed by Trump since returning to office in Jan 2025 . " So tariff inflation was the dog that didn't bark", he said.

Economics is not an exact science and as Keynes often pointed out, it is legitimate for economists -and Treasury Secretaries - to change their minds when the facts don't support their earlier theories. . You seem to think that he is a political opportunist who will say anything to please Trump and that politicians are a bunch of yes men etc etc. Well, I don't agree with you about Scott Bessent's character, and so I won't be giving you a 'deflection', whatever that is supposed to mean. Not everything you read in the red tops is true about politicians. There are fine people who put themselves forward to serve in politics , whatever you may think. And if you think that's naive, good luck to you, I couldn't care less. It happens to be true.

Rolf- You've got your facts wrong again. He didn't say there is no inflation. He said that the rate of inflation -currently around 3%- will slow later in the year.

Rolf- you obviously haven't got a clue about Scott Bessent's track record at Soros Fund Management, or his reputation as a stickler for facts and research. He is not the sort of person to make a specific factual point , such as talking about the vulnerability of 'fragile' Iranian oilfields if Kharg Island gets to full capacity, without being very sure of his facts.

Rolf- if you know 'the framework of Scott Bessent's comments' better than anyone else, as you indicate, why not tell us about it rather than making a personal remark?