Member Info for SpaceHoppa

Ancientarcher,

you seem new here so I will cut you some slack despite the dream on comment.

I've indicated it fits for Sea Lion as the order is for ' six subsea structures'. You may not be aware that the phase 1 plan is for five wells pre first oil. The absence by H&W of who the units are for, further suggests in 'might' be for Sea Lion.

If you know of another company that needs 5 or 6 of these units with expected completion date in H1 2025 I am all ears !

Good Morning LTT,

that is a fair point, about Argentina's hissy fitting over anyone who has dealings with the Falkland O&G industry. I'm not sure Milei thinks that way but he is working against an indoctrinated country, and we know from the UK civil service how obstructive they can be.

On the reasonable assumption FID will happen, then news will out soon enough anyway. Guess I'm getting impatient for despite knowing lots is happening, not knowing is boring as hell !

O&G will be needed and bought for decades, regardless of the extremist alarmist eco zealots claims, or those who say everything is perfectly normal

£15,000, can buy at 13.17 pence, sell 12.38p. Very stuck in the 12/13 pence range.

Would be nice of FIG to sign off on the OM, for ICSID to chuck out ROI spurious appeal sometime soon.

Company cash in January was $10m.

Would be nice to hear more of these long lead items being announced as below form March. Unusually for Harland and Wolf it does not state who the contract is for, however it fits for Sea Lion.

Harland & Wolff Group Holdings plc (AIM: HARL), the UK quoted company focused on strategic infrastructure projects and physical asset lifecycle management, is pleased to announce that it has signed a five-year Master Services Agreement for the fabrication of large structures with a global oil services company supplying subsea infrastructure across the major hydrocarbon basins around the globe.

The Company has now received its first purchase order under that agreement to fabricate six subsea structures with a contract value of approximately £3 million. These highly specialised structures are used in oil and gas platforms and the surrounding infrastructure, capable of withstanding pressures of 430 bar (6,235 psi) and as such are mission critical parts.

These structures will be built over the next 18 months at the Company's Arnish site in a staged delivery programme with an expected completion date in H1 2025.

Bonville, this was discussed a while back, and Sam Moody emailed

"There is more complexity than this but at a high level we require FIG consent because the incoming funder wants security over the Award proceeds. That security would then clash with the broader security enjoyed by FIG over all of our assets which came into being at the time of the tax settlement deed many years ago.".

There is no published evidence I know of that shows FIG are protecting Rock from anything, or for that matter that they aren't just dithering administrators.

There remains the possibility FIG are being helpful, but NOT signing off on the OM monetisation is definitely NOT helpful, so I feel they are short sighted ditherers.

You're not missing anything LLT. FIG signing off, so OM is monetised, is easily the best outcome for Rock.

With that said, FIG not signing off by the termination option date, does not mean that either side will automatically terminate. Both sides must see the benefits in the deal otherwise they would not have agreed in the first place.

FIG are embarrassing themselves other this, but even they must see that ultimately both Rock and FIG will benefit from a more financially secure Rochhopper.

''and Rockhopper & the specialist funder are FIG free on OM.''

''I see this as good news and it matters not whether FIG comply or they don't.''

I don't see FIG not signing off on the monitisation, as a good thing.

Monitisation, regardless of the award result, ensure Rock a minimum Eur15m and potentially many 10's of Eur-millions more. Not signing off exposes Rock to getting in a worst, very unlikely case, nothing. Or a better position to get more from by selling perhaps the whole uncontestable award. Rock need certainty, much more than the potential of a few extra Eur-millions.

From nearly every perspective, FIG's pathetic dithering on this suggests they are blindingly short-sighted 3rd rate junior managers.

Here is the full paragraph.

Precedent Conditions

''Approval will be required from the Falkland Islands Government to the transaction. A further announcement will be made on completion. Should completion not occur by 30.6.24. either side has the right to termination. In the case of non-completion Rockhopper will use proceeds of the Award to provide compensation to the Specialist Funder based on their legal fees incurred.''

I'm unsure what they mean by 'completion'. Is that completion of FIG signing off on the award, or completion of ROI's annulment request.

I read it as FIG signing off the award before 30.6.24, at which point the contract with the specialist fund was in force.

However it may be completion of the annulment hearing before 30.6.24 that ensures the agreement comes into effect?

Does anyone know for sure which is true??

Thanks AlmaCogan, I had not seen that before and it is an interesting and informative post and link.

I've been saying ever since Navitas showed their hand, that, baring some very unlikely events such as POO collapsing or Navitas going broke, Sea Lion will get developed. The simple maths, life of field $80bbls, low tax and royalties - 35%, 300M bbls, means their is too much net profit to not do it.

Current SP is cheap as chips consider Rock own 35% of the above field and other discoveries.

My only mild concern, is not Sea Lion itself, it is will there be some manufactured event that means Rock needs to fund their part of the development and management go down the dilution route to give institutions their chance to get 250million shares on the cheap.

Hopefully the OM award will remove that option for ii's.

Noted talk about FIG readiness.

Took a while to find but I remember something about Navitas funding a FIG Sea Lion team on a recurrent annual basis, to ensure they were ready for Sea Lion.

It's probably one of Moggers finds

Oct 2022

3. Executive Summary

3.1 The structure and capacity of the current Minerals team is considered to be inadequate

to ensure the successful delivery of the tasks required in order for FIG to be ready for

the timely commencement of the Sea Lion project. Currently the establishment is 5.1

Full Time Equivalents (FTE) of which some is a Fixed Term Contract (FTC).

3.2 A new structure to support the project has been developed, and requirements identified

with job descriptions written and graded. This change will effectively increase the

department by 2 FTE.

3.3 The additional costs to secure and appropriately resource a team are to be met by the

revenues received by FIG from Navitas REDACTED On the basis of the budgetary

implications presented in section 2 this should result in circa 3 years of funding.

This team should be capable of delivering the oil readiness project plan for Sea Lion.

Director

Senior Project Manager – Sea Lion

Finance and Tax Advisor

Regulatory Legal Advisor

Offshore Health & Safety Policy Advisor

Offshore Environmental Policy Advisor

Project Personal Assistant

https://assembly.fig.gov.fk/jdownloads/Executive%20Council/Executive%20Council%20Papers/2022/12%2025%20October%202022/153-22P.pdf

BlooBird, both equally good. It's as good an explanation as we can get get to from the information we have. Just need FIG to stop hindering their own O & G industry !

Buzz, this is how I understand it.

Rock has agreed with funder that funder has the right to pursue ROI for award amount and that Rock will transfer to funder the agreed % that they recover from ROI.

FIG though have a claim to Rock assets, so if ROI pay up the award money to Rock, FIG in theory then have a claim on that money and in theory could stop Rock paying funder their %.

FIG I think, just need to agree not to do that.

JEBR, I do not believe the monetisation award is up for negotiation until after the deadline that FIG have to approve.

If the award is upheld in full, the specialist funder stand to gain $150m or more.

If the appeal is upheld, they stand to lose $45m.

The chances favour the former significantly more than the latter.

Thanks Digitalboy1 for sharing SM's reply, and CitizenTS 08:38 post.

I personally feel FIG are total Pen1sHeads if they prioritise the ludicrous idea that Rock owe FIG £59.6 million from a 'irrecoverable carry of approximately US$ 670 million' that Rock did not receive from Premier.

Financially blackmailing Rock, if that is what they are doing, over Rocks monetising the OM award, instead of helping Rock to create their O&G industry, which Sea Lion alone will benefit them with $6Billion, is moronic at best !!

It's good to know why FIG now have a say in the OM award, however it leaves me with the impression FIG are way out of their depth, petty and incredibly short sighted.

Had a reply from SM. I think Zinced came closest to answering but it's apparently a bit complex and involves a conflict. Here's his reply.

There is more complexity than this but at a high level we require FIG consent because the incoming funder wants security over the Award proceeds.  That security would then clash with the broader security enjoyed by FIG over all of our assets which came into being at the time of the tax settlement deed many years ago.

 

Chess, this is my last post on the matter as we seem to be repeating ourselves.

You keep talking about FIG having a say about how Rock 'DISPENCE' funds.

The monetisation of the OM award is about how Rockhopper 'RECIEVE' funds.

FIG having a veto on that seems odd !

Thanks Pre2rcd for that information. SM travelling to the Falklands is more likely to be a good sign that things are progressing, as opposed to a need to sort out a problem.

I fell the disputed tax liability regarding the Rock deal with Premier, unless anyone has information to say otherwise, is a totally unrelated issue to the Rock v Italian dispute. It is a red herring.

I emailed SM earlier asking why FIG have an effective veto on what seems a separate company matter, and unrelated to the Falklands. I will post if I get a reply.

FIG having a say on what Rock do with the cash they have, is one thing.

Having a veto on how Rock obtain cash, from a separate part of Rocks business in the Falklands, seems irregular.

Thanks Zinced and Chess, but both ideas don't seem to fly as again

1. The award to Rock from Italy via ICSID award is wholly independent of Rocks licences in Falklands and any disputed tax liabilities.

2. The monetisation afaik is selling to ''the "Specialist Fund" to monetise its ICSID Award (the "Award"), in relation to the arbitration against the Republic of Italy relating to the Ombrina Mare oil field''.

FIG and the SL asset should not come into it.

In theory, assuming the award is upheld, the Specialist Fund get the chance to collect Euro$250m plus, by paying Rock less than halve that. They should not get some 'security' over Sea Lion in case they fail, as that would be heads they win, tails they don't lose. Seems odd if that is the case.

I'm puzzled as to why FIG have a say in the matter at all??

It is a dispute between Rockhopper and the Italian Gov't.

Monetising the award in the ICSID dispute is a company matter.

Nothing to do with FIG. Seems very odd.

Hi CitizenTS, I can not think of a single good reason for FIG to delay signing off the OM award monetisation deal.

Their only concern should be ensuring SL gets developed in a safe and environmentally friendly way.

Selling 300M bbls at $85/bbl, nets them over $6billion in tax and royalties and gets the Falklands O&G industry going . P1zzing about over a few million in ICSID award is meaningless in comparison. FIG need to give their heads a sever wobble !