Member Info for Surfit

That third party assessments on salary entitlement, seem to me to be a bit of an insurance against any potential liability (imo).
Rgds Sft

Hey Nelius,
As I listen to the presentation (project wind down) HBR, are required "on paper" to inform RKH, FiG and Navitas which form of the 3 detailed will they chose to exit with in a 90 day time frame. The time frame thereafter (on their choice) was not clear and depending on which direction they go in could vary considerably, especially if they chose to try and sell it on. As Moody states the best option is negotiating buy back (it will not be the 1 dollar option that's for sure).
The best option would be a deferred payment option on development, but my feeling is they do not want any association as this would carry continued risk from Argintinia.
Will an OM pay out be sufficient or ever on time? Will Moody be able to secure further funding?
If we actually got a OM pay out, Moody must (imo) play hard ball make a small offer for the asset return. Remember the ONLY leverage HBR now have on RKH is delay, and if Moody, FiG and Navitas have some minerals they will offer a knock down price and call their bluff.
Note: PMO negotiated down with BP for Sheawater/Andrews (North Sea assets)
"It renegotiated that deal in June in response to “market conditions”, with BP agreeing to cut the cash payment from $625m (£493m) to $210m (£165m)"
until PMO failed to secure refinance for their total debt structure.
So OM near term payout or finding more funds are essential.
What is a good price to pay for the return of PMO/HBR share of SL, any ideas?

Addtional Note: Listening to the presentation again Moody does come across well, I appreciate the need to retain core personnel but that sence of entitlement for failing is still there. You do not need a third party to say your entitlement to too large a salary.

Rgds Sft

Hey Much, as usual well worded and considered response.
My concern sits with the historic lack of sp investment and that gives me a very "un-warm" feeling when combined with the previously salary and bonus etc etc. Yes they may be even richer due to the bonuses they will receive, if it happens...but in my experience: You feed a dog to much, well he's not going chase the rabbit. These saying come from truth. They are too corporate in that: in the past others have had their wages paid for by big finance or OnG companies and expect the same.
VERY VERY different animals to fully invested owners. Hence big fan of Mr Austin. Put the money in, raise capital, deliver the job, get the returns.
Comming from OnG; I have seen it too many times, as I am sure you have seen over the years in the banking system. Very little accountability.
I take your point, on waiting but being prepared and not pulling the trigger, is imo the way to go.
Remember the resolutions have to be, once in, then voted on by all.
Cheers Much, keep well
Rgds Sft
Genteel discussions to be continued by all.

Remember no BoD share Investment, high and continued salaries, allocation of bonuses, lost all the cash no further forward since 2012.
Compare this BoD to my director of choice Andrew Austin and the Rockrose BoD....its a truly shocking difference.
Rgds Sft

Thanks for the post Much, regarding Shell companies.
Always respected your input over the years. Your finance background has been helpful on the bb.
Although we have seen our hopes and aspirations toward the SL project continue to decline along with share price.
For me I was really hanging all my hope on HBR providing the management leadership required to get this done. I think we have all learned that RKH's have failed at every turn and every attempt to protect the companies finance's. True OM may delay our demise, but if Sam was worth his salt (and Salary) the plan B should have already been in place and therefore discussions with Navitas been continually developed and almost oven ready. Any manager / director would surely not sit back and just keep his fingers crossed?
It is impossible to remove or replace Moody from his position, especially now and especially if "friendly finance" companies have kept a significant enough stake in RKH to obviously agreed to salaries and bonuses???? Or is it the BoD only that votes on such?
I.e. does Stu and Sam need the rest of the BoD to vote or do they need ii to agree also. I mean if it's only the directors is that not a bit too "cosy"
Any musings on that would be respectfully appreciated Much.
Note: I may be being to nieve or a conspiracy theorist, but would this be the first time such a thing has happened? AND RKH is an AIM company after all.

Interesting comments from Plumstock, so if RKH ended up paying for FOGL Sam presumably have established communications and a relationship with RAB from then....and has maintained it?
Something to consider: Did RAB holdings come with FOGL, have they maintained their holdings or only now just increased it?
Remember Sam's background which is :
" He previously worked in several roles within the financial sector, including positions at AXA Equity & Law Investment Management and St Paul’s Investment Management"
Just trying to consider all angles.

Rgds Sft

Hey Nelius, With no (SM confirmed) penalties built into the farm out agreement, as I see it, they can defer indefinitely (or if FiG withdraw licence).
There is no way they are going to write PMO part of the investment and just hand it over to RKH for free.
Rgds Sft

Very informative, thank you Mogger.
It is a modern problem, what is also interesting is the warning regarding "This can create enormous difficulties when stockbrokers get into financial trouble and go into administration or liquidation – not an uncommon event in reality......"
Rgds Sft

Does any one know if there has been any update on the work going on in Guyana?
All I can find is this on the Internet from July.
"Tullow working on identifying upcoming drill targets in Guyana"
https://oilnow.gy/featured/tullow-working-on-identifying-upcoming-drill-targets-in-guyana/

I have also check the last pertinent RNS Wed, 14th Jul 2021 07:00 RNS Number : 1367F

Regards Sft

Also I feel you frustration:
Up 48% on my BP holdings and about 140% on Kistos energy BUT did not have enough cash to keep averaging down on PMO/ HBR! A touch frustrating as I had made a killing on Rock Rose but squandered that on PMO and RKH in the forlorn attempt to catch that falling averages. Expensive lessons....but learnt get out of a heavily and fragmented indebted company (PMO) and Never never invest in a poorly managed / no previous track record one (RKH) !@!£
I am hoping HBR come good but after abandoning SL and Zama in long term limbo potentially those loss of reserves has really changed the game for me now.....
Rgds Sft

Rgds Sft

Hahaaa just caught your last post: bit harsh chap.
But I am not sensitive so fill yer boots.
If you have the answer would be thrilled to hear them, but if you do not know Jack, then carry on having a cry in your beer.
Kind regards Sft

Hi Oil, as you know (not want to teach granny to suck eggs etc) it was
18% went to PMO creditors
36% EIG
33% EIG investors
8% Chryasor legacy investors
5% us lot
So that's 18% of total current 926m share (after 20:1 share consolidation).
As AndyPop has said on ADFN (I see this logic) these creditors are not in the business of share ownership they lent money on a set return and exit date. This was blown out of the water when PMO could not meet the negotiatiated debt repayment date and rather than PMO potentially fold they accepted lowered shares and cash options instead.
So they want their cash back and being stuck to share sale restriction dates 6 months and 1 year (dependent on type, I belive) these creditors ARE NOT in the business to be share holders
SO
Could employ a stratagem and company or thirty own financial department to offload appropriately, selling down to a point where its too low infringing on the value they were gifted the shares) . Now the bit the interests me is the a time line on the new buyers taking up (maybe controlled by mm's).
This is why I see it as SP lowering off, then the gradually picking (New buyers) up to a SP level when the creditors start the sell off in tranches again??????, Keep repeating process, untill fully offloaded. Possible this suits the new buyers (investment/pension holders???, as they are getting in in a better price folling the fluctuations with in a understandable range. Not sure if this is correct as I am not a professional broker.
And we have not hit the 1 year share hold restriction yet either. This is just those that had the 6 month hold restriction (I think I am right on the two compulsory hold periods, can't remember exactly).
That how I see it.
And No Fear might be more knowledgeably on the time and relevant numbers of shares held in each time period that encompass the 18%. NOTE: Made a bit more difficult to calculate as of the blxxdy surprise share rerate that HBR sprang on us!, but not the institutions (my guess).
All my opinions only.
Rgds Sft

You only have to see the trades to think the SP is performing VERY weirdly?
BUT this must be something to do with the creditors off loading their preferential stakes????
How the market is the registering a decay when the buys are "registering" as so many unless they are sell?
From LSE "fundamental" tab
No of Trades 2,782
Vol Sold 383,275
Vol Bought 742,757
Further comments anyone?
Rgds Sft

"Harbour Energy granted carbon storage licence for North Sea field...."
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/harbour-energy-granted-carbon-storage-licence-for-north-sea-field/?utm_source=offshoreenergytoday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_2021-10-15

There are meant to be 18 large working Carbon capture projects working worldwide. NONE in the UK
UK: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2021/06/work-begins-on-first-carbon-capture-plant-in-scotland/amp/

There was attempts at Peterhead and Bacton maybe over 10yrs ago but the operators pulled out due to lack of HMGOV support. Wonder if they are prepared to go it alone now with their new found love of green. Might be able to generate revenue, offset decom costs that would be quite valuable if the numbers could work long term?
Rgds Sft

I do not post this to promote another company just the management and their ability to run a business and generate return for those that invest:
2 more of Andrew Austins team that have moved across from the old "Rock Rose" company.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/KIST/appointment-of-directors-i13iveno75y8zd5.html

Up 132% from investing in a decent company and management who in a year are generating value.
Andrew Austin put in 10.5 mil of his own money.
Overview of Andrew Austin
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/amp/news/934632

Unlike our team who take exorbitant wages, do not invest with their own money, and could not pick a winner in a one horse race.

Rgds Sft

Still looking for a site that displays the real share ownership BUT importantly held by the share trading platforms such as LSE or ii
Morning Star does not reflect RKH true share ownership I.e I am with ii and with 450,000+ share and do not get a mention, as others have significantly more with these Nominee share trading / ISA holding types.
Another function that these platforms need to change....or are there sites out there that display/present the holdings of such platforms also???
Ref
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xlon/rkh/ownership

Rgds Sft

One question though: I did have a site that detailed the Nominee platform also I.e. detailed for example all the shares with "interactive investor" whis would then give an indication of % with these share buying/holding platforms.
I can not find the website I used before, do you or any other posters know such a site that gives as "morning star" displayed with regards to ownership BUT importantly also includes these types of share platforms also?
As these share platform types are very popular, they would also show what could be small investors grouped to make significant holdings?
Rgds Sft

Hi No Fear, thank you for the link am using ii as my platform and their "research" facility which is rubbish as they do use morning star BUT not now I see all of MS's system.
So thank you.
Rgds Sft

That not as bad as it could have been ie. Issues with subsea umbilical, UTAs, E/OFL, SCMs etc etc. Bad, but if its all topside then a significantly better time frame. Identifying, resupply and reinstatement would have been a very different story if it was subsea issues.
Thanks for the snippet PositiveT
Rgds Sft

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/topics/atex/
Rgds Sft

Hi Harry, if Harbour energy are the "operators" of Tolmount then they are fully responsible for getting it up and running. They (well PMO) selected a contractors and design /acceptance of all work scopes. That the normaly way these alliances are done
Not sure if there are any contractual penalties in place in that Dana are missing out on production because of PMO/HBR contractors. What I can assure you is Mrs Cook has had to answer questions to a "very unhappy" Mr or Mrs Dana (UK/Europe) and they are all checking contracts.
Rgds Sft