Member Info for YingTong

There was some chat about that last week. It appears credible that Shoal Point are investigating. It is only of peripheral interest, if it were to lead to an SDL quicker then that is sooner that NUOG can actually apply for permits to do something on 1070 deep.

I don't really think there was a 3 month window either TBH. It seems to me that there are 2 threads of discussions going on in parallel. One related to project acquisition and one finance. I imagine the SPV won't be announced until then. They don't seem to be looking for "seed" capital. I.e. "we have SPV and x quid, lets go do this thing". They do seem to be looking for project capital. I.e. "we have this spv with x quid, lets go do this specifc thing that finance was agreed on".

Sharelock, Surely under those circumstances IFRIC1 would require a full review of the future decommissioning in order to restate the liability. I assume the delay in decomm will also delay the reclamation of the various taxes since they are surely triggered by the actual expenditure. This introduces a time based uncertainty (but I understand the OGA has a guarentee system in place that can be used). There was a recent deal (a BP one I think) where the decommissioning costs were retained, i.e. the operatorship only of the fields only was sold on. I think this demonstrates that both sellers and buyers can be flexible, and also that the OGA recognises it needs to be flexible too. Ultimately the deals will happen and the OGA will protect the publc purse from the decomm costs.

There isan issue with the delay to decom costs by an owner. Certainly it will stip an operator having to spend actual money. The time value could, indeed will, be significant. However it won't necessarily provided any balance sheet improvements which may reduce the value a little. This is because the assignor is going to have to carry a contingent liability until such point as the assignee actually pays them. This is because the liabilities will revert should the assignee default. If effect decomm liabilities have joint and several liabilities. Arguably this actually produces a minor disincentive.

WOBWAT, My point really was "know your partner". I wasn't dismissing them as having no credibility. What seems likely (to me anyway) is that any role played by them will be as a facilitator not as a principal.

So you infer that they were awarded the cable contract after surveys. In any event AIUI the north sea cable is bi-directional and will provide infrastructure for NNS generation projects further enhancing development possibilities.

Do you know if they are referring to north sea link or north connect ? Or is it a different connector ? I think cable laying on both the above projects was due to start this year.

Royscot, A look around the two principals doesn't seem to lead very far. The address seems to be a bit of rented office space in a law office. Absolutely nothing says "substance".

And their completed transactions?

I wonder if it worth asking oneself the question: Just who are Royal Eagle and what have they done ?

Whether or not it is significant, who know. But, somewhat specutatively, it is of interest that:- Offshore wind east anglia is quite big Siemens are equipping a fair chunk of that There is an amount of gas fields that are a bit orphaned with the closure of the receiving facility There are some fields being decommed there as well Some of those platforms may provide infratructure staging for the wind development Wind mandates electric delivery to shore with a lot of spare capacity Could add up to opportunity given the mention of southern north sea.

not_Sure: It is probably not really relevant but gas to wire was mentioned in the original admission document. There was a plan to use GTW on the GHS gas. It is something they have always had some interest in.

Mcadder, you may be right. However I disagree (and more importantly so do the CNLOPB). SHP wanted to reenter 2k39 to persue that conventionally for the SDL. The board refused, and their refusal is on the SHP website. In my view the legal argument put forward is sound based on the atlantic accord act as I read it. It could, relatively cheaply, been taken to judicial review to decide the matter. I appreciate the GL view was he could persue a different conventional target from a different historical well. I think the boards refusal to SHP to do just that put paid to that idea. But, where there is some limited hope is whether a different target could be persued. I think the act does allow that. This means that, in theory at least, a deep target could be drilled from 3k39. Of course the chance of this actually being practical is very slim. Of course should fracking be allowed that is a positive thing. It allows SHP to further things (arguably compels them to in the mid term under the diligent persuit clause). I see no way under the act of nuog being able to work which leads to an independent SDL.

mcadder, If the fracking ban is lifted that does indeed allow SHP to be theoretically able to re enter 3k39. They did have some funding in place to do that. What it doesn't do is allow nuog to do anything. This cannot happen unless and until an SDL is granted.

LT, lyates is under 3% now (due to dilution). He isn't required to notify (i tecall he stated recently he still held the 30 odd million though).

SBP, I would assume the placing price was the best they could get. I guess the argument you are making is they really wanted 500k. Ultimately that is unknowable. It seems unlikely they would settle for 250k and hope they got the rest through the OO.

Royscot, I think you are quite right. The guarenteed money from a placing is approx 90% (allow usual fees). From an OO non underwritten (which this isn't) then the guarantee is zero. Thus if they wanted/needed 500k that is what they would have placed.

That 'article' hasn't involved a human being at any point. It is computer generated from calculating various technical indicators and applying some standard algorithms to it. Bit like britidh bulls and barchart.com etc. Or come to that the TA provided on the London stock exchange. Personally I would be very wary of using any indicators that use volume in their derivation on a very low volume stock. Especially when a lot of the volume comes from rollovers of one form or another. It does look to have stabilised and this stability in time does suggest a bottom and decent support. Plus it has closed a fairly long standing gap.

Ken, you're welcome. It is obviously important to also consider other views. There are valid points made. I have also been rereading the Faroe decomm report and the OGA paper on GTW. Tie that in with the windfarm plan and there could still be a role for the platform going forwards.

Sharelock, that is all true. I was largely referring to production revenue as some way away. Certainly it seems that the structures being put in place via the SPV should allow some potential cash flow on signing any deal. MfDevCo are doing legwork for the downstream service providers. Payment for this in some way should it occur, be it via commissions or coverage of the design work cost or any one of a number of ways. If they achieve that it adds shareholder value in two significant ways. Firstly that the market should take the view that things move from concept to implementation and can asess forward value with a hogher degree of certainty. Secondly that the initial monetisation of design work reduces the need (possibly to nil) for equity finance. I