Member Info for YingTong

Royscot, What makes you think they were actually sells - other than the fact they were reported as such on this platform. The fact is one actually has no idea. There is no indication in the lse feed. Anything close to midprice can very easily be either way. Any stream saying "buy" or "sell" is simply guessing.

It is unlikely to be a bed and isa at that price differential. But is simply a rollover. Somebody sold at .83 and used the funds to rebuy slightly less than they had. I personally used to roll in the same way rather than stumping up the difference in cash.

Dunnock, I do recall a paper you wrote looking at costs and benefits of buoy/sift at variable prices. The costs you mention are somewhat sobering and need consideration. Qith project costs of 1280 a traditional development on a non developed field doesnt work. With the reduced sift costs at 480 then 280 it is very marginal, though certainty of 2 fields would be plausible but pretty high risk to cost. So, it seems that any new greenfield type development would have to have significant higher projected recoverables to be viable. The remaining usability must therefore lie in the redevelopment of existing fields in order to be viable. With TM for example, the projected spend is approx 80m in order to extract the additional 5m or so that GCA anticipate. Of course a small return on a big number can become very attractive.

I don't there is much pount in worrying about what percentage of a field interest may be retained by MFDevCo. It is immaterial. What matters is what is left over after costs have been borne. What the costs actually are is important of course since that governs the overall retention (i.e. profit). The only difference to a contractor between a revenue share (i.e. equity) and a services payment to a contractor is the level of risk they are taking (well the entire risk profile of course). Both are comparatively risky and tje overall agreements will reflect the profile. As will the prices. In any event service payments are still predicated on project success and revenue production. That risk is factored into price in some way. We do know that, at least in principle, that service providers will not be receiving equity stake. However we dont know whether they will be paid based on output (which would be very similar) or based specifically on some of direct valuation (ie a cost plus model) of the services provided. The indications are it is the latter. It is also stated that payment will feferred until their is afequate revenue. This will make for an interesting set of covenants. The risk of failure has to be priced in of course. Thus that may impact costs. If you sell bikes for a living then you might want to sell them for a bit more if you agree to wait until they have sold it on for a profit. If you assess a 10% chance of failure for the customer thats 10% on the price. Ultimately of course the published intent of structure is a few years old. The actual deals could take a different shape from that expected. But actual percentage ownership is vanity. Net profit is sanity.

In terms of the going concern statement they will need to do a reasonable amount to satisfy the auditors. More than "we will do a placing". They will need to show projections of where they will be with expenditure, ditto revenue. If they are reliant upon a deal for those projections they will need to demonstrate to the auditors that it is likely to be completed. It doesnt make anything a certainty, but the auditors do have a potential liability if they cannot ultimately justify to the ASB that they did adequate diligence for the qualification made. I expect it will simply say the same as the last one.

Barry, NUOG did NOT say they had been in any discussion with Shoal Point. The keyword in the sentence was "intends".

The annual report will not be delayed. It and the accounts must be filed by 31st December (though in practice the sanction for failure is akin to a slap with a get fish) Of course it is possible, but extremely unlikely, the chairmans statement does not include any form of operations update.

There are plentry of folk who are im jobs with a title of "director" that are not board members. I think the new hire of MfDevCo has a job title of CEO - Brazil. A descriptive title, no imication of board membership.

There was a collaboration agreement in place. https://www.investegate.co.uk/enegi-oil-plc--nuog-/rns/marginal-field-initiative-update/201504140700080760K/

Royscot, Your deadline is actually wrong. Whilst they have typically updated before Christmas they dont actually have to. The accounts are required to be filed at companies house - by midnight - on the 31st December (irrespective of whether it is a weekend or a working day). Notification to market is expected to be as soon as practicable thereafter. This is generally next working day, or the 2nd January in this case.

SBP, It is apparent from the Dommo accounts that they have 40m in cash plus 8m in oil stock and 15m in Eneva shares held for sale (not sure how that is affected by the reorganisation. Production has dropped off a bit - anticipated in the gca report accompanying the new charter. That also asserts the redevelopment is to be completed mid next year. Dommo are committed to undertaking the redevelopment and the accounts do mention a figure of approx 60m additional free cash flow beyond investment anticipated by 2024. It seems to me that Dommo are able to make their incoming payments (one now one next autumn) however they will need partners to undertake the redevelopment. It also seems likely that the covenants in the new charter agreement will mandate the development happening in order to ensure they can be met, especially when you consider that falling revenues impact osx in their totality before impacting osx at all. With the scheduled ramp up of production mid next year and the fact that partners seem required then any deal in order to progress that must be very well advanced.

SBP, that was one of the options in the revies about a year or so ago. Given they are now expecting to spend 80m over a slightly different timeframe it seems things have changed. It will become clear in time, I personally think they will struggle to raise funds in the market dues to the very limited collateral they can offer and will need to come to an arrangement with relevant service providers.

Harry, I think there must be a lot more to the agreement than is currently public. If you consider the tiered nature of the new charter OSX largely benefit from increased production rather rhan Dommo. Also to make 80m for Dommo in the next 6 months it will need after royalty:- 29.25 (dp) 23.6 (cp) 50.75 (vcp dommo) 203 (vcp osx). Total approx 300m. That would not really be feasible. This tells me a number of things:- - I might have completely fouled up my sums. - Dommo will need to partner with somebody to finance it since they do not appear able to generate the cash - if their cash balance Q3 is around 50m (and there is a good chance of that I feel) then the required post royalty revenue would drop to 50m. That would be tight but maybe achievable when accounting for the stock build Q2 (ie they can sell quite a lot more than they produce Q3). - since production increase largely seems to benefit osx there must be more to the charter agreement than is in the public domain. I imagine it is full of covenants. - Any deal with a new partner is likely to be based on some revenue share of enhanced production The Q3 statements might add a little clarity. In effect the new charter agreement merely states the "what". The "how" may get released soon.

SBP, where has dommo said it is going to fund it through the markets ? In any even what they have previously said is not necessarily relevant given the change in charter terms. In the text of the charter agreement they suggest up to 80m from current cash (which will be much depleted as a result of the 50m) and future revenue (which looks unlikely to have arrived by the time the report in thw charter soecifies peak production - mid next year). It seems clear that Dommo arw going to need "some help" in achieving that. There is, no doubt, quite a lot more detail in the full unpublished charter agreement. It doesn't rule out MfDevCo involvement.

Harry, I think we may well be looking at the same facility. Certainly any facility will need at a minimum topsides work. I am certainly not of the view that it can just be deployed and start producing.

SBP, Typo 240 not 140. The actual wording as published can be found here:- https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.stamdata.no/documents/NO0010640824_SB_20170201.PDF&ved=2ahUKEwiP9cnHxNTeAhWKB8AKHXj-DrIQFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2POSs9ezfyD9gb1KCJJFtv However that isnt the contract. I guess we fant be sure of the exact redelivery terms. However, I think my point still stands. That was that there is no indication of notice having been given.

There is a poor return to bondholders. However it it was being redeployed notice of recall would be required. That is 140 days and would need announcing by Dommo. It may he true that it does happen, but not that it is. Personally my belief is that it will happen and be replaced by the currently unknown Chines facility (at least I believe that is the overall shape of any deal). But it will be some time before rhat can actually happen.

Harry, My understanding at the moment is:- The first 96m of revenue goes to Dommo. The balance is split approx 1/3 each to: Dommo Escrow for decomm Osx3 leasing for rent (and their potential returns to bondholders. There are 2 other rhings that are relevant. - osx3 can demand their platform back - osx3 also have a 1$ call option to gain the field - this option is assignable but must be exercised in 5 days if assigned Thus it is necessary to balance different interests in any deal. Certainly it seems plausible for osx3 to change hands and get a good chunk of production revenue. It will be a complex deal to get done.

Ref 8. The 1360 was only for a few hours. Extrapolating it is very risky. The 200 odd is perhaps pessimistic. I recall it was 310 over a number of days in a previous test. What it will eventually produce is anybodys guess. But the history may provide a useful guide.

PL2002 is indeed the only onshore production licence. In effect as long as it is being persued the area persued is extended every 5 years. It doesnt mean that someone can just rock up do what they want and sell it to market. It still needs approval of course.