Petrofac Share Discussion Threads

[wigwammer] 15/3/2021 20:20

Yes. You've followed me around in various guises and mostly got things wrong, presumably why you need to keep changing your username. But thanks for making the filtering process straightforward :)

[asa8] 15/3/2021 20:20

Oak and lodge get back under your rock I thought that warranty Pfc should sue the sfo no charges have been bought against the company but the sfo and the shorter brigade have done enough damage here

[lodgeview] 15/3/2021 20:18

Anything is possible?

[lodgeview] 15/3/2021 20:17

RNS tomorrow: "Sadly due to being suspended by UAE we will shortly cease to exist. Sorry to shareholders."

[lodgeview] 15/3/2021 20:16

They may issue an RNS tomorrow to say that it's over.

[wigwammer] 15/3/2021 20:13

At least times like this make it easy to identify the total time wasters. Vigilante filtered.

[wigwammer] 15/3/2021 20:12

Pogue - rather fanciful to suggest there is no relationship between having a number of high quality bidders and getting value for money. Presumably in a country trying to move beyond bribery, the competitive tendering process becomes more important, not less. As for your point that ADNOC are just trying to move away from PFC, the RNS reads "ADNOC has stated that it recognises the long-standing nature of its relationship with Petrofac and has confirmed that its decision will be reviewed on a periodic basis". You promised to correct inaccuracies, all I read is more conjecture. ATB

[pogue] 15/3/2021 20:11

Bullet
I think ability to pay will be a factor. They are not going to make any friends in government bankrupting a UK firm that pays taxes.

[lodgeview] 15/3/2021 20:09

I think they will go bust tbh

[bullet220] 15/3/2021 19:52

Man, I think this is a seriously smart move. Ok, stock prices are down today. Might go down more, way more, on the news of this. But. If there’s talk of a fine, wouldn’t being able to say “well we’ve already lost deals cause of all this” potentially lessen a fine? And it’s going to be under regular review? Maybe just the devious woman in me, but FML I think it’s clever as hell.

[pogue] 15/3/2021 19:52

wigwammer
ADNOC's interests are to avoid being seen to associate with companies that are under suspicion of corruption. Trying to make out they are trying to force the SFO to end the case so they can bid is fanciful why would a company that has been bribed want to try and help the one that bribed them that just does not look good in any way they clearly just want to dissociate from PFC totally which is what they are doing.
Regards wanting them to bid there are many large international contractors out there just now that would bite your arm off for a $1.65 billion contract so they will have plenty of bidders at keen prices so why get involved to help a company that is currently under suspicion of bribery?

[pogue] 15/3/2021 19:34

stockready
another thing you dont know is the law.
If an employee is found guilty of bribery then his company is guilty unless they show they had mitigation in place i.e. training. Without the training PFC would be guilty hence your comment they may be forced to get one is clearly showing you dont know anything about the case against PFC, me having to spell this out just proves it.
What restrictions are you talking about by the way? The only thing PFC are waiting for is Lufkin to be finally convicted of all charges and sentenced so that then the charges are all out there for them to disprove as long as he is admitting to more as the SFO find them the end date is delayed.
By the way you will obviously be glad to hear I am not working at PFC I left them years ago.
Please go analyse a company you have knowledge of.

Warranty
not sure when he will be in court, for some reason I thought it was in the summer but cant find the reference. Regards the SFO dragging it out I think its just that they have only got the evidence pinned on Lufkin on the ADNOC contracts, I could be wrong but believing they are not very competent is a more plausible thing than believing they are dragging the case out.

[warranty] 15/3/2021 19:30

The problem for me is that none of the charges are actually against PFC itself, or the current management, yet it is the company and by association the shareholders, that are suffering all the penalties. Had they been against PFC, the company could potentially have refuted the charges or settled out of court but they are unable to do this as no charges have been made. Clearly although all current charges are against Lufkin, they may by association be damaging PFC’s reputation because they have been ruled out of tendering both in Iraq and now UAE, despite the company insisting they have been scrupulously honest in their dealings. Isn’t it about time that PFC management insisted that the SFO either put up or shut up if they have any evidence of PFC wrongdoing? If they have no hard evidence then surely PFC should sue the SFO for damages to elicit a conclusion. The delays are obviously killing the company and affecting customers as the UAE decision confirms.

[clitheroekid] 15/3/2021 19:29

"I think this could hit 10p. Hope I'm wrong."

I think this could hit £10. Hope I'm right.

Makes about as much sense.

[wigwammer] 15/3/2021 19:15

Pogue - you start your post by promising to end lots of inaccuracies and then it sort of fizzles out. So PFC need to demonstrate they are squeaky clean and get past the SFO investigation, and then they will pick up business again. How does that conflict with twixy stating that it is in ADNOC's interest to have PFC in the tendering process? It is in everyone's interest - PFC's, SFO's, ADNOC's - to get PFC back on its feet again, which is probably why it will happen.

[leoneobull] 15/3/2021 18:43

First paragraph looks like disaster...But then second and third paragraph suggest this is unlikely to be permanent...indeed two major contracts will continue....Petrofac will continue to execute two EPC projects for ADNOC currently under construction. ADNOC has stated that it recognises the long-standing nature of its relationship with Petrofac and has confirmed that its decision will be reviewed on a periodic basis.Petrofac is committed to operating at the highest standards of ethical business practice. No charges have been brought against any Petrofac Group company or any current officer or employee.

[stockready] 15/3/2021 18:34

Pogue

Wow good we have some expert here to educate us otherwise what would we have done!!

My suggestion of bribery training is from seeing it happen with with many companies which are being investigated, i don't work for PFC to know if this was already happening or had happened, so this doesn't make my comment inaccurate fundamentally speaking, just shows the lack of your inside of how things work.

To me your post actually made me laugh to my stomach by realising you don't have a clue and if you are working for PFC then that is even worse

Yes two months is not uncommon at all and i will not be surprised if this will be restrictions be removed in that time period or less

Remember,i have no position here, not invested and nor intending to invest unless they are clear of all charges and with no further action pending against them.

So i suggest you start laughing at your post first as i truly find it entertaining and proved to me you have no clue mate.

GL

[warranty] 15/3/2021 18:33

Pogue, do we have any idea when Lufkin is to appear in court regarding these charges? It seems to be dragging on despite the fact that he’s already admitted his guilt. As you say, PFC can’t move on until this is done so I’m not sure why the SFO are holding this up for so long. Surely they must be aware of the damage it’s doing to PFC and I can’t believe that they don’t care about that damage, so what will make them try to bring this to a conclusion. Four years may not be uncommon but surely it is excessive?