Rockhopper Exploration Share Discussion Threads

[gozzie2] 09/12/2020 16:43

Its mainly based on over 90 percent of the boards contributors are on one side of the political argument.

[gozzie2] 09/12/2020 16:41

Lol Ovets he's so clever he's got involved in this rubbish. Godders is correct and he may be throwing good money after bad .I find the same arguments on a number of boards, and if they are wrong some people are going to lose an awful amount of money .Thats the stockmarket I suppose its opinions .

[gozzie2] 09/12/2020 16:07

That may be true but Govt can't keep saying they are not funding fossil fuels and carrying on with it .It will stop sometime.

[gozzie2] 09/12/2020 15:48

Tbh nothing seems very clear on either side .The words said from govt say that ukef funding will stop from next year, thats why I wanted things to move on quickly and with someone that wasn't reliant on the loan .We may not get one .You see ive had arguments on boards where people said ukef funding was a certainty and I disagreed .hTTps://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/fossil-fuels-uk-statistics-facts-divestment-eca-carbon-neutral-regulation

[crackcock12] 09/12/2020 15:31

yes - takeout is the only exit that shareholders must consider.

news soon ombrina mare sanction fid etcetera is bullsh*t

so how fast will a takeout play out?
50p is a v fair ask price.
but
don't they only need 20% as a first step to become person of significant control?
Knowing RAB Capital owns their (4%) 19mm block at a cost mere 5p-6p?

[chinahere] 09/12/2020 15:25

Absolutely right - where is the clarity?

It doesn't sound like UKEF will support any brand-new fossil fuel contracts so where do we stand!?

[gozzie2] 09/12/2020 14:56

This was from the FIG earlier in the year .Brexit: the UK Government has asserted that there will be no extension of the transition period beyond the end of the year. It remains unclear whether a free trade agreement with the EU can be negotiated successfully by then. The UK has, on FIG's behalf, been pressing hard for tariff-free trade in loligo squid, which remain the largest export from the Falkland Islands to the EU market (primarily through the Spanish port of Vigo). The fisheries sector amounts to some 40% of FI economic output and generates a third of Government revenue. The imposition of tariffs in the fisheries sector could have a significant negative impact on FIG revenues. Equally, it would damage Vigo's economy. There are also uncertainties about FI access to EU environmental and other funds. Separately, Argentina has been pressing its sovereignty case with EU member states in the hope that after Brexit, the EU will no longer maintain its treaty position recognising UK sovereignty over its Overseas Territories.Oil: plans for the commercial exploitation of the oil/gas discoveries around the Falkland Islands were were being steadily progressed, particularly for the Sea Lion field. All the necessary technical planning for the first phase of the Sea Lion development had been done, including the environmental and socio-economic impact surveys. The projection was for 250m barrels using a floating production, storage and off-loading platform (FPSO) with a second phase expected to yield 520m barrels of oil. Premier Oil and Rockhopper, which own 60% and 40% of the rights were in negotiation with Navitas to buy into the project on a 40%-30%-30% basis. Things were looking good. But the international drop in oil prices forced Premier Oil to shelve the $1.8bn project pending a bounce-back in oil prices. The production of oil would have been a significant boost to the Islands' economy and Government revenues; as it is, the Islands have benefited substantially from the income derived from the exploration phase of the hydrocarbon sector – and FIG has not based any expenditure plans on the expectation of oil development.

[gozzie2] 09/12/2020 14:40

It did say that it it had to be reapplied for as there was fundamental changes to the business. With this new merger there must be fundamental changes again ,so I'm not sure .Rockhopper have never actually mentioned it as far as I'm aware, that was told by premier .It was a reason I think Rockhoppers communication is pathetic .

[chinahere] 09/12/2020 14:23

Thanks Gozzie. The Boris interview has him talking about UKEF withdrawing funding for fossil fuels:

"in the case of legitimate contracts at risk of being frustrated - we can't do that."

Have we a legitimate contract? I hope so.

[gozzie2] 09/12/2020 14:02

Thats easier hTTps://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1336658563968749568?s=09

[gozzie2] 09/12/2020 13:55

Pmqs today 24 mins in Boris is asked about Ukef and she says there are 6 fossil fuel projects under consideration. He doesn't give a straight answer so nothing new there then lol .hTTps://youtu.be/qAgkiXHz-VI

[crackcock12] 09/12/2020 12:40

Sea Lion embedded in Premier OldCo is a great bargain price for the asset.
NewCo's Willingness to develop at $65 oil is Not supported by Chrysaor's most recent 2017 Shell business decision.

ie Accumulate cheap appraised Sea Lion asset and Hold. Do nothing at $65 oil. No FID, no sanction.

[chinahere] 09/12/2020 12:03

I don't know much about the 2017 deal but yes I can imagine they haven't done anything with the development of appraised assets or any exploration. But that was a business decision in very low oil prices. We can't be sure that they won't see value in Sea Lion at some stage. (I'm as sceptical as most).

[crackcock12] 09/12/2020 11:38

hxxps://www.chrysaor.com/downloads/news/Chrysaor%20Completion%20Release%2031.10.2017%20FINAL.PDF

01 Nov 2017 $60+ Brent. Chrysaor Buys Shell assets.
Use of capital -> Acquisition of Operated/Non-Operated assets, not in Development of appraised, not in Exploration of new.

When Brent heads back to $60+ again (Citi said next year?) Chrysaor will repeat those same trades ... buying from Majors in the North Sea.


#### FORGET SEA LION GETTING SANCTIONED / FID by Premier NewCo ###

[crackcock12] 09/12/2020 11:28

1. Cost of Equity Capital, Therefore....

[chinahere] 09/12/2020 11:18

1. Is wrong. From the takeover presentation:

"
Significantly lower cost of debt
▪ Current Premier average cost of debt ~7.9%
▪ Combined Company average cost of debt ~3.5%
"

hxxps://www.chrysaor.com/downloads/Chrysaor-Premier%20Transaction%20-%20Investor%20Presentation.pdf

[crackcock12] 09/12/2020 11:07

1. Premier NewCo will have a HIGHER weighted average cost of capital versus Premier OldCo,
2. Chrysaor (PE money) will have a HIGHER REQUIRED PROJECT RETURN target.
3. Throw in Poorly negotiated super pricey LoI vendor contracts (ex Catcher).
4. Money may be plenty with Chrysaor, but at a higher cost of capital.

### THEY WILL NOT START THE PROJECT EVEN AT $65 OIL. ###

[gozzie2] 08/12/2020 21:35

Godders wants 1 percent of the company .I'm not sure i would lol .

[gozzie2] 08/12/2020 19:54

I agree with Ovets last post on Lse .We are in agreement at last lol .