http://www.falklands-oil.com/

http://www.rockhopperexploration.co.uk

http://www.argosresources.com/




Rockhopper was established in 2004 with a strategy to invest in and undertake an offshore oil exploration programme in the North Falkland Basin. It was floated on AIM in August 2005. Rockhopper was the first company to make a commercial oil discovery in the Falklands. Today Rockhopper is the largest acreage holder in the North Falkland Basin, with interests in the Greater Mediterranean region.

Proselenes,

You say, 'Its now dilution, by either raising funds or farming out'.

I can never understand the sense of anyone looking at so called dilution in the way you do.
Dilution for no monetary value, IE an addition of shares in issue which bring no benefit of cash or equity by way of shared benefit is usually of no benefit to the company, unless its by way of a share issue in place of other monetary reward such as in place of remuneration.
Any issue of further shares in Rockhoppers case will be for reasons to benefit the company and therefore the shareholders.
You have to consider what any fund raising or farm out will bring to the value of Rockhopper.
If it will bring a benefit, then that is all that matters.
If the value of the company stays either on par to pre issue, or such issue increases the net company value, then no dilution has taken place because although the number of shares in issue increases, so would the net value of the company.
If on the other hand the whole becomes less pro rata, then I agree the value of the company would be diluted.
I very rarely answer your posts, because although you don't post with either malice or disrespect (not that I have seen), I do often find it difficult to take most of your posts seriously. Example from your last post...........why should a funding/farm out issue not bring value to Rockhopper?

Regards Greek.

greek, it does bring value...... not arguing there. My point is that the brokers target prices are presently ignoring this dilution.

So whilst it brings value, it will as I said bring price targets tumbling down.

Proseleness,

I stand by my last post.
If a company tie-up or a fund raising brings value then there is no dilution (of value).
What will always value a share, in the long term is the net value of the company, so I still can't see why this should bring the sp down.
By your argument, any tie-up of companies or/and issue of additional equity would be a cause for a companies sp to loose value.
The main reason the sp is playing the up/down game at the moment is the still very small risk that things are not quite as good as they appear, but mainly down to those who day trade and of course the lack of confidence in the markets as a whole.
As we could go round in circles re this, I feel we will have to agree to disagree.

Greek.

i stand with you greek ..... if RKH bring in another, or just a huge slab of cash/shares, that is only to enhance and realise the oil that is already known to be in place ..... thus the dilution is beneficial unlike when a company has to be bailed out

Cheers Cynic.

Good reply Greek.

first oil in 2016 at the earliest that is the problem with the sp

Unless there is a bid in the mean time

Due to the Argentinian problem, small though it may be, it cant be ignored, I would love to see Rockhopper either sell the oil already discovered in ground, or tie in with an influential partner with plenty of clout.

Exxon Mobil would be a great tie in, as it would bring the USA into any equation over territorial rights, or how about the Chinese oil companies.
The Chinese National Offshore Oil Corp, Petrochina ADR, Sinopec ADR, CNOOC ADR or Sinochem.
Sinochem already has a huge interest in the Brazilian fields of Repsol.
Just imagine Argentina trying their fun and games with China.
A hardly diplomatic Bu**er off would quickly follow.

In the past I have mentioned the threat of Argentina to our investment in the Falklands and been shot down with constant comments of scare mongering and de-ramping.
Whilst I still feel that these threats will come to little more than trumpet blowing, it will be fact that the more successful Rockhopper are, the more the chances of the sabre rattling will turn to possible action.

Many recent wars have been and are being fought over oil. I would not like to see a repeat in the Falklands for many reasons.

To bury our heads in the sand, hopping the threat will go away is courting disaster.

Saying that, I can see the worse scenario being a deal (bribe) to Argentine of a percentage of the tax profits. That with the opening of Argentinian waters would make life easier for all. Not an outcome I wish for, but it may be the deal the UK end up going for.

greek have a lie down with a christmas drink...chill..

Hi Halifax,

I am quite chilled, I usually am if I can't effect events.
It just annoys me sometimes when people just can't see, or do not wish to see a problem just because they don't like anything that may adversely effect an investment.
As to drinking, I have a very low tolerance to alcohol, so its probably better if I do lie down before drinking.

Cheers anyway.

Greek.

Greek,
I hope we never get to see your worse scenario as the Falklands do not belong to Argentinia in any way.

The Argies are going on like a bully, every bully gets his come ups.

Markymar,

I am as annoyed as most re the Argies attitude to the Falklands and I agree 100% that the Argies have no right to the Falklands, but that won't stop them trying.

greekman

It is unlikely in my opinion Argentina have the capability or the inclination to mount a military offensive to regain the Falkland Islands.

i concur that there is little or no chance at all of actual conflict, though there may some sort of trade deal brokered to give argentina a slice of something FI-related

Now I agree with that. Which is why the big boys will, IMO, wait until BOR and FOGL have finished drilling before deciding to get involved or not.

Do you want to upset the whole of South America for 400 million barrels ?

Or you wait and see, and then perhaps upset them by getting involved for 4 billion barrels, for which the profits are vast and nobody will care about the upset caused.

This is why the key for the future is whether BOR/FOGL strike oil. If they do, in the big sizes - then development is not only safe but majors will start getting involved.


greekman - 21 Dec 2011 15:54 - 5611 of 5617
Due to the Argentinian problem, small though it may be, it cant be ignored..

i think you're grasping at straws re FOGL and BOR ...... if RKH really have found good and commercial quantities of oil, then sooner or later they will be bought out, though i accept the premium is likely to be greater if other decent fields are found in the area

Chile helped us during the Falkland's war , is it to far for our ship's to dock in ?

Any concession to Argentina will be seen as a relaxation of the British position on the FIs - which is one of self-determination.

Unlke Brazil Argentina is virtually bankrupt and has neither the capability for armed conflict nor the financial reserves. Chile is still a thorn in her side and, despite Britain's best efforts to alienate the country (Pinochet?), remains an ally.

Not sure why we want to dock ships in Chile Aldwickk. Mare harbour is fine for support vessels, large ships can use Stanley and Berkely Sound has been surveyed for just such work. It can take rigs etc but lacks the on-shore facilities at present.

Argentina will continue to rattle sabres and attempt to gain sway amongst neighbours but IMHO that will be all.

Let's face it - IF ( and it is a big 'if') a global producer decides to buy in, their immense clout will ensure that things happen quickly.

I see Discussion continued regarding potential Port locations........ Members agreed that three sites only should be considered for further investigation - Navy Point (Port William), FIPASS and Mare Harbour.