Sure, I'm biased. But so are you, just in favour of RMP.Nothing...

Sure, I'm biased. But so are you, just in favour of RMP.

Nothing I've posted can be said to be false. Of course if the drilling this year isn't successful, RRL will be going back down (and RMP will be gone or heavily diluted).

The difference is, of course, that with RRL's cashflow and other projects, we'll be able to return for another crack at Georgia (and Puntland) if the early wells don't go to plan. Therefore, long term, RRL is a safer bet as we can drill as many wells as cash flow allows. RMP can only take part in 3 wells before the cash is gone and they need more.

In order for RMP to gain similar levels of cash to Range you'd need to be raising $50m, not $15m (including the exercise of options which will obviously happen by the years end). Big, big difference. That would more than double current shares in issue, meaning you'd actually have a leverage of 2.5x Range in Georgia. All of a sudden the numbers look a bit shaky. There's 5x the leverage in Puntland, but you're giving up the offshore potential as a tradeoff. Is 2.5x the leverage in one project and 5x in another worth the giving up of the NCR and Trinidad, plus the offshore potential?

I'd say it's not, but you're entitled to your view.

But this is largely irrelevant because we don't know what will happen yet. If Greg Bandy decides not to raise capital pre-results, then you've effectively got a play on 3 drills. If he raises a decent amount of capital for future drilling, then the risk is reduced as RMP can afford a couple of failures then, but that comes at the cost of leverage which was the whole point of transferring to RMP anyway.

As for 'if you believe in failure then you should be out of both'- any sensible investor looks at downside as well as upside and the potential for recovery is setbacks are hit. I hope we strike in Georgia in our initial 2 well programme and we hit the motherload in Puntland as well- we all do. But it's a fact of life in exploration that setbacks can and do happen. Which company would find it easier to recover from a setback as things currently stand? It's common knowledge that you learn more about the area you're drilling after you've sunk a few holes. We know that there's oil and gas down there somewhere- we've got reports of it seeping out on the surface. But if it takes more than 2 shots to find it then RMP will be out of luck- whereas all it will mean for RRL is investors will have a longer wait rather than facing huge dilution.

I'm more conservative so I'll be sticking with RRL's long term fully funded continuous drilling programme, over RMP's 2 well drill and hope campaign. True, I won't get as much reward if the early wells hit- though it'll still be a sizable amount, and it suits my risk appetite better.

Good luck to all however. For the sake of all investors I'm sure we all hope the first couple of wells hit- and they've got high CoS because of the helium survey, so there's no reason not to be optimistic. I'd rather have a lower risk stock with 3 bagger potential than a higher risk one with 10 bagger potential though. Your milage may vary.