Email Facebook Twitter

UPDATE: #COPL set timeline for Q2/Q3 Nigeria drilling programme
RESULTS: IFA led wealth managers AFH Financial results show strong growth

Member Info for dickupham

Send a private message to dickupham

Member Since: Sun, 30th Mar 2014

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 476
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 121

Last Posted: Fri 13:44

Post Distribution over the last 30 days

Fri 13:44

.....please stop telling lies. You say I asked for a post I'd made to be taken down. I didn't - why would I as I haven't changed my position one iota at any point since. What I wrote is correct.

You claim I stated:
" Quote” nobody gives a loan to an exploration company

That isn't what I said. I said that no bank or individual would lend money to a company to fund the drilling of exploration wells. It was and is implicit that were adequate security to be offered to a bank (or individual) the situation might be different. But as CLNR has no such security to offer, it would not be offered loans to enable it to meet its share of drilling exploration wells.

Anyone who writes (as you do): "I should of known after his first reply that he was never going to admit he was wrong!
Cluff bring this baby home to Papa!" is highly unlikely to be able to offer much of an insight into anything, such is the lack of education manifest in such drivel. The last time I checked "of" was not a verb and as for: "Cluff bring this baby home to Papa!"................pitiful doesn't even begin to describe it.

What you are trying to force me to accept (as a qualified professional) is akin to me telling you (as a builder) that in order to build a house you first need to lay foundations that are made of a mixture of flour and water .

Despite the longer term uncertainties about cash, reaching a farm out agreement with Shell was a pivotal moment in CLNR's history to date. A platform was built from which the only direction the Company should now travel is forwards. I have every confidence in CLNR's Board to make whatever decisions are best for shareholders and for themselves.

That one big holder of shares (possibly bought in a placing within the last 12 months at either 1.6p or 2.1p) has chosen to exit as soon as a worthwhile profit was available - and that a lot of short term traders have similarly jumped ship either in fear of losing a profit or because they think something is amiss, is of no real consequence. I am only interested in long term value, not short term price. Value and price are presently at odds - so what? Fundamentals always win in the end.

CLNR is under no immediate pressure to raise funds. A lot could happen before it even gets close to being.

Please don't come back with yet more insults, scooby. That you don't understand isn't down to me.

Fri 08:53

Thank you, pastorius - indeed I do. Possibly more than most.

It is not the case that loans would be available to CLNR if it came to funding its share of the development wells Shell might drill in 2021, or whenever. In small cap explorers with no security to offer, exploration costs are met out of equity.

Maybe Algy will lob in £15m (:-) on the proviso that if the wells are dusters (or even if they're not, because they won't be generating any revenue for a few years yet) the company will issue to him however many new shares his £15m would have bought at the time he made the loan. Not sure his wife and kids would be that happy though...............

That said, I defer to scooby's greater knowledge - he owns his own company :-)

None of the above is intended to be negative. It's just important to understand what the options are for the company you've invested in. With Algy in his very late 70s, two others on the board who might struggle without his guidance if he decided to direct his remaining energy elsewhere and CLNR a long way from generating cash, if I were Algy I would be asking myself: "what would be the best route to take to get shareholders and CLNR's people the best outcome".

"A friendly take-over by a mid-cap with funds available to pay a fair price" would probably be the answer.

Whose radar might CLNR be on? makes for interesting thought.....................

I'm just speculating, but of the options available and given current circumstances (not forgetting Shell are on board!) it seems like a runner to me. Everything else looks too dilutive.

Thu 22:59

You're making an idiot of yourself, scooby. I haven't asked for anything I've written to be removed, although I did note that one or more of my posts were removed earlier in the week too. Looks like the BB gestapo are onto me. Oh no! In one of them I stated what I did for a living but was told by some I shouldn't have. It wasn't building. I have a very fulfilling life as it happens - I have no idea why you would assume otherwise.

Banks don't lend to fund exploration costs. Nor do individuals. Maybe there are one or two insane individuals who do - it takes all sorts. I'm only talking: 'normal'. Most people I know seem to think I'm pretty normal - how about you?

You say Cross does (or did) lend unsecured money to PMG but I'll say it again: the 2011 article you linked clearly states his £8m loan was to fund acquisitions - not exploration wells. The relevance is that someone on here earlier (was it you?) stated that CLNR would be able to borrow to fund its share of the exploration wells on P2252 and P2437 if/when they're drilled. CLNR doesn't have anything to offer as security, so equity funds would have to be raised were CLNR to 'take it all the way'. My hunch is that the Company will be acquired before it has to. Raising themoney via

If the company had 'certified' reserves it might be able to borrow under RBL arrangements, but CLNR doesn't have any, nor will it have for some years to come - if it decides to carry on on its own. I believe it is relevant that Algy is now in his late 70s and no-one carries on forever. Succession is a relevant issue.

You're free to have any views you like, scooby, but please don't try to influence others with your flawed understanding of situations that are beyond you, because this could cause them financial harm if they take any notice. Most people on here will recognise that banks (and individuals) don't lend millions to fund high-risk ventures. Banks make their returns on interest - they don't benefit from discoveries (in the context of oil and gas cos). If they fail to recover one loan, they have to make about 30 more loans just to make good the shortfall.

The kind of banks (and individuals) who lend money to oilcos to fund exploration wells are the same ones that lend money to finance casino visits and build catholic churches in Iran.

What's AUPEC by the way? You've lost me.
Thu 20:07

"Dickupham who chose your name for you?"

My parents. I was lucky to be named 'dick' - I have two older brothers called "Stickit" and "Shovit"

Pity the poor head groundsman at Lords - Michael Hunt. No-one calls him 'Mike' for some reason.

Interesting you should choose "scoobydoo" as your moniker. You must be an admirer but do you not find some of the plots a bit complex?
Thu 19:54

I'd stick to building if I were you, scooby. I repeat: banks and others don't lend unsecured money to fund exploration drills - if they did they would quickly go bust given that only a modest number result in a commercial discovery.

The article you linked refers to Cross making a loan to PMG of £8m "to fund further acquisitions" - not to drill exploration wells. He probably held security (why wouldn't he?) perhaps in the form of equity conversion in the event of non-repayment - who knows? No details were given.

You appear to be very confused, scooby - hardly surprising as you are a builder. If I were you I'd stick to educating me and others on things you understand, like bricks, cement, roof slates and things. I think you're using the wrong mix on your cement btw - should be 4:1 not 3:1. I read it in an article somewhere.

I won't engage with you further on this or anything else - there's no point as you don't understand even the basics. You can have the last word and people can believe who they like. I'm just trying to stem the tide of cr*p that's spouted on here by people like you.

Believe what you want. I'll continue to post my views on what happens in the real world.
Thu 19:03

"There was no security......."

.........your evidence please???
Thu 16:14

The article you linked is from 2011, scooby. It is not clear what security (if any) Cross (who I believe at the time owned an even bigger share of PMG than he does now) took for the loan. You seem to assume it was unsecured - why??

As for the availability of conventional bank funding to support future acquisitions, which Cross referred to in the article, those loans would have been RBL funds - RBL standing for "Reserves based lending" - is secured on proven reserves (which one assumes would have been owned by the targeted acquisitions, or maybe PMG itself; I haven't followed it).

I would not presume to offer people advice on a public forum about house construction, or to refer to someone who had done it successfully all his adult life as: "an armchair expert", knowing as little as I do about building. The same should apply to you about corporate business dealings, The blinkered arrogance in your throwaway comment is mind-boggling.

Banks and others don't lend unsecured money to fund wildcat drilling. Period. If they did, they would quickly go bust.

Armchair expert?? I suggest you try on the cap....
Thu 14:54

There are some very strange theories abounding today about how business is done in the real world. No-one lends to fund exploration spend (inc drilling wells). It's done using equity.

By my calculations, CLNR would need to raise something like £15m to fund its share of the two wells Shell would drill in the event of it remaining involved in the licences. This assumes the "pre-investment decision" exploration work (paid for by Shell) supported a case for drilling the wells. CLNR would also need to raise money to cover its running costs (included in the £15m) until such time as it starts generating revenue.

A deal hasn't even been legally completed yet and "pre-investment decision" work won't start for quite a few months, so how likely is it that CLNR would be considering a placing now? 0%. When and if Shell takes up the option on Licence P2437, legal work would take time to complete so this further extends the period before a placing might be considered because CLNR wouldn't try to raise the funds it might need piecemeal.

CLNR MIGHT need to raise some short term cash (not sure how much it has left - £750k?) but the signs to me are that a takeover or merger might now be on the cards. The two senior people apart from Algy are an accountant and a technical man. Neither has any experience of running a company. There are a few gascos around that would find CLNR of interest, with a few good licences and Shell on board. A good result for (most) shareholders and for himself in all the circumstances would be a good way for Algy to sign off.

I am sure he could find better ways to spend his time than getting stressed - which he must have been, trying to keep all the balls in the air this past year.

Thu 13:01

The catapult seems to be pointing downwards, MC!! Maybe it's someone (or even a few) selling because they think the Verbier drill is a wildcat. Nothing would surprise me.

The real reason for the price fall today is probably the fact I added a few more in 3 or 4 buys yesterday and this morning. Always happens. "Let's see what he's does, then we'll do the opposite - should give us a fighting chance" kindathing............


Thu 09:33

Why would now be a good time for a placing? Makes no sense to me with the SP where it is. That's not to say it won't happen because we're not privy to the facts and can only hypothesise on why the SP is where it is and what is most likely to happen.

Seems more likely to me the SP is the result of a big overhang that still hasn't cleared. To raise anything like enough in a placing to enable CLNR to meet its share of well costs (not expected to be incurred until 2021 at the earliest) at the current price or less, the 'placing' (which would also be expected to provide funds for everyday running costs until the well result/s were known) would involve doubling the shares currently in issue. That won't happen.

Algy's 79, has probably had enough and sees CLNR for what it is - a company with a farm out of 70% of P2252, an extremely promising licence (CLNR retaining a 30% WI) signed, subject only to regulatory clearance, with Shell, one of the world's biggest and most successful companies,. And with Shell showing enough interest in another of CLNR's licences, P2437, to have signed an option agreement giving it time to run the slide rule over it properly. On top of that, there are a further 5 valuable licences, ignoring P2248 which will almost certainly be relinquished with the aim of bidding for it in a later licensing round (when CLNR must stand a decent chance of recovering it having done all the work it has, perhaps in partnership with a bigger player with the funds available to get it drilled quickly.

One of CLNR's biggest problems? Its share register is full of day traders who are looking for a fast buck in an industry that demands patience and understanding. "The herd" causes huge price volatility. And CLNR struggles to make the progress it should because it has never been properly funded. One can't be certain why it's like this, but two years barking up the wrong tree and wasting all that effort and money on coal gas probably played a big part.

The fundamental (fully risked) value of the Company has been estimated by Allenby Capital (which understands these things) at 15.8p a share, after factoring in directors' options. There are always times when a company's SP is at odds with the fundamentals. You don't have to be Einstein to work out why - particularly in a situation such as the one CLNR finds itself in at present.

Fundamentals win in the end. There's still risk, but it's a lot less than it was a week ago, even if the SP says something different.

"The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient" (WB)

Talking of which, I wish they'd get a move on and sell the bloody company to someone with some money. I'll take 12p.

Wed 22:03

You're a bit unforgiving, D14MOND !! CLNR's first 6 years couldn't have come at a worse time for the industry as a whole. On top of that the Scottish Fish Woman's backtracking on its strategy for NS coal gas (Algy said she double-crossed him - he sold his 4000 acre estate in Scotland in protest, vowing never to set foot in Scotland again) meant the first two years of focused effort (and money) had been wasted. A complete change of strategy was needed and the fist step along the new road was bidding for licences in the 28th Round. P2248 and P2252 were products of the 28th Round.

Given JOG's 2016 farm-out of Licence P2170 (also a product of the 28th Round) to what was then called Statoil was the first farm-out in the NS for more than 3 years and there have been no more since (as far as I am aware - if there have been I must have missed them or they're very recent) it's difficult to see that CLNR can be wholly blamed for the difficulties it has encountered in signing up a farm out partner.

A mistake the Company might be guilty of is issuing 'penny shares' in the millions to raise cash piecemeal. The fact of the matter is that the share register includes way too may penny share traders who, when they move, all move in the same direction causing huge volatility in the SP. This of course has caused disappointment for those slowest to react to what news the company has issued from time to time.

CLNR has also perhaps been guilty of over-optimism about the timescales involved in signing up farm-out partners - Algy has felt all along the licences are hugely valuable and I'm not sure there's been anyone sufficiently experienced in the company to have tempered his enthusiasm. "Strong interest" in the licences hasn't turned into farm-out partners - until now. And at a time short term traders should have been rubbing their hands in anticipation of jumping ship when the price reached 6p or whatever, a big holder from a placing at either 1.6p or 2.1p dumped a gazillion shares in the market to take a quick profit. That's my take anyway.

CLNR might have had a 1 for 10 share consolidation, reducing the number of shares to 55m with a SP of (say) 33p. It might have encouraged fewer short term traders and brought more stability to the SP. Still enough to provide liquidity. Have a look at JOG's shares in issue. There were only 8.4m shares when it reversed into Trap Oil. 22p a share was 'chosen' for a placing at the same time. This gave JOG a market cap of about £1.8 m. I'm told some people backed up the truck when the price fell to 8p, giving JOG a market value of £650k - insane: nothing except the oil price had changed - JOG is still years away from producing.

Lucky them, eh?

Hope we all go on to make money on CLNR, D14MOND. Looks a good possibility to me.

Sorry for the long post - I don't do twitter.

Wed 14:09

Ajax - there are many possibilities. JOG needs to find out what's in Verbier for most to come into play.

But not what's linked below. We know how skilled the chaps are at farming out. Don't even know if JOG is bidding but why wouldn't it be? There's more than just a possibility that it was the P2170 discovery that prompted the OGA to see what Greater Buchan Area licences it still had in its cupboard. Would it not make sense for the OGA to grant the pick of the crop to a partnership of (just guessing) Quinor, JOG & (maybe) CIECO? They know an awful lot about the area and MER is the aim.

I'm just speculating.


Wed 12:28

grewber - don't forget there were a few short of 10m shares in issue at that time - there are now 21.8m.

JOG's in much better shape now though, so I don't personally look on the additional shares as dilution - full-value investment in the future more like, particularly if Verbier comes up trumps. If £11m of the cash (currently c.£21m?) is fully used on the Verbier appraisal (inc the seismics on the wider licence area) it should still leave JOG with about £10m in the pot to add to whatever is the fair value of Verbier with proven reserves. Whether that shows up in the share price depends on many things, inc a wide lack of knowledge and understanding of JOG's situation and its full future potential. jmo.

The share price would normally be expected to include the prospective value of Cortina and any other new potential drill targets on the Licence identified by the seismic exercise, added to Verbier and the cash (as a minimum). £6m of the £10m of cash left (after Verbier's appraisal costs have been settled) is set aside for Cortina exploration, so there should be enough cash to keep JOG going for about 2 years at a similar level of running costs.

A great deal is likely to be happening in the next 2 years - not just Verbier. Watch this space.

Wed 08:53

The West Phoenix seems to have arrived. Pip is a stone's throw from Bigfoot and the WP does 6 or 7 knots.

Drill underway shortly then we're next. Exciting times ahead.

Confirmation of oil at the mid to upper end of the estimated 25-130MMboe scale would be transformational both for JOG and its SP. The market isn't even factoring in (JOG's share of) 25MMboe, let alone anything else.

Fundamentals will out - patience is the key. People will get it one day.

Wed 08:40

PS - there's probably a straightforward reason the shares are going nowhere - a big (still unfilled) sell order. Why not ask the Company for their views? You never know, they might have an opinion.

My guess (fwiw) is that one of the subscribers to the placing (possibly last April's at 1.6p) has decided to unload (for whatever reason - I'm certain they will have pledged to hold the shares for longer, but who's bothered about honesty in the City these days - my word is my bond is my arse). 20m or so shares on the MM's books would have the kind of effect we've seen. What other reason could there be? MMs don't care - they just do their job and make a market (making a buck for themselves whatever).

The overhang will clear and the share price will advance - it what usually happens. That's as long as there are then more buyers than sellers and why wouldn't there be with a potential sale in the wind and Shell on-board anyway?


Wed 08:18

Jizz - if I was a slow as you I wouldn't crow about it

CLNR has raised £141k to add to its limited cash resources (cost of the options to Algy), The shares have stayed "in the family". CLNR needs enough cash to keep going until it's sold and this £141k will keep the lights on (without raising more money) for another couple of months.

Suggests to me CLNR's been 'put in play'.

Spencer's happy because he knows what's going on and probably expects to get 10-12p for his shares. Algy's taken one for the team.

Just my interpretation.

Carry on Tizz - people are going to fall about laughing when the shares motor on past your panicky 5p sell price. Wet your pants did you? Can't be easy making big decisions when you're unemployed

Don't take offence - it's all just banter; you said so yourself :-)

Tue 19:08

........."get a hobby or something"..........

......I've found one: "cretin-spotting" - seen at least 3 so far.

It's fun - thanks for the tip -)
Tue 14:56

StuBhoy - apologies if my ribbing of Jezz offended you. He is a nasty piece of work who is determined to tell everyone how clever he is but is economical with the truth and seems determined to persuade others to do the wrong thing and sell at a time logic would suggest they should be buying. That's as I see it anyway.

I have tried for some time to promote reasoned discussion on here about CLNR's situation and had hoped it would be obvious from my posts that I have relevant experience of the subjects I have given my views on. I don't intend to prove what I did but it is relevant. It would certainly be clear to most people of average intelligence that I wouldn't have gained the knowledge I have as a school teacher - or indeed as a mole catcher, or a shelf-stacker at Morrisons ffs - did people really take this seriously?

I don't post on LSE's boards for self-promotional reasons - I have no desire or need to do so. I have plenty of time to do with as I please and I don't waste much of it. When it comes to contributing to this forum, I rarely post the first thing that comes into my mind when addressing any particular subject. I think about what I am going to write first, research any parts I am not certain of and then (usually) check what I have written before pressing the 'post' button. I found, to my surprise, soon after I started posting (on Interactive Investor, which I much preferred, many years ago - now worthless after an act of 'hari-kari) that my knowledge of my investments improved significantly just by doing this.

I should just ignore people whose motives are dishonorable, but some less experienced investors/traders can be influenced by false people. My intent was simply to show JtF as a joke (I'm being kind). Telling everyone how he'd been trapped in a dog of a share and what a relief he'd sold at 5p because nothing will change, when his shares had cost him nothing as a result of previous gains and Shell have just emerged on the scene was imo low behaviour.

Maybe I shouldn't have said what I did for a living. In the latter part of my career (in particular - one's ability to do it well increases with age and experience) I was involved in a lot of 'dispute resolution', which often involved valuing companies so that dissenting shareholders could gain fair value on one or more disposing of their holding.

I'm not bragging - just saying.

I dislike being referred to as a "pretentious jackanory merchant" and "pathetic middle aged man" and can do without the hassle. You can give occasional updates on CLNR's position and what might or might not happen, StuBuoy - no doubt they'll be extremely valuable.

Over and out

Tue 10:12

"Dickupham? I don't need schooling from the likes of you, pal. This one is heading sub 3p, like it or lump it"..... seem to take pleasure in other people's disappointment, Jez.

The (short term) price fall when there was every reason to expect your sale at 5p (or whatever) to have been been 'jumping the gun' is almost certainly the result of an overhang. People panic sell (causing further pressure on the price, rather than doing the opposite and filling their boots at what Allenby Capital and no doubt other professionals with a focus on the longer term are telling you is unusual value.

You may or may not know, Jez mate (I suspect the latter) that short term price is the simple result of supply and demand. Market makers have to balance their books, if they're sitting on a big sell order and no-one's buying, they drop the price until someone does. Eventually the overhang clears.

It doesn't sound as if you much enjoyed me catching you out as a liar, Jez. Got you all in a tizz. You definitely need schooling from someone if your investment strategy is based on guesswork and a finger in the air - I was only trying to help :-)

Short term price doesn't matter much to LTHs, whose reward will come when/if a bid comes

Tue 01:04

"I like to think I was in this share long enough to know that the share price here has a tendency to dither"..........

...........some would say having Shell as a partner might make a difference...............

Glad you managed to make a profit but trying to influence others based on how you've told us you make investment decisions doesn't really help anyone. "Guesswork" isn't a valid investment strategy.

Re: "I do see the share price dipping below 3p again in the interim as people here await the next big news, which I don't reckon will come until at least April this year, whereby I think we will see a sustained rise again followed by a drop-off, which is usually the case"..........

..........come on - admit it: you DO have a crystal ball...........

Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days

Member Login

Forgotten your password?


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!

Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.