We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
As I understand it, we are producing whatever the last guidance was, and if the company is in possession of info that that has changed, it has an obligation to tell us immediately (Article 17 on disclosure of inside information has probably been incorporated into UK law since Brexit) and article 17 on Market Abuse Regulations says:
Public disclosure of inside information
" An issuer [of securities, like GKP] shall inform the public as soon as possible of inside information which directly concerns that issuer.
The issuer shall ensure that the inside information is made public in a manner which enables fast access and complete, correct and timely assessment of the information by the public and, where applicable..."
Yes, TM, I shall not post here any reply from elsewhere that claims current production differs from previous guidance! I think you asked the question very well.
@Nobull, there is no need to post any answer over here and maybe cause problems, I can read it over there where the guidelines for what is acceptable seem somewhat more flexible :)
@Nobull, thanks for doing that, I think he has already put the info out into the public domain but at one stage it was argued the placing of a full stop mattered, hence the need for clarification.
@titan, i thought long and hard before posting the questions . My reasoning for asking might be flawed but it does exist.
Labelling Habshan as a fraud means its one of these ADVFN trolls over here with yet another Avatar.
Another one for the bin by the sounds of her.
I do not understand why any credence should ever be given to an information when it cannot be debated or clarified . The get out clause of the info not being in the public domain is laughable as the same reasoning should have precluded this whisper campaign through a quadruped scam cam. However, an operational update is required and the company should do that. Otherwise the welcome momentum will be lost. It is fair to say that the share price has not done badly in the context of brutal reversal of oil price.
TM, I have posted your question on the other board. I don't think it can be answered because it is share price sensitive info that is not in the public domain. ATB.
Would someone with accounts on both boards post this across for Kurdman63? I tried to set up an account under my old iii and current lse avatar but it is already taken.
Kurdman63, on the 10th September you posted about the INITIAL result of drilling SH-13. The original post got qualified, confusion still remained and then the usual squabbling broke out.
Would you please clarify what you were told using the framework below?
Q1 Which letter fits what you were told by your source?
A The result was a dry hole - zero hydrocarbon flow.
B It flowed oil but at a non-commercial level.
C It flowed oil at a commercial level but below expectations.
D It flowed oil at a commercial level which was as good as expected or better.
Q2 If your answer was A,B or C, what methods were immediately tried to improve its performance and what effect did they have on production?
There might be a Q3 but its construction would depend on the previous answers.
Thanks in anticipation, theoryman from iii and lse.
They don't like being found out...
Or called out.
Good weekend girls x
nufc9 = Habshan = one of the real, died-in-the-wool frauds posting here.
See Habshan posting #645995 on the other board
So having initiated the game by saying that his report "was spot on and rocked the boardroom" Tony has now decided that he doesn't want to talk about it any more.
My 5 year old granddaughter does that when she's caught out as well.
And having told us that your report is still spot on and that we should compare it with the next official update Tony, when are you intending to post it up so that we can see it and make the comparison.
And that means BEFORE the update not after.
Sigh post removed again.
Including mine and others.
Does that make the likes of Ingrid happy and able to sleep at night? I would have liked to have heard what Tommy was saying.
Shall I ask Kurdy or GKPI instead Tommy?
So having initiated the game by saying that the report "was spot on and rocked the boardroom" "TOM" has now decided that he doesn't want to talk about it any more.
My 5 year old granddaughter does that when she's caught out as well.
And having told us that you know the report is still spot on and that we should compare it with the next official update Tom, when are you intending to post it up so that we can see it and make the comparison?
And that means BEFORE the update not after.
Not in the slightest bit interested in your playground games.
They will remove the whole thread...
Or at least stick in the archive...
Tom (aka Kurdman)... You provided 0 information in any of your posts. It was removed because you were insinuating you have inside information.
Weirdly enough you also managed to get my separate post removed that was directed towards you. Please see below.
Tom247 - “Kurdmans report on the 1st September was word perfect apparently and rocked the boardroom”
The 1st September was the day before the HYR RNS.
In the weeks before the HYR Tony said that a prediction of around 42kbpd was a "massive error".
"The massive error I refer to is you saying that you expect production to be between 39k and 45k (an average of 42kbpd) on the 2nd September."
The figure reported in the RNS was 42,842bpd.
But in his mind his report was "word perfect and rocked the boardroom".
LOL
Obviously too much information people don’t want you to know.