Member Info for adoubleuk

eldorado,

"I'VE been holding since 2014! I bought in at around 40p on the gusher and have still to see any actual significant profit, hence my comment."

Don't believe you.

'The gusher'?

This is HUR, not UKOG.

eldorado,

"You guys sound just like the people back in 2014 who said on this bb the fact that the project would still be profitable would mean the SP would be solid - just before it dropped from around where it's trading now just after the Scottish referendum to 10p."

And anyone who bought in at 10p back then and possibly traded it on the way to now would certainly consider it 'solid'!

Better than putting money into a bank savings account and letting it fester at negative interest... More fun, as well.

jaykay,

"You're recent problems sorted? Boy did I get the worng end of the stick a few weeks ago ;o)"

Wrong board to discuss on, JK. Let's take it up in the derided 'superior board'...

JayKay,

"Ohh, it's Fri and so O/T is OK, can we talk cars????"

Why not?

Because it's just occurred to me that the Aoka Mizu actually goes slower than my old much-loved Landrover Series III did.

johnpwh,

Oh yeah, I got it wrong. Atkinson's car was a McLaren, wasn't it? Not a Bugatti.

Wellwell,

An interesting post from you.

Excerpts..

"Suppose we weren�t able to share views anywhere such as a forum like this, what would we make of the 57p+ share price? Would we in isolation make a different decision? I suspect that despite this being a good sounding board and a source of info and opinion, by being on it or other similar forums we run the risk of being involved of it being counter productive as we in some way abdicate individual responsibility because the �herd� didn�t flag it; and the other signals about poo being inflated, as a potential sell signal?

Frankly, imho, as a smalltime PI, I don't think I'd be able to make such decisions without such feedback, even if sometimes my decisions run contrary to popular rumours. Or rather without being aware of such rumours, I might not be able to dismiss them for what they are.

"I thought about it quite a lot and suggested oil was too high but didn�t (once again) have the courage of my conviction as original thought often gets diluted by a lack of group consensus. I�m sure others didn�t make the same mistake."

I have, and still do. I couldn't give a s*** what the POO is. It has not relation to my own personal decisions regarding my holding in HUR,

"I guess my point is there�s so much psychology involved over and above the technicals, or indeed clear market signals."

That's rather like my poker-playing, once described by the famous 'Amarillo Slim' as 'A game between people, using cards as the tools and money to keep count of the score'. Which is entirely true, and applies to almost anything in business, though for 'cards' you can substitute used cars, frozen pizza, Airbus 380's, or whatever.

"My only (self) defence is that if this were a share with nothing on the immediate horizon it would be far easier to be pragmatic."

Depends what timescale you define as the 'immediate horizon'. Mine is H1 2019, and FoiL.

JayKay,

"PS, hope I didn't offend with the 'wittering on' comment the other night"

Not at all. You wouldn't be the first one, and I find the 3000-character space limit on these 'chatboxes' very constraining, in fact!

JayKay,

" HFT (millisecond) type trading is just one side of a many faceted coin, and not one that in any way relates to the ALGO trading in HUR..."

OK, reading that, I was about to ask why.

"For HFT, think currency pairs, shares on multiple markets with associated currency fluctuations or derivative / underlying asset fluctuations, that sort of thing..."

OK, REAL HFT, 'big boys' stuff'.

"But ALGO are based om either true numbers (HFT) or based on past history... No non-HFT number play will get to 'live' without being run against past 'history' to error check the logic..."

Hmm.

" This may be where feedback kicks in, as everyone is building similar ALOGO rules against the same fixed past history.."

Bigger Hmmm. And which (unfortunately) reinforces (I wouldn't use the word 'confirms') my own suspicions. The 'Algos' not being 'watchdogged' enough and thus being allowed to run loose. Because let's face it, Hurricane probably remains a bit of a minnow for some of the II's running such trades compared with their other interests. So as long as their 'algo' has made them a few thousand dollars over the week, why bother attracting attention to it and doing some reprogramming, especially on a Friday, even if the algos have caused a drop in the SP?

Interesting.

But that sort of notion tends to make me think that Boyzee is right, and when some person actually wakes up and reads an RNS and takes notice of the real stuff, the thing could reverse even more spectacularly!

Oh Brave New World...

"the extraordinary privilege of r-pilot position in rotaryiding left-seat in fixed -wing and being allowed to take the controls once at cruise a few of times,"

Dam computer! That came out garbled. Left-seat a few times FW, left-seat likewise chopper.

Wellwell,

"With flying the only time it really matters is 15ft above the deck."

It's the weekend, so we can go O/T a bit.

I don't have a flying licence, by the way, although I've had been granted the extraordinary privilege of r-pilot position in rotaryiding left-seat in fixed -wing and being allowed to take the controls once at cruise a few of times, and also left-seat (co-pilot place in rotary -wing) in a couple of choppers, and take the controls for a while, as well.

Which of course resulted in the aircraft wnadering all over the place in a rather drunken manner (although I wasn't) before the pilot took over again.

But I would contest your statement about the 'only 15 ft off the deck' thing. I was up in a tiny 'Robin' with a friend in the Carcasonne area once, and we ran into some terrible turbulance at about 2000 ft. Thought the thing was going to fall apart. My friend (pilot) was as frightened as I, but we got landed, with one wing literally flapping. On inspection afterwards, starboard wing cracked along its entire width where it joined the fusalage...

We drank a lot of beer afterwrds, much to our wives' disgust.

Wellwell,

"You can guarantee that the Algorithms are far more advanced that you or I. They are designed to make money by the second - not over 5+ years."

Now that is something that made me laugh out loud!

Do you remember old 'Carnegie' who used to pop up here about three years ago spouting the same sort of stuff? Before LSE permanently banned him, even though he re-emerges under different names spouting such things?

There is no algorithm more advanced than myself. Other people, yes. (Maybe!) But a share-trading algorithm which is nothing more than a computer program can't make an omelette.

I'm interested in all sorts of hi-tech stuff. And have you noticed something? Robots don't wear shoes! Try programming a robot to wear shoes, and be able to tie its shoelaces, and you're talking about a very advanced machine which would take hundreds of thousands of man-hours to design, build, program, and so on.

Of course algos 'make money' by the millisecond: I can't compete. But money means nothing to the algorithm itself (which can't think, neither). Because outside its nothinking existance it has no use for money. It doesn't live, breath, drink, drive fast cars, want to go paragliding, eat oysters, or have sex.

But the people who run the trading companies running high-frequency do.

'Algo trading' is just a fact of life these days. And of course its influence is prevalent in volatile markets like AIM.

But to my mind, although its influence can sometimes become disturbing an put people off their guard, or cause them to make bad decisions, they're not Darth Vador's Space Warriors.

The outfits to beware of are those which promise, promise, promise, with placement, placement, placement, ensuring their Directors live high on the hog, but never deliver. There are plenty of those.

I don't believe for a moment that HUR is one of them though, and that's why they've stated their intentions of moving upmarket sometime.

Wellwell,

"DrT.....Rowan Atkinson...."

How strange. Because I'd already thought of Rowan Atkinson also, myself. Have you ever seen or met the man off-camera and just being himself?

Dr T has his wonky teeth and dodgy hair and doesn't at all mind riding on that image. Along with a totally infectious grin and gleam in his eye which only (I think) real oilmen understand. But it isn't an act, simply because it doesn't have to be. What he says and the way he says it is real. Because he's an Engineer. Whereas Rowan Atkinson is an Actor by trade, and superlative at it.

As a shareholder, I'd be a bit upset if learned that Dr T had wiped out his Bugatti Vayron, or even owned one. And had decided to get it repaired. I'd think he was wasting shareholders' money with such a thing. But when Atkinson bought one and did so, he wasn't acting...

Wellwell,

"35 years ago the Trident was completely capable of landing itself."

Yes. Well observed. In fact it was in a Trident that I was riding when the pilot came on the speaker to say that the aircraft had done so.

However, I'm utterly certain that we hadn't taken off from Aberdeen, got up to cruising altitude, and then the pilot just punched a button labelled 'get us into Heathrow', and gone to sleep. There must have been more to it than that.

This is the little thing which worries me about the concept of what Boyzee calls 'AI Algos', and autonomous cars, and things like that in general.

Imagine this. An 'AI Algo' which someone has designed, trading stictly in HUR, with a few basic instructions consisting of 'trade fast and in appropriate volume with each trade making a small profit even if it means selling beforehand at a loss', or something like that. The machine could wipe out the SP in no time flat unless someone stepped in to say 'no, you dummy, make small profits to the extent that WE YOUR MAKERS make a profit on our original investment!'

In the old programming phrase, 'rubbish in, rubbish out'.

I suspect a lot of 'algo trades' in HUR don't take into account (haven't been programmed for) the fact that Hurricane has no debts to service. Cf RBD (although that's a micro mcap company, so not really comparable). Which is why their SP's are so odd.

Also, 'AI Algos' can't read RNS's, nor balance the import of their substance against poteential values. But nor do the programmers of 'human input' algos, either. They just do what the boss says...

SXX,

"Yes, James Dyson, and hopefully not Clive Sinclair."

Woeful Knave! Sir James Dyson. Sir Clive Sinclair (who by the way is a pretty good poker-player). Sinclair launched affordable home-computers, even if at the time they were seen as toys for nerds, while Bill Gates was still struggling to get MD-DOS off the ground, and Apple was still a gleam in Bill Gates' adolescent eyes. And doesn't everyone seem to want an electric car now? (Or rather, not everyone. I don't.)

And by the time GLA / GWA gets to being in full FFD swing, the Aoka Mizu will be thought of as a bit like a bathtub rubber duck in comparison, though might still be bobbing around earning smiles.

"Who would play Dr Trice in the movie?"

I thought of Kenneth More, but unfortunately he's dead now!

Boyzee,

" There are "thoughtful ' algos following human input rules. There are AI algos too. "

Yes, of course. Though god preserve us from 'AI algos': those are the sort which could send entire markets into a spiral, possibly faster than could be stopped. Imho.

The interesting thing is when 'human input' becomes necessary. And right now, I think we're on 'cruise', the pilots are sipping some coffee, chatting about whatever pilots chat about, and letting the plane get on with things. Even if it wafts up and down a bit.

I remember being enormously impressed when landing at Heathrow in fog about 35 years ago and the pilot coming on the tannoy to say that it was the aircraft which had in fact landed itself! (Which wasn't entirely true, of course.) I bet the pilots had had a lot of input into the procedure, including numerous radio exchanges with the tower, and then instructing the 'autopilot' as to what to do next...

johnpwh,

"As I have mentioned before, this is like watching paint dry. "

Yup. But really, only to be expected, especially with hindsight. Only the dedicated shipwatchers are tracking the FPSO's progress. For most other people it's simply that 'our ship is at sea'. And even the stopoff in Rotterdam won't mean much. It's FoiL which will be the equavalent of her 'hitting port' and starting to unship her cargo.

And there will be people buying into that cargo when she gets close to that point (imho), in the time-honoured fashion of centuries. A share in the cargo when the ship heaves into sight on the horizon is cheaper than when it's unloaded on the dock, and reaps a bigger profit.

People seem to forget an old staple of 'O' level English; 'The Merchant of Venice'. It's particularly appropriate here and should be incorporated into the movie as a sub-plot, when it's eventually made.

JayKay,

"I know we're a £850m plus company, but if low volume ALGO can shift us down this much, low liquidity will work the opposite way when the time comes..."

Agree. Which is why there's absolutely no way I'm thinking about selling anything now! And unfortunately have no spare cash to top-up, because otherwise I would. Because this seems to be hovering around the 44p mark, and if I could buy for that, or 43p, or 45p, it wouldn't really make any difference. Because I know I'll end up in profit anyway.

A few days ago someone (maybe yourself) posted the following link:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/101014/basics-algorithmic-trading-concepts-and-examples.asp

Check it quick, because LSE admin might make it 'disappear' again. It might not be news to a lot of people. Myself, over the last few years, I've done a lot of research into this activity, how it works, and so on. But this is a very good overview.

The thing is, it exists, and there's nothing we common-or-garden PI's can do about it!

The only thing which bothers me about it is what might happen if the 'masters of the machines' take their eye off actual happenings and leaving the 'autopilot' engaged when manual intervention is required. And we've been hearing a lot about that (in aviation terms) recently. Because it could lead to positive feedback loops, which all that implies.

I regard the current low SP with equanimity, other than not having spotted 57p as a good trading opportunity. But I doubt many other PI's saw it as such, either.

Wulbert,

"I can see it as a quite gripping screen play; One man's hunch versus corporate disbelief & risk aversion, stormy seas, sweltering nights in Vietnam pouring over log tables, the garrulous 4a.m. taxi driver, the cynical shorters....the loyal PI's..."

Ah. Now you're getting it! The bigger picture.

In some posts passim here, I've expressed my opinion that the 'Hurricane story' and Dr Trice's 'struggles' will turn out to be a bit like that of Sir James Dyson. There are distinct parallels...

johnpwh,

"Its not going to happen with HUR I hope. Lightening doesn't strike twice does it?"

Yes, it can do.

"Must admit I never thought we'd see HUR back in the low 40's unless there was a problem with the operation once AM reaches WOS. Nor did anyone else given the guesses for SP at FOIL!"

Nope, personally I didn't expect to see the SP back this low. But regarding the 'guesses for SP at FoiL', we're not yet at that point, are we?...

Remember, current ongoing 'shipwatching' is only the activity of some lunatic PI's on BB's like this, for now. Maybe when the boat gets latched-up the publicity-machine might start to kick in. Attracting the attention of the FOMO crowd...

(Addendum)

I have utterly no evidence that JH introduced CA to HUR, by the way. Just a hunch. Opinion only. To be taken with as many pinches or buckets of salt as desired...