Member Info for B_A_B_A

I’m not sure that it’s only 40. If you follow the link posted at 9:09 and then follow the next link to public comments on the commissions website, there are already 23 pages of comments from what would you would assume to mostly be residents.

I’d imagine that it’s likely that some comments are made by anti fracking protesters that are not local but I suppose the commission will make allowance for that. It’s not just a few people that are objecting though it’s fair to say, and this story appears to be making news through all media at present from local publications to TV news.

I don’t think it bodes well for these 31 wells, and potentially for our (HNR) reputation and public image if we don’t reconsider and withdraw the applications before they are heard at the hearing. Local officials are normally loath to upset the public that they represent and whilst I’m not sure that COGCC represent the people any more than they do the operators, I can’t see them wanting to get into this kind of a dispute. The ‘about us’ page on COGCC website states that they serve all those with an interest in Colorado’s resources, so that infers both operator and public in equal measure. The first of their list of values suggests that the public are priority though!

I’d like to find out more about the well locations that haven’t been withdrawn or disputed now, just for a bit of reassurance that there is still lots left to go at.

Looks like a very difficult situation. Even if the authorities do approve the applications then the potential for protests at the site would be worrying.

I think I'm right in thinking that these applications are not the same as those that were reported as withdrawn the other day and if so, how many do we have left?

I can see WD being a very long and complicated process based on evidenece to date - more than ED ever was with Renegade etc. I don't know how much weight public opinion has with COGCC though.

Maybe this was always part of the plan. Take a punt on several locations that are contentious, but have a core number of locations that should get approved?

I would hope it isn't that guy trillsg! to go from being a fairly junior engineer (an intern until 5 years ago) to being our Chief Strategy Officer would be a promotion way too far way too quickly surely. We've added a couple of other graduate trainee level personnel to our staff list recently so I would hope that senior positions would be filled with suitably experienced persons.

I wouldn't imagine there to be any significance for the dates stated, other than that the work can't start before that proposed date.

I'd expect that it will be a case whereby, once all of the statutory and operational requirements are in place then they can start, so the date is a request to commence any time after that date. By default you would naturally put in a date that is in the near future rather than trying to guess that it will, for example, be September of year - only to find subsequently that you want to commence in August.

Blue, I’ve just listened again and I’m convinced that he didn’t but no matter, those aspects are being worked on and developed I’m sure. He only mentions the possibility of selling N2 as gas, or after liquification locally, but doesn’t give any indication as to the viability of those possibilities - which will be flushed out during those discussions with potential customers and service providers, and hopefully to a positive conclusion. Would be good to know the size of the resource as well but that can’t happen until the acreage acquisition phase is complete, so entirely understandable.

Without knowing all of the details, it's impossible to claim that they are passing a chance up. We only know a couple of what are several considerations that make up the activity of quantifying it as an opportunity. We know the flow rate and we know the cost of drilling a new well and recompleting the existing well - both of which are very positive.

We don't know the quantity of the resource that we have in the ground, and we don't know anything about the viability of getting it to market - which in itself could vary massively depending upon supply loaction, quantity required etc.

I'm sure that lots is being done to progress all of those aspects and more, but I really don't expect it to be resolved in this short a time frame.

Not a year low at all. Sell price for 1 share is 14p. That is the measure of the bid price, not how much per share you can sell 1000, 1,000,000 or 10,000,000.

On that basis it can't be nearly the year low because I'm sure that some were able to buy at ~13.7 a few days ago.

I don't think that this type of topic discussed day in day out, and all day, is of any benefit at all. Better to talk about the prospects, progress - in rational terms rather than rose tinted or doomsday scenario extremes.

If an individual needs or wants to sell then they should, if they don't, then don't. Nothing more to say than that is there?

Certainly looks like one single position being sold down, in terms of the sells being round numbers and the large majority of them coming from midday onwards - almost 500k by a quick count.

Strange that there's been opportunity to do so today, when there hasn't been for weeks. I'm convinced that if you'd wanted to sell that many three weeks ago, you'd probably still be selling 5000 share chunks last friday.

Yes, I think that you may well be right.

Interesting to note that selling appears easier today than it's been reported to have been for a few weeks. Volume is higher as well. No idea what that might indicate, but it's a change for sure.

Unless I've missed it, we (HNR) really need to have some understanding of the volume of potential N2 resource before we can start considering whether it's viable to go ahead with plans to drill wells and produce. I assume that that can't happen until the full acreage that we are aiming to acquire is in place - then carry out some seismic analysis perhaps? Or has this been done historically when looking for natural gas in the past?

Either way, we dont know how much we have or haven't got, and we really need to before being able to make further decisions. It does sound like they are already planning to capitalise on the N2 that is available to flow now, by virtue of previous mentions of there being advanced discussions with potential customers. Perhaps those discussions are reliant upon a quantification of resource before they can be concluded though.

HD - I don't doubt that there's potential for more than 48, especially in view of our having sufficient land already to suggest that this might be the case, but I'm never inclined to want to get too far ahead of ourselves - because as with ED where there was intended to be 24 wells we can never be sure what will transpire, especially when there are so many pieces of the jigsaw yet to be put in to place. Vertical wells would be an interesting prospect, indeed.

I'm comfortable either way because the attraction of HNR for me has always been that of a long term, measured and steady development of a sustainable business - and I think it's on the right track, with some great innovation thrown in for good measure both technically and strategically.

Personally, and I'm loath to mention share prices, but if the sp is above 100p and ideally nearer 200p in 10 years time then I'll have achieved my own objective from it. It could of course happen sooner (or could potentially not happen, for balance..). Dividends would be an even more appealing prospect.

No intention there to start a 'guess the SP by Christmas' competition, but I'm sure that one is just around the corner!

I think that is the question - but one that probably can't be answered for several reasons. It's a fair assumption that we don't get all of the revenue; the technology provider is a business, not a charity!

If we get a 10% royalty then the market might have responded negatively (instead of ambivalently as it seems to have now done). If we get 50% of the revenue, then a positive reaction would be much more certain. I suspect that it's more complicated than that, and is a sliding scale type arrangement reflective of the period of time that the equipment is on site, volume of water processed etc. - so one of the reasons why the final number possibly can't really be determined or revealed at this time.

Another reason why we haven't shared what split of proceeds we are to get might be that 3rd parties might approach the supplier directly, if our share was around 50%, and offer to cut out the middleman and pay them slightly more. Other existing customers might view the providers ability to give away 50% of the revenue as grounds to negotiate their own existing agreements downwards. It's likely that the attraction that HNR provides is the access that we have to potential end users, by virtue of long standing relationships held by members of the board, and this value can be significant.

Irrespective, if it's a new source of bottom line profit which must be the case in view of the company actively seeking new customers, then it can only be a good thing. Cynics might consider there to be a reason for this news being released at the same time as the Montana update, but that update in itself is moderately encouraging - and reminder that there's a long way to go on that one yet, which might not have been understood by the less patient shareholder.

Key content of this update for me again is the increases in acreage at both Kansas and WD. With 4800 acres now at WD, based on the HNR preference for 8 wells per 640 acre unit (iirc), we now have more than enough for the proposed 48 well plan.

Agreed - the 300 acre or more than 35% increase in Kansas acreage is very significant, considering the flow rates seen there.

Less than positive news at ED hasn't overly concerned me since the potential for upside was dramatically reduced when completing the transaction with True, which in hindsight has probably proven to have been the best of what is likely to have been few options available to us.

Accordingly the potential for downside from negative ED news is minimal within the bigger picture. Hopefully the slightly delayed small additional income from the 7.5% free carry will be insignificant in comparison to the potentially lucrative N2 contracts (should they transpire). I've taken the opportunity to buy a few more this morning.

Bid is 21.025 for any quantity up to12500 (no quote for 12501 or more),

Jbatch, the company has had a revenue stream since before the start of this year, and a significant one until very recently. It will increase again from the end of this year/ start of 2019 when new wells, in which HNR has a small remaining interest, come on line.

The likelihood of a buyout is very low due to the fact that a large percentage of the shares are owned by the CEO - who also has options for a significant additional number of shares that, when considered alongside those owned by PIs with significant stakes, would make it very difficult for a hostile takeover to take place.

...forgot to add that they do prefer to under-promise and over-deliver - so wouldn't be surprised to see the timeframe reduced!

Nearer to the start of November for flow testing using conservative estimates, by my reckoning.

4 weeks of drilling, 60 days of fracking, 30 days to drill out plugs - then start flow testing.

They'd always said late 2018 for production though, from what i recall in previous RNSs so still within that broad timeframe, and hopefully with lesser costs (though that doesn't matter to us anymore)

In between times though all manner of news to come from other, now more relevant, plays. Starting with N2 results?

Excellent update; precisely what was needed.

Joy, I don't think it's a question of what it will cost us, because the costs for the 50 percent of 2 existing wells was substantially already paid, aside from OPEX, which we still have to a degree because our engineers are still involved and our team plus attorneys were all at the hearing yesterday. It's a comparison of what we did have to what we will eventually have again so cost doesn't really impact as the cost is already incurred. That is why I mentioned the lump sum payment though, but noted that it was an aspect that might be overlooked by those not familiar with the company in the future. Opinions on whether the deal was good or not so good have been split from the outset and I can't see that they'll change, but the consensus remains that the company is destined for much greater things - and that's all that matters. Just need to be mindful that the SP might not change substantially any time soon so there is little point, in my opinion, on wasting time and energy bemoaning that fact if it proves to transpire that way.