Member Info for Biffadog

IJWT,

I merely state that Kerogen's confidence in HUR's success is very high.

Their percentage holding is significant in any TO situation. It means that they exercise a certain amount of influence over who could buy HUR out.

They can certainly block a TO quite easily with only a few other shareholders required to do so.

Whether, as you seem to be suggesting, they will "aid" another company (I assume that you mean CNOOC) to buy HUR at a discounted price is another matter.

I can't see it myself, as any such deal still requires 75% of votes cast to be in favour and Kerogen only hold about 21% of total shares in issue. If the price is not right the majority of shareholders will simply not vote it through.

Any TO scenario will mean that HUR have hit the jackpot and proven up assets successfully and will also mean a significant profit for those invested at 45p and below.

So, nothing to worry about on that point, I think you would agree.

GLA.

"The Company also provided Kerogen Investments No. 18 Limited with the right, in the event of exercise of the Warrants, to subscribe for up to such number of Ordinary Shares as would result in it holding the same percentage interest in the share capital of the Company as it held prior to the Warrants being exercised. This subscription right also has an exercise price of £0.20 per share."

This is exactly what I was referring to in my post.

It is a formulae, no more no less, to work out the maximum number of new shares Kerogen are entitled to after CA exercise their warrants.

It's express purpose is not to keep Kerogen's holding the same percentage, although it can achieve this should Kerogen take the maximum number of options ("to subscribe for up to such number of Ordinary Shares").

For example, they could have just taken up 1M shares (unlikely I know given that the strike price was 20p) and their total percentage of shares in issue would not stay the same.

I hope that clarifies things.

GLA.

OR to put it in prospective....

Kerogen sold 6.5M shares out of 434M shares they owned after the warrants were exercised.

That mean they sold only 1.5% of their total holding in HUR.

If you think that reflects badly on their view of HUR's prospects then good luck to you.

When they start selling 10% or 20% chunks then I'd sit up and take notice but for now it looks like Kerogen's confidence in HUR is 100%, to suggest otherwise makes you look rather foolish.

GLA.

DC,

You are talking about 6.5 M shares when they hold 428M already.

The percentage difference is minute (6.5M is only 0.3% of the total shares in issue).

The subscription rights for Kerogen was only a formulae to work out how many new shares they should get if/when CA exercised their warrants.

It wasn't for the sole purpose of keeping their percentage share of the company the same, it was just a formulae, that's all.

Read my post again, it's all about getting the cash back that they had to lay out for the 20p shares.

If you are worried about this transaction by Kerogen then god help you.

GLA.

I don't think anybody should read anything into either CA or Kerogen selling their shares released by exercising the warrants straight away.

Firstly, at 20p they would be mad not to exercise the warrants.

However, this will have required a cash payment of about £4.6M (CA) and £1.3M (Kerogen).

Both have shed loads of HUR shares and I can only imagine wanted their cash back ASAP, hence a quck flip on te newly acquired shares. Fair enough.

Kerogen's confidence in HR has beed unwavering. In fact, they have not sold a single one of their 428M shares since their initial two investments in HUR back in 2016.

To suggest they are not confident in the company (IJWT) is ludicrous, as they have had plenty of opportunity to sell along the way and have never done so.

Hopefully, that puts people's mind at rest.

GLA.

I can see two large transactions of 2.85M and 0.527M both at 45p and at 08:18 and 08:19 respectively which will be the majority of Kerogen's 3.527M shares they sold today.

It looks to me like CA have also disposed of a large proportion of their newly minted shares today and may well have also been involved in yesterday's selling too.

I can see two very large sells this afternoon, which I can only assume are by CA.

Namely, 6.79M shares @45.70p at 14:45 and 7.07M shares at 45.40p at 15:36.

Hopefully, that's all the new shares disposed of and a line can be neatly drawn under the warrant conversion.

GLA.

NigWit’s account has either been suspended or terminated for good as a result of a 10 day trolling spree on the HUR board. He posted non stop about climate change, EVs, the imminent demise of oil and Greta Thunberg amongst other things.

As you can imagine this did not go down well on an O&G company BB.

He finished it off by excelling himself by putting up a picture of Nazi Brownshirts marching in front of Adolf Hitler on a balcony and suggesting they were HUR investors and the HUR BOD and for that he got a ban.

I’m a HUR investor and I have absolutely no idea what prompted his endless tirade (10-20 posts per day) but that’s iwhat promoted a few negative posts over here to try and get him to stop, as we are well aware that he is your resident ramper.

Anyway, a welcome break for both boards and wishing all NANO holders the best of luck with your investment.

No doubt he will return soon enough as NigWit or under another avatar. He will be easy enough to spot either way.

GLA.

A very brief explanation.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/convertiblearbitrage.asp

GLA.

JoeSoap,

The warrants have not ben exercised yet otherwise you would have got an RNS.

I'm not sure you will suddenly see some selling action when they are either as I'm pretty sure that you will find that CA have already sold some/all of the 23M odd shares from their current holding.

There was quite a bit of selling action into the April SP rise.

Exercising the warrants will merely replace the shares that they have sold over the last month or so.

Obviously, this is only my reading of the situation and the only way to tell for sure will be in the monthly CA NAV reports, after the warrants have been converted to equity.

It might come out in a TR-1 but that all depends on how CA play it.

The other option that has not been put forward is that they just keep the extra 23M shares (1.1%) but I think that is highly unlikely.

GLA.

Hi Yasirasmi,

Marshall Wace's short position is very unlikely to be a straight forward short position.

It is more than likely part of a Convertible Bond Arbitrage strategy where they also are long on HUR CBs.

It's quite complex but if you can be bothered and want to understand how this all works then listen to the attached link. It's explained very neatly in just over 2 minutes but you do need to with off from the robotic voice

PMO were in a similar position with their CBHs a while back, in fact PMO were the most shorted stock on the LSE prior to the conversion of the CBs. After the CBs converted, all the short positions disappeared virtually overnight.

The thing to take away from this post is that Marshall Wace (1.10% short) and Polygon (0.8% short) both very much specialise in this type of play. They were both involved in the CB Arbitrage at PMO for example.

It would take a brave investor to have a straight forward short position in HUR with GWA drill results (77% COS for the field as a whole) and FOIL (100% according to RT) just around the corner.

I hope this helps and puts your mind at rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osFtOp53HKU

GLA.

wellwell,

For the record, I don't believe NW is aligned with RB or acting on his behalf in any shape or form.

NW is always posting in defence of RB at any opportunity and I just thought it might wake him up to see his name mentioned over on the RB's twitter feed and highlight his very negative view of HUR. No more, no less.

As for SIPP, I am my own man but you know that don't you. I just happen to agree with him on more than a few points, which is not surprising really as we are both have a decent investment here.

Maybe we could all move on now and as long as people don't insist on posting the same old stuff time and time again, things will hopefully go back to being a bit more tranquile on here.

I'm sure NW will resurface in due course (as NW or under another avatar) but for now there is nothing further to be gained in discussing him.

FWIW I think your synopsis of HUR in your last post is pretty much on the money.

GLA.

wellwell,

As I said right at the start of my post, there is absolutely nothing wrong in posting opposing views on the investment case for HUR.

The issue with NigWit is that he posted incessantly for 10 whole days trying to undermine the investment case for HUR based on his view that the demand for oil is about to fall off a cliff and that investment managers no longer invest in oil companies.

This is trolling a board whether you see it that way or not. Hence, he got a reaction.

If it happens again I will happily post back on Bernstein's Twitter account highlighting NigWit's POV. He is a big fan of CA after all and I think it's important RB is aware of his views. That is not bullying in anybody's book. Tit for tat maybe but that's the road he chose to take.

Maybe this situation could have been avoided but for the sheer number of posts NigWit made.

Read that Times article this morning. The comments also make very good reading. Most are quite disparaging.

The thing that people need to bear in mind with HUR is quite simple really. The BOD's stated aim is to prove up as much oil as possible as quickly as possible and sell the company.

You either believe they can do this before the demand for oil falls off cliff and the likes of BP, Shell etc stop buying up smaller companies or you don't. HUR's time scale to achieve this is probably less than 3 years.

Your point that some Investment Funds are not buying oils company shares is valid and will no doubt bring down the valuation of HUR from where it would have been a few years ago. However, HUR's assets are vast and once proven should attract a very good price and make anybody invested here a decent return.

Now if you don't buy this argument, then that's fair enough, don't invest in HUR.

Post here by all means but don't troll the board.

GLA.

IJWT,

You have a point about different POVs and so does NigWit, HOWEVER the guy was trolling the board with incessant post after post after post about all things negative regarding oil. It continued non stop for about 10 days.

It was a one man non stop deramping campaign. As HUR approach their aim of proving up FB in the WOS there becomes fewer and fewer negative scenarios that can be highlighted and in the end you are just left with the demise of oil and that's the card he played.

You conveniently seem to overlook NigWit's general behaviour and some of the more personal posts he made.

You also overlook that most accepted the points he made about 10 days ago and acknowledged this but felt that they would not impact on the timeframe HUR are working to.

Despite this he continued to write post after post after post repeating the same narrative.

In the end he got what he deserved and I for one am glad to see the back of him.

NigWit wasn't bullied and I'm surprised that you think that. It was his choice to go on this self imposed "crusade", it just happened that not many people agreed with him.

LSE obviously think the same too.

GLA.

Continued from previous post.......

Previous to your one man effort to disrupt over here, this board was blissfully free of both rampers and derampers and despite your assertion to the contrary, none of the posters you chose to highlight, post either incessantly (adoubleuk excepted), nor spend their time ramping HUR. In actual fact, most of the posts are pretty balanced and informative. Indeed, some of those you chose to highlight, have solid O&G industry experience to share and one has founded, run and sold an AIM listed company.

It’s your choice what you do, but do you not think that you are starting to look a bit foolish and that maybe it’s time to call it a day ?

GLA.

Nigwit,

Whilst you have every right to post whatever you want on here, do you not feel that INCESSANTLY posting about climate change, EVs, Greta Thunberg, the imminent demise of oil etc etc on an O&G board is verging on trolling. You are by far the largest poster on the HUR board and you’re not even invested here. Please do not insult my intelligence by saying that you are, as it simply doesn’t wash.

There is certainly room for sensible debate around this subject but your continual posting has way exceeded this and looks to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the investment case for HUR.

I’d be interested in finding out why you feel the need to do this.

My personal theory FWIW, is that you had you built a nice long spread betting position on margin leading up to the totally unexpected collapse in PoO at the end of 2018. Did you hang on in there for too long and get a margin call you could not meet and lose all your money ?

You certainly cannot be invested here on either a business case, or a moral one, given your very recent posting history.

Previously to this onslaught of negativity, you were pretty positive about HUR on the whole and always went to great lengths to support one of HUR’s biggest investors, Richard Bernstein at Crystal Amber, so I struggle to see how you have gone from one extreme to the other.

As you well know, HUR’s potential is huge and given the stated aim of the BOD to prove up the assets as quickly as they can and sell the assets/company well before 2050, I think there is plenty of time and scope to make a decent profit.

The oil majors are still investing heavily in buying proven assets and the likes of BP, whilst diversifying into other areas, certainly do not think the demand for oil is about to fall off a cliff anytime soon. So I think once the Lancaster EPS has been proven to flow as predicted, there will be plenty of suitors out there interested in buying HUR.

I do accept that the dollar price per barrel of proven assets in the ground will have been affected to some degree by recent sentiment surrounding fossil fuels but this will only have resulted in a small reduction in price and not a deterioration to next to nothing as you seem to suggest. Given the sheer size of HUR’s assets a few dollars off the price of a barrel matters not a jot.

Bearing in mind that this is an O&G company BB and the vast majority on here do not buy into the imminent demise of the oil industry, I think it would be appreciated by all, if you gave it a rest.

Your point has been made over and over again and all you are now doing is pissing a lot of people off. Surely you have your work cut out posting non stop on the NANO board. Incessant ramping, day in and day out, as well as boasting about the disruption you have caused over here. I can only assume you have build up quite a position in NANO and wish you well with it.

Previous to your one man effort to disrupt over here, this board was blissfully free of b

Part 2 of The Spectator article....

"2. If governments are supposedly ignoring the science, how do you explain, then, that those same governments set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) more than 30 years ago specifically to advise them on climate change – and have continued to seek its advice ever since, most recently asking it what would need to be done to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 celsius?
3. You want a general strike, but why do you think workers will want to join one when your demands would mean an end to many of their jobs? It is one thing for schoolchildren to go on strike – taking a day off is always very exciting for them. You might have a harder job convincing industrial workers whose jobs and living standards ultimately depend on the cheap source of energy which you want to take away. I know campaigners keep going on about ‘green jobs’ but it is no consolation creating 1,000 jobs in green energy, or whatever, if your unrealistic carbon reduction targets are going to destroy 100,000 jobs in heavy industry. How are you going to convince those employed in the latter to join your strike?
4. You said this morning that you think you can see the issues more clearly because you see things in black and white. But isn’t that the problem? There are great complexities in how to balance economic and environmental needs. The idea that the issue of climate change can be reduced to two choices – environmental destruction or purity – is nonsense. What we need to solve climate change is people who can see the issue in a rich spectrum of colours, not black and white, wouldn’t you say?"

This is an article from The Spectator. Enjoy....

"In popular mythology Greta Thunberg is a one-girl revolution who has inspired millions of young people into action by being able to see what adults refuse to see. But her promotion as global statesman is really a well-crafted piece of PR. Those on the Left who seek to use climate alarmism to further their war on global capitalism know full well that the likes of Robin Boardman-Pattison, the Bristol University graduate with a private education and fondness for foreign holidays, who stormed out of the Sky News studio last week when Adam Boulton accused him of being middle class, is a liability to their cause.
But allow Thunberg to speak for them by proxy and, well, who will dare criticise a 16-year-old girl with Asperger’s? The success of this strategy can be seen from this morning’s Today programme. The BBC, which apologised for not challenging Lord Lawson in an interview on climate change, was nevertheless happy to give Thunberg the prime 8.10am interview slot. And not once did the normally inquisitorial Nick Robinson ask her an even slightly difficult question. It is not hard to imagine the mass outrage which would have followed had he dared to do so: middle-aged man bullying a schoolgirl and the like. As a result of Thunberg’s perceived untouchability, the climate alarmists have managed to promote their views in a way which would not have been possible had an adult spokesman of Extinction Rebellion been on the air – Nick Robinson’s interview with ER’s co-founder Gail Bradbrook, was actually rather robust.  

Sorry, but the fawning attitude towards Thunberg is not going to extend to me. If you are going to be given an international stage to call for a general strike, as Thunberg has done, you deserve to be challenged – whether you are 16 and wear pigtails or not. If the BBC, or anyone else, is going to offer a platform to Thunberg, these are the questions she needs to be asked:

1.  Do you really think it is possible to eliminate carbon emissions by 2025 – the target of Extinction Rebellion, whose aims you have endorsed – without crashing the global economy? That wouldn’t just mean the end of air travel, which you personally shun, it would mean the end of your favoured high speed rail travel, too. While great efforts have been made to switch to renewables, we do not yet even nearly have the technology to turn to a fully fossil-free world and to pretend that we do so is fanciful."

Continued.....

Can I respectfully suggest that nobody bothers to reply to NigWit's post now as he seems to have developed into full on troll mode and to reply will only encourage him.

Can I also suggest that nobody now posts on the NANO board for the same reason.

Hopefully on that basis, he will go away and peace and tranquility can be restored on both boards.

GLA.

"On that basis when HUR's 2.3 billion bbls are proven (5 years yet!) then 2.3/0.3=7.7 times $6billion = $46.2bln and sp equals £17.7 haha Don't call me a ramper, just playing with figures!!" (MCB55).

Sadly, the maths doesn't stack up like that as BP are spending $6B to get the 300M barrels into production, so that $6B is Capex and not the value of the oil.

Having said that, value will out as more of HUR's resources are proven up and move up the value chain to producing assets.

GLA.

"The Group ended the year with $123.2 million of cash and cash equivalents and liquid investments, of which $83.0m was unrestricted."

From the AR.