Member Info for Crocqman

CL,
Just seen our responses have crossed.
Agree with your view, but there are many that won't.
My average is lower than many (I guess) so I am more comfortable 'sticking'.

Ocelot,
I agree to an extent, but think any LTH's looking to average down will want some concrete evidence of one (or more) projects coming to fruition before they will consider risking any more money here. Some may consider paying a slightly higher price to where we are now if there is a bit of 'certainty' built in from Balcombe or Saltfleetby, but for now (imo), this is more an attractive 'punt' for new investors willing to invest for 9 months or so.
I do not intend to add further and intend to wait for Saltfleetby which I consider the best chance of recovering some of my losses. Happy to back GL on this until I have reason to think otherwise.
Interested to see what the company responses are to the monthly Q&A on the Investor Relations tab. This will be an interesting indicator of how seriously management are taking investor concerns. Will this be a 1 month wonder, or a useful tool for communication and transparency?
gla

gkb47,
Another thought on that Euroclear site as it relates to stocks out on loan
Seeing as the number of shares seen here is small, is it possible this may relate to another possibility than someone actually taking a short position?
I understand that on occasion, there can be settlement issues on trades if a custodian has issues such as a prior trade awaiting settlement and shares being unavailable, problems with settlement instructions, corporate action events, or someone moving custodians and shares not being available following a transfer (amongst others). Could these figures relate to a custodian having to 'borrow' shares temporarily in order to settle a trade rather than someone actually taking a short position?
Trades can remain outstanding for a number of reasons for days, or even weeks/months due to 'back office' issues.
Just trying to understand why such a small figure could relate to a 'true' short as it doesn't seem worthwhile at such a level.
Any thoughts? Tks

gkb47,
Thank you for providing some evidence.
So, the total amount that is only occasionally shown to be on loan is minute and not much different to what a single PI may reasonably hold, and certainly not worth the constant BS posts about shorts burning and shorters 'crying' on twitter.
If anything, this just proves the shorting myth imo but I am sure it won't stop it being continuously brought up.
gla

Joey,
Virtually every other post of yours goes on about 'crying shorts on twitter'.
To my knowledge, there is no evidence of anyone shorting this share and it is frequently posted that there are no CFD's available, no disclosures, nothing on the FCA register of short positions, or any method for PI's or II's (if there are any) to short this stock. Evidence of all of these can be found with some simple searches.
The only exception is certain MM exemptions for market-making, something which your posts are clearly not referencing as MM's would certainly not be 'crying on twitter'.
So who exactly are these 'crying shorts' that you keep talking about and how are they shorting this stock in the first place?
Do you have any evidence to back up your repeated statements as curious to understand how the shorters 'story' is always trotted out when there appears to be nothing to back this up, yet there is plenty of evidence to say it is not, and never has been going on.
Keen to be educated.
gla

Just looking at Saltfleetby, isn't the presence of Mike Wells more of an asset due to his previous connection there?
His Bio details: Mike was employed by ROC Oil to oversee the Saltfleetby Gas Field (the “Field”) and he remained with Wingas UK Storage Ltd on its acquisition of that Field. Mike has extensive experience in field management and engaging with all regulators.
Only going by his bio, but from this it seems (to me) that he would be a 'safer pair of hands' to be involved with this particular asset?
gla

Looking forward to Penguins' balanced analysis of this latest RNS.
gla

Apologies, posted before finished.
My conservative predictions over the past 2 years have always been shown to be considerably higher than actual. Frustrating, of course, and I am sure that the vast majority want to see a SP of many multiples of where we are now (and that may well come to pass), but it is looking like many of the board 'experts' could end up with egg on their faces with some of the wildly high predictions given.
Of course, we are still a few weeks away and anything can happen. Time will tell.
gla

Tymers,
Why is anything prior to 29/12 irrelevant?
The prediction was at a set point in time, so the (very) long list is relevant as to where posters here saw the share some 2 months ago.
What is likely to be relevant is that the vast majority of 'predictions' will be shown to be wildly over-optimistic. I wonder what all the reasons for this will be?
I have always been very conservative with my price predictions for ukog over a 2 year period and I have always ended up being

Yes, everyone should dyor.
I do feel it will be 10-12 months before investors will see how this is realistically doing and will perhaps be the minimum timeframe for investment (unless trading) for new investors.
Too long for many new investors to wait, perhaps, but for the many LTH's they will have little option if they wish to see some return to their losses.
A good opportunity for some (new money), but a long play for the many (old money).

Disagree, Ocelot.
The 4p is based on a mid-range production target which may not happen for perhaps 10-12 months, if at all, depending on permissions and feasibility.
There is a chance the field may be classed as non-commercial to re-introduce and the 2.5m then used for decommissioning, so for now (imo), I feel it cannot be incorporated into projected cashflow and the current SP reflects this.
The market will remain very cautious towards Angus for the foreseeable future until they show positive results and (again imo), normal market valuation methods will not apply here. until that happens.
This may change once the relative permissions are obtained and a complete plan of operations is released, but I feel there will be no reflection of Saltfleetby in the company SP until it is producing to the levels anticipated.
I should reiterate that I am positive here given the current SP and potential, but think we are still a long way away from a re-rate.

It may not be a share for widows and orphans, but at the current SP there will be saying 'please sir, I want some more'.
gla

Just for clarity, I have just watched the GL interview with LSE (16/5) and it is very clear that the 4p mentioned to be added to the mcap was only once the field is producing at around the mid-range of the expected production levels, not upon completion of the deal itself.
I hadn't seen this interview previously (or the 20/6 Core Finance interview which I have also watched today). Both are interesting and worth a visit if folk have not seen before, or wish to revisit.
I searched 'George Lucan interview' and removed the results generated for George Lucas interview! Some may think the Angus story to date could be a George Lucas production.
gla

I believe there is scope for a rise, but only on the company delivering now on 2 or more targets.
For me, we will not see this any significant SP change for perhaps 6 months.
Not being pessimistic, but feel that a 4p-7p range is achievable. Sadly, don't think we will see double figures again with the current assets (hope to be proved wrong).
I am targeting September 2020 level as a potential exit date with Saltfleetby the key to a reduction of my losses here and I aim to continue to hold until news on this particular asset.
gla

Totally agree, 21ATS and have posted similar in the past.
The market is expecting results now.
People keep dragging up the fact the SP hit double figures (over 2 years ago) on sentiment and hype is (imo) a tired argument.
We are in good shape and a much sounder footing than at any point in the last couple of years. One success will lead to another and production income from the new wells will allow the company to grow and become self sustaining and allow much better options for fund raising, if needed. It will also give II's comfort to invest here, hopefully at some decent (TR1) levels.
gla

An ADV trade is always executed throughout the course of the day and at the end of day at the total amount dealt at the average price will be processed with the individual fills made throughout the day reversed to process for commission, etc.
The dealer handling the trade will have clear instructions not to exceed the % volume needed and will cease trading periodically to ensure this target is not breached (most likely on an hourly basis). The dealer would communicate this requirement to the MM handling the order too.
ADV trades are pretty standard instructions for dealers, particularly in emerging markets and low volume stocks where orders are carefully managed so as to not move the market unnecessarily.
There would rarely be a requirement to reverse an excess order, or to sell shares back from an over-traded order as has been suggested previously as it is unlikely that either scenario would occur.
One possibly exception is if the order has to be cancelled in full, or part for a particular reason, in which case the MM would attempt to reverse the order, potentially at nil cost to the client.

Getting closer to 300p, TheLoaf.
Feel it still has further to go, so holding fire on adding for now.

I was in the middle of a long reply (yet again) to try and explain this, but let's be honest, folk are more interested in perpetuating this buy/sell argument as part of 'MM games' rather than hearing the actual reasons why the info provided is open for debate/inaccurate.
For those that are interested, it is a European-wide directive under MiFID II regulation as to what firms MUST report to the market within 15 minutes (currently) of trade execution. Ironically, it is all down to providing greater transparency!
Suggest you research 'MiFID II trade reporting' for more info. The link below is decent for a starter.
Not particularly interesting, but factual nonetheless.
Also, I can assure you it is not the case of 'a tiny bit of code' to make changes to the current detail to show a 'buy' or 'sell', as suggested.

https://eflowglobal.com/2019/07/29/trade-reporting-vs-transaction-reporting-whats-the-difference/

gla

adv11,
The subject about not being able to purchase Reabold shares through some brokers/platforms is addressed on the FAQ's on their website.

Alan,
My point being that regardless of the methods you have stated, which have been well documented on here as being a fruitless exercise, you did have a chance to submit the questions via the format requested to be discussed at the meeting, and did not.
Also, as Ocelot has stated a few times now, you can now submit them via the forum which you were keen to see put in place.
If you really do want answers to your questions, this appears to be the best way to do so as they are openly encouraging dialogue via this forum. Judge them on whether they take the chance to do respond to you here and good luck.