Member Info for Crocqman

Agreed Ocelot.
Ya, don't forget, I am one of the LTH's that is down too. We clearly have a differing perspective, which is fine, and good that we are all staying civil in our outlook. Long may that continue and not trying to silence you at all.
But, per your response and the last main paragraph:
"All I want is what any LTH wants: for the company to re-establish trust and confidence going forward. But I know that this is NOT going to happen by smoke and mirrors (this time around) it will take "genuine" efforts by management now to convince The Market that they are no longer selling snake oil and are serious about their intent to change...."

That is exactly what I have been saying. Try taking JT-P out of the equation for a moment (sadly, he will not be going anywhere soon regardless of what anyone here wants) and what you have said above is exactly what I believe most are looking for. I am looking to give management a chance and I believe they are taking steps to do this. Judge them on actual results over the next 6-9 months. Allow them time to prove us wrong. I will be and I am not seeking miracles.
Yes, continue posting as your opinion is as relevant as anyone and I appreciate your position, the humour in your posting and the fact that unlike many you do not resort to slinging insults, but bear your own comment in mind. Yes, challenge the bod in what they are doing. Do not forget past mistakes. Give them a chance. They are bringing their own rope to the future they are trying to sell us after all.
We can agree to disagree on things, that's the purpose of these boards after all.
Good luck all and have a good weekend.

Yanis.
Good post. Agree it's time to move on and give GL a chance. Judge him on the success or not of current plans over the next 6-9 months.
The investor meeting and the forum is a good start imo to engage with shareholders (who bothered to attend) and to try to restore investor confidence.

YL,
Your fixation with JT-P is starting to look unhealthy. Yes, don't forget the past, but time to move forward and whether you like it or not, JT-P is likely to have some involvement here.
Why don't you post your questions/concerns about JT-P on the investor forum if you are so interested in some action being taken, or seeing any further official company response, rather than keep bringing it up here day after day and saying they will sweep it under the carpet.
What do you have to lose?
Judge them on whether they post a response or not.

spike,
My understanding is that a CPR (or any other price sensitive info) could be shared under the terms of a placing/bookbuild by making the potential investors insiders. This would ban them from dealing in the share on the open market until such time that this material information is released into the public domain.
Any price sensitive info would then need to be released to the public domain once the placing/bookbuild is complete and the results are announced.
I think Parkez may be suggesting differently, unless I am reading the post incorrectly. Feel free to correct, but this is my understanding.
gla

Yes, I appreciate that, gkb and I know from past postings that Alan does work irregular hours. I am outside the UK too, otherwise I would have attended the meeting.
But did he (and anyone else with concerns) submit Q's for the meeting when there was an opportunity to do so, rather than moan on here that emails are not being replied to? I also had no reply to an email I sent a few weeks before the meeting, but my Q's were raised and answered at the meeting. Also, these Q's can now be submitted via the new forum that is up and running.
I bet the bod will not get any credit for making this available when they said they would though.
Point is, rather than moan about points here and state that the bod are not answering Q's that folk believe need answering, there is now a way to submit them for the bod to answer. There are many showing up there already. Early days, but I see this as a more transparent approach and a sign that the bod are taking investors concerns seriously and attempting to turn things around. Actions speak louder than words though, of course.
gla

It does seem that there is perhaps a shift of focus, and maybe that is not a bad thing.
Saltfleetby on paper may be the best (simplest?) option for generating cash in the medium term based on current plans.

It is a bit ironic given that one of the chief cheerleaders here still refers to this as the best Weald play currently and although I don't see the Weald as being swept under the carpet (so disagree with YL on that), juggling more than 1 ball at a time has certainly not been a strong point in the past.

I note that Alan was voicing his displeasure that none of the questions he put to the bod by email have been answered and yet reports back from the meeting suggest lots of questions were asked/answered, that the board covered many topics, often at length, nothing appeared to be 'off limits' and the bod appeared quite open too.
So, it seems that Alan did not take up the chance to submit any of his questions/concerns specifically for the meeting (or attend) despite it being well documented on here that messages by email were not being responded to. This meeting was the perfect chance to try and get some answers, so a missed opportunity there (imo).
Perhaps folk should now quit moaning on here about aspects they have had the opportunity to put directly to the board and failed to do, especially when they now have the opportunity to do so directly via the online investors questions forum that appears to be up and running.
Still plenty of room for improvement here, but as stated before, still holding and giving GL a chance.
gla

Hang on. I'm easily confused.
If the £ improves vs the $ do we not then get less £ for our oil?

It will be a long wait for any project to (hopefully) come good, that is for sure.

Disagree re: Saltfleetby.
From feedback received from the meeting, it seems to me that this is what GL may be be staking his tenure on, especially with the appointment of Mike Wells, but possibly not until Q3 next year for any revenue here, if seen to be viable.
gla

Can't say for the previous couple of days' SP drops, but for some context, all the major American markets were down yesterday, all the main Asian markets were down today, and currently all the main European markets are down together with all of the UK markets.
AIM stocks do tend to get hit worse than others when global markets are down (imo), so at least some of the drop could be contributed to global market situation.
Add in the PM's comments today and there are factors outside of 'a lack of UJO news' or 'something's not right' that could be going on here.
I posted a couple of days ago that I was tempted to add some more at 0.24 but would wait, and glad that I held off. Still watching but may see what the next couple of days brings before making a decision whether to stick or twist.
No reason to panic (imo) and as ST has done, why not take the trouble to contact the company yourself if you are that worried? Nothing has fundamentally changed as far as I can see in the past couple of weeks, happy to wait for news and act accordingly.
gla

Why don't you contact them then if you are concerned rather than posting on here suggesting that someone should?

Lol at the scooby doo reference.
"And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"

Think folk on here need to calm down a bit.
Too many people spinning anything to 'prove' their own biased viewpoint.
Of course new investors will see this as an opportunity, just as old investors are (rightly) angry, suspicious, etc.
Anyone reading this board should dyor and make their own decisions and follow their own investment strategies.
Still circa 2k down personally, but unlike many LTH's willing to see what happens over the next 6-9 months and allow the current bod to get on with things rarther than whinge about the same things day after day.
Surely people on here have other investments to concern themselves with rather than slinging insults back and forth all day?
gla

Seeing as we are just after quarter end, these small trades could relate to quarterly fees by platform providers and the PI may have an arrangement to sell shares to cover them. Trades would have to be processed individually for each account for the required fee, hence the small trade size, but most likely at a reduced commission amount for the total order size between the broker/platform.
Possible reason, could be others.
gla

Looking back to July last year and the commencement of testing and some of the daily SP movements seen in the later part of 2018, I personally would only class 100m plus as being a good volume day. I believe we were seeing regular 120m/130m plus volume days around that time due to news flow and expectation/sentiment.
Regular high volume days will indicate the tide is turning here and be the result of positive news, a CPR and hopefully a TR1 or two.
gla

I think the market is looking for actual results here now.
Until a second well is producing we may see the SP stay within the current ranges. Disappointing as I had hoped the rig would result in a 10% day, and planning push us up to the 1.40 area (my charity SP prediction).
Hope to be proved wrong here, but sentiment may only change (and for II's to start getting involved) once we are seeing steady flows from 2+ wells and increased tanker movements (3+ per day?).
Lots to happen here over the coming months.
gla

Tempting price for a further buy tomorrow, but if it bounces back I will stick with my current holding until news.
gla

I presume you see this as a good day for your trading strategy, skwizz.
Has your 1.10 limit buy gone through?

Thanks for posting the link.
For me, the majority of the 'Strengths' are either agreed actions or known facts whilst the majority of the Weaknesses appear to be possible events (e.g. delays or potentially disappointing horizontals) which of course can and could happen.
If planning allows for 3500 bopd and 16 tanker movements per day (as requested in the application) then why is this classed as a weakness along with no pipeline when the company has actually planned for this level of activity. These are positives in my mind.
Feel that the weaknesses are stretching things a bit and making more assumptions than anything and that the positives far outweigh the negatives.
We will see in time, but we look in good shape to me. Exciting Q4 ahead.
gla

I have posted this several times in response to this topic.
For me, a share buy-back would be better for the SP, company and shareholders.
All this talk is still a long way off though, I would not expect to hear any noise about this until late 2020 at the earliest, perhaps after the 2020 year end (September) if current activities proceed to plan.
I would hope that the company would be on a much sounder footing before this becomes a consideration i.e. a good few quarters of generating positive cashflow.
Alternatively, the company could announce a dividend in the final year results for 2020 instead of/in addition to this.
gla

Interesting that they note that the long awaited online investor communications portal, which allows for questions to be posed directly to the Board and viewed by users, will be up and running immediately following the meeting.

Seeing as there appears to be no sign of any response or acknowledgement from the company email address to date from any queries sent, it will be fun to see the types of questions submitted and how this is used by both the board and investors.
I am taking the wording to mean this will not just relate to those questions asked at the meeting.
How will they control the content here, I wonder. Seems like it will require users to sign up to submit questions.

Some positivity at least today and a nice SP reaction to the news. I'm sure some folk will still not be happy though.
gla

My interpretation from the RNS details has always been an either/or scenario with regard to the 2.5m.

Either, it will initially be part-used for reconnection costs, etc once the feasibility study is complete, with any excess funds from this reverting back to the agreed (ring-fenced) abandonment pot. I would then expect that a portion of any income received would then be required to be set aside to be added back into this pot over the life of the project to ensure it will be fully funded.

Or, if the feasibility study says this is not viable, the funds are already there for its intended use.

In my mind, the detail of the first scenario is what needs to be agreed with the OGA, but something along those lines seems a sensible approach to me.
Just my thought and not based on any past knowledge of this type of activity. And as others have stated, the requirements may well be tailored based on the company's past performance and current financial situation.
The funds will remain protected for it's required final purpose and built up over the life of the project.
Any caveats may be around the time to build up the pot (e.g. abandonment funds must be fully available within 2/3 of the proposed lifetime with the final figure being reviewed on a periodic basis).

I do not expect any fund-raising to be needed for this stand alone project. All will be made clear in due course.
gla