Member Info for Crocqman

Torreagus,
The £2.5m for Saltfleetby will be ring-fenced for either re-connection and works needed there, or for abandonment, depending on commerciality of the project, so will not be used for anything else.
Regarding the last raise, we will have to see how quickly that is getting used up and on what, perhaps?

Confirmation of planning application submission is interesting for me. Although it was stated that it was expected to be in by end of August, many will see this as a firm deadline and judge the companies short term on meeting this (imo).
Hoping for some positive news soon.
gla

As I posted on the ukog board, sad to see really at this SP level.
You would have hoped that this would have occurred at a much higher price (4p plus) only a month or so ago
gla

Sad to see really at this SP level.
You would have hoped that this would have occurred at a much higher price (4p plus) only a month or so ago
gla

More like 18 months plus that we've been hearing about it

1.40 for me.
gla

That's funny, DHC. When ukog were stake-building before, as chief cheerleader you were all for them buying out everyone else.
"A bigger slice of the pie. No one getting their hands of any of your golden tickets. Here for the big prize, etc".
Clown
Busy with your tick tock schtick on SXX I see. Good luck with that

From memory, movements depend on current state of play (testing, production, etc) and should be available on the ukog website or on planning docs.
If you search 'ukog traffic movements' there is a link that takes you to a chart showing each phase. Not sure when this would have all last changed, but someone will have this detail to hand

Brocal,
I think you will find those posts are a response to a UJO holder going on to the ukog board to say that a placing was due on ukog and the SP would soon fall to 0.80.
Lots of game playing by many nervous folk if you ask me.
good luck all genuine holders

2m trade showing after close as 'unknown' traded at 1.05. Potentially a Buy?

parkez,
Were you/heid referring to the timeline for notification?
I think the holder (CO) has 2 trading days to notify the issuer (ujo) who then has 4 days to inform the market going by the document you posted.
Quite a long thread just to say that someone cannot have been selling down for the past month without making a notification, but don't want to be labelled for posting fake news.
Good that folk on here have knowledge of the reporting requirements.
Time to move on from this technical chat, perhaps?
gla

shareaction, just seen your post.
Yes, that is also technically correct and a possible scenario.
Again, my post was based purely on the 7% holding notified on 3 July and the comment that CO has been selling down over the past month

From the DTR guidelines on public disclosures:
"A person must notify the issuer of the percentage of its voting rights he holds as shareholder or holds or is deemed to hold through his direct or indirect holding of financial instruments falling within DTR 5.3.1R (1) (or a combination of such holdings) if the percentage of those voting rights:
(1) reaches, exceeds or falls below 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% and each 1% threshold thereafter up to 100%"

If to be technically correct, anything with a decimal point starting below 7%, so even 6.999999999999999% recurring would need to be reported, so any number of shares sold reducing below exactly 7% - assuming his exact % holding is 7% which it appears to be.
If I have missed anything else, please advise
thanks

In what way, Heid?
Please can you elaborate if I have posted anything incorrect.
Is it the timing of announcement, amount held by CO, or the notification points for making any announcement?
thanks

True Baits.
My response was in relation to a post stating that a TR1 holder has been selling down over the last month.
This is absolutely impossible in line with regulatory reporting requirements - with a 7% holding CO cannot sell even 1 share without a disclosure having to be made.

Any TR1 holder who is buying/selling needs to inform the company at any point a reporting threshold is reached in order than an RNS can be issued.
Seeing as no TR1 announcement for CO has been made since 3 July (confirming 7% held), it is impossible that he has sold any shares (unless it is within the last 2 trading days when notice is required to inform the company of the fact so that an RNS can be issued).
gla

A coincidence I'm sure that his trolling post here was a mere 15 minutes after ANGS issued an RNS update

I think it was an either/or situation, looking back at the Saltfleetby RNS's.
Funds would be used towards reconnection costs, but if deemed uncommercial, would then be used for abandonment.
Seems just a confirmation that this money needed to be in the company hands before any formal process could be started re: reconnection.
There is an RNS stating circa £70k cost to apply for reconnection, so appears a minimal outlay to review status check commerciality and presumably the money is ring-fenced somehow to ensure it is only used for the stated purpose.
Just a standard operating update imo and don't see any need for talk of additional funds being needed at this stage with regard to Saltfleetby.
Just my interpretation from the various RNS, sure others will interpret differently.
gla

Evidence towards a previously banned poster was pretty clear.
Joined on a Friday afternoon and immediately dissing another share on their own board whilst promoting ukog there too.
Immediately looking to argue with anyone who dared to comment against them.
All so transparent it is quite comical really.
The only surprise is that they haven't been given the opportunity to spam the board all weekend before a ban on Monday.
These boards always seem to get hijacked over a weekend nowadays, especially when activity is imminent for any particular company. There'll be another one along soon.
Good luck all genuine holders.

Little point posting with nothing much expected to be going on here in the short term.
Will continue to hold and keep an eye out for news.
Good weekend all

I see you still didn't answer the question, Seadoc.
So, yes or no (it really is that simple), were you wrong about the money you claimed had all been spent when you forensically reviewed those 31/3/19 accounts?