Member Info for dickupham

Think you've misunderstood something, happy_hatter. Total shares in issue are 21,829,227. Schroders are now holding 10.203% of those - ie about 2.27m. They have increased their previous holding by about 227k shares. The low number in issue is one of the appealing things about owning shares in JOG - it brings gearing into play (we've seen it in action - the shares fly when there's good news to report - sadly the reverse is also true but we won't talk about that). Plus the fact the shares are relatively tightly held, with the directors holding c.10%; friends, family and initial investors who haven't moved another 10% or so; Schroders & L&G combined c.18%; other institutions with holdings below the reporting threshold a few more % and a few PIs with significant individual holdings they don't choose to talk about..... .........yawn.............is that the time? Well done AB - sounds as if you won the audience over. Never doubted you would!

That said - Andrew Benitz may yet stun the audience with oratory skills never before witnessed. Mesmerised attendees from a host of moneyed-up organisations looking for a home for investors funds will be seen reaching for their phones, whispering animatedly into the mouthpiece through clenched teeth: "just buy and keep buying..............how many.......as many as you can get you dimwit..............what price?...........I don't care; just get them............. lalalalalalalala

yeah - someone was just paid 202p for a sale of 25k shares. A P&D ahead of the presentation - JOG can't say anything new because no RNS has been issued. Sorry for those who have paid over the odds. It's AIM - synonymous with dishonesty. The City is rotten to the core.

.......couldn't agree more, grewber. What HAS changed, however, is JOG's industry standing and reputation following the Statoil farm-in and the Verbier discovery, which made possible the big fund-raise in October. This has put JOG on a much sounder footing when it comes to competing for available interests of the kind JOG is seeking. Ultimately we are all reliant on JOG's team to achieve what they have indicated for the past 23 months they intend to. They pulled off a blinder with TRAP's only worthwhile licence (P2170), although not much was known about this when they came aboard. Not sure where we'd have been without it. There's still time before the shutters come down as far as I'm concerned - I don't have 5 years to give Statoil (or someone else if Statoil decides Verbier isn't big enough to interest it) to decide at all material times what it wants to do with Verbier, Cortina and Meribel. Let's hope JOG is finally able to put a deal to bed soon. It will lift a lot of the pressure many must by now be feeling when there are other investment opportunities in the sector that are starting to look promising. No deal is ever going to be tick all the boxes - it might be worth paying a modest entry fee to start the ball rolling................

contd.......... Who or what takes the credit for restored profits and healthy dividends to shareholders? Is it the oil price recovery or the lower service costs responsible? No - it's the skill and judgement of the directors who have restored companies' fortunes. How should this be rewarded? Lavishly - bonuses aplenty And they were skilful enough not to part with all those 'for sale' assets at bucket shop prices - they're back in profit now, even at the $50+pb it takes for them to break even in the hands of big oilcos with overheads in the stratosphere - and directors' packages that match. Happily the OGA - assuming it shows itself to have some teeth - is seeing to it that later life interests in the hands of 'Big Oil' are exploited to the full (as part of the so-called 'MER' strategy) with every last pocket swept and every last barrel recovered. This is where companies like JOG can score. They capable of extracting decently tied in interests at $20-30pb so opportunities for acquisitions should genuinely arise. SQZ, in its recent game-changing deal with BP showed what can be achieved with enterprise, skill and imagination. JOG's reputation in the industry is on the up and they're well funded to take the next step towards achieving their longer term strategy to be a small to mid cap producer. My preference would be for Verbier to be fully appraised, then sold for maximum cash value to someone whose strategy is different. Use the money to accelerate the production efforts. JOG will get there - it's just a question of when. It was imv an 'own goal' to issue 'in the money' options when they did. A strike price ahead of an already under pressure and much depleted (from previously recorded levels) share price wouldn't have made much difference to the recipients. To set an 'in the money' price was un-clever. Awarding options to the FD and chairman was akin to throwing bucket-loads of �50 notes formerly belonging to shareholders off a cliff. The FD and chairman have bought precious few shares using their own money - what message does this send to us ordinary mortals? DYOFR - IHE

Why are people expecting a Statoil update tomorrow? Statoil's presentation date is 7 Feb: http://www.statoil.com/en/investors.html#financial-calendar I doubt very much any sort of detailed update about Verbier's numbers will be given by AB at tomorrow's Oil Barrel presentation - what can he say in the absence of published info from Statoil and JOG informing all shareholders of the facts beforehand? It seems far more likely to me that all hands have been working since the sidetrack discovery by Statoil (with JOG's input where required) on planning ahead of the now announced (by JOG this week) appraisal well the partners intend to have drilled in the summer of 2018. The planned appraisal well will determine more precisely what reserves Verbier is likely to hold. The data they've been analysing is more likely designed to allow the best possible drilling location to be identified, so that they 'hit the sweet spot' with the drill. If the data accumulated when the appraising has been done turns out to show oil at the lower end of the estimated 25-130MMboe, then don't expect fireworks. If it's closer to the top end (130MMboe) then the value of JOG's interest will make the company's present share price look silly. But I doubt anyone is going to find out much more about Verbier until Q3 or Q4 2018. More patience is required. What's more disappointing to me is JOG's continuing inability to identify and complete on producing interests on the UKCS. No doubt AB will say more about this at tomorrow evening's presentation. I have no doubt every effort is being made to drive JOG's clearly defined production strategy forward, but I have felt for a long time that many of the oil assets said to be for sale aren't actually for sale at prices that allow acquirers much leeway. Call me a cynic if you like but it has been in big oil companies' executives' personal financial interests to charge as much 'impairment' against all oil assets as possible since 2014. There was no comeback on them for booking huge losses in their accounts - just blame the oil price. Auditors had to be convinced impairment charges were valid, but this was easy. The best way to demonstrate fair impairment was to put the assets up for sale. At one point in 2015/16 there were said to be well over 100 interests in NS fields for sale. But were they really? How many were actually sold? We know some were (there has been a bit more recent activity) but most didn't shift - and still haven't. What is the benefit to oilco execs in acting this way? When the oil price increases (which it has done - to some extent anyway) bigger profits can be recorded on the barrels lifted - amortisation and depreciation charges are hugely reduced, as are the costs charged by now hungry service providers. I'll continue this in a following post..............

Judge-mental - why give him the satisfaction? He targets people to engage with by quoting their name (usually a misspelt version of it). He suffers from ACD (acute cerebral dysfunction) - that much is obvious. I once ended up (as a youth) on a beach late one evening after a real skinful, with a girl who had acute angina. I realised after I'd sobered up a bit that the rest of her was horrible.

Mommur - I don't think you're being entirely fair about 2 of JOG's 3 exec directors (Messrs Benitz & Lansdell). They have taken very low remuneration packages, relatively speaking (name any full time E&P AIM directors paid less), ever since they took the helm when their company (now called JOG E&P or similar) was taken over by TRAP (E&P actually reversed in and TRAP's name was changed to JOG). My personal view is that it is wholly in order to have rewarded the two individuals above in broadly the way chosen - plus the JOG personnel below director level who were also awarded options, who have worked extremely hard and effectively to get JOG to where it is today. I would have preferred to have seen exercise prices 'at' or slightly 'out of' the money, rather than at a soft �2, which gives the market another chance to drive the share price down to a target in the continuing absence of substantive news about JOG acquiring producing assets. Maybe Statoil will announce something positive about Verbier to cheer everyone up a bit if they remember. Options shouldn't be awarded to non-execs - period. Lots of AIM companies do it but it's in breach of the Code (of good corporate governance), which is there for a purpose. The best companies tend to comply. Non-execs don't (or shouldn't) get involved in decision-making - their role is advisory. Awarding them options impairs their independence. I know lots of AIM companies ignore the guidelines, but this doesn't make it right to do so. Don't ask me to comment on JOG's finance director now holding 250,000 'in the money' options that haven't cost him a penny. He was a disaster at TRAP, as was the (non-exec) chairman, who has been similarly awarded 81,570. I wouldn't have either of them within a hundred miles of anywhere JOG does business.

I didn't like it, Ron.

cut off in mid sentence........... "Have a think about it. My preference? Sell P2170 (no oil until at least 2022, under Statoil's control throughout, a lot of cash to find for what essentially will be exploration .......etc). Use the �24m (or a chunk of it) to buy producing interests (have a look at what SQZ achieved - put 4x on the share price practically overnight - thankfully I was invested). The following is also from the 20 October RNS. "The Company has also continued with its other focus of seeking to acquire value-enhancing North Sea production assets. The Directors believe that if the Company has a stronger balance sheet, it will provide vendors with greater confidence in the Company's ability to execute acquisitions. The Company will also benefit from having the necessary resources to undertake its own studies and continuing to fund the ongoing evaluation of numerous North Sea oil production and development prospects. The Company hopes to be able to transact in the near future on a strong pipeline of asset opportunities which the Company is currently evaluating". The �24m raised has provided the strength talked of. We still have to find out what "in the near future" means. We all know about 'hope'. It springs eternal.

If it's the (just under) �24m that was raised in the placing and the offer you're talking about, added to the �1.8m the company had in cash at the time, making a total of c.�25.6m of 'cash at bank', then just divide it by the number of shares in issue (c22m) and you get the answer I think you're looking for, which is about 116p per share. But why look only at one of JOG's assets if you're trying to get a feel for JOG's underlying net asset value. The following was stated by JOG's directors in the RNS explaining the rationale for the placing on 20 October: "Current management estimates for gross recoverable resources attributable to JOG across all of the P.2170 Licence prospects (Verbier, Cortina and Meribel) range from 70 MMboe in the low case to 273 MMboe in the upside case, which correspond to management estimates for net asset value to JOG of approximately �83.7 million in the low case (which assumes a subsea tie-back operation) to �400.5 million in the upside case (on a standalone production platform basis)". All depends on whether or not you trust JOG's directors: a) to be competent at what they do and b) to give their honest estimates In the event they are competent and honest, then their belief is that JOG owns assets with a net value of at least �108m, being �83.7m minimum value of JOG's share of the oil in the fields comprising the P2170 licence, plus �25m in cash. I say 'net assets' because JOG currently has no debt. The minimum net asset value is before putting any value on what are termed 'intangible assets', which in this case is mostly the cost and effort of putting in place a team of talented people with vast accumulated sector knowledge, expertise and experience whose concentration is firmly focused on creating future value for shareholders. These include themselves. It will be difficult for AB to stand up in front of a lot of people at the Oil Barrel Conference next Thursday (1 Feb) and say the same thing all over again (we're focused on acquiring late life producing interests etc etc - everyone knows that). He will be unable to give an update on the results of the Verbier sidetrack drill unless a public statement has been made in the meantime. My personal view is that the placing and offer were priced attractively to make sure the money was raised without difficulty. Somewhere around �2 has since been chosen as the range the shares should trade in by people who don't look at fundamentals and don't have much of a clue about what might be around the corner. I'm not convinced JOG wants to keep its 18% of P2170 - doesn't make much sense to me to do so if there's a reasonable offer for it on the table. Sell it and use the funds to buy income producing assets. 10kbpd of production at $40pb margin would give JOG a bottom line of <�100m pa. Put a multiple on that and divide it by 22m shares............then you're talking. Hav

I hadn't seen this particular i/v with the Oil Man from about a month ago. JOG is mentioned just before half way through........... http://www.malcysblog.com/2017/12/interactive-investor-interview-oil-shares-keep-eye-2018/

What's with all the pessimism? The present share price is only just over 2p in old Trap Oil money. TRAP listed at 43p (�43) in 2011 and are in much better shape today..................

You're right Cebo - I'm slightly more thick-skinned than that. I'm not particularly interested in how others trade either. I was just putting into play a few thoughts I had on a couple of posters' sage contributions. Wish I'd shut up now. One of Warren Buffett's most famous sayings is: "the best time to sell a good share is never". He certainly practises what he preaches and hasn't done too badly. I'm not saying JOG is another Coca Cola but it has only just left the starting blocks and I know the directors ambitions are high. I regard them as extremely capable individuals and believe them to be people of the utmost integrity - highly unusual these days. They have a great deal of the their own money invested and have so far taken very little out in remuneration for what has been a successful first two and a half years, over which period returns for shareholders have been spectacular. There's nothing to prove I'm right in the way I view JOG's current situation and its future prospects but all the signs look positive to me. I am also significantly invested in Serica Energy (SQZ), which a couple of months ago announced the purchase of BP's interest in 3 later life UKCS fields (gas and condensates?) as operator. The deal was structured so that the worst outcome for SQZ from a cash flow perspective would be neutral and the basic consideration (�12.8m) and contingent uplift (to as much as �39m) is to be paid out of revenue flows from the acquired interests, over a period of 3 years. The above is all from memory - I read the RNS three times) before I could get my head around the transformational nature of the deal for SQZ - and the incredible benefits it would generate for SQZ, whilst satisfying BP's need to demonstrate the deal was a fair one for BP's shareholders. The bones of the deal were: ** Serica's pro-forma net 2P Reserves at 1 January 2018 are projected to increase sixteen-fold to 50 mmboe ** Based on H1 2017 production rates Serica's net production would increase approximately seven-fold to over 21,000 boepd of which over 85% is gas ** Acquisition expected to be immediately cash flow and value accretive post-Completion If JOG's team could come up with a deal even half as good shareholders here would be ecstatic. I'm hoping they do better!! SQZ's shares were trading at 26p immediately before the announcement. They're now trading at 90p+. SQZ has 280m shares in issue. JOG doesn't have 10% of this number and they're very tightly held. The market doesn't seem to have 'got' JOG's current asset backing to �5 a share because the shares are changing hands at 40% of JOG's minimum NAV.. The term: "loaded catapult" comes to mind. GL

Cebo - I'm hurt you doubt my previous posts will be hugely helpful in your investment. I spent a good part of my career valuing companies, although this involves fundamentals, which a lot of investors either don't understand or aren't interested in. Share prices are always the result of supply and demand and opinions differ on what shares offer good value a particular price. I try to promote better understanding of the value of investments I'm interested in. Investing can be dangerous to people's wealth. The more the fundamentls of companies are understood, the more chance there is of enjoying meaningful returns (and avoid losses to the extent this is possible. I always hope to learn more about the companies I'm posting about from those with experience in the oil industry. Day traders, people who trade based on charts, or those who see trends that indicae to them the price of a share will increase or decline, all trade in the same market and it is not my or anyone else' place to tell them how they should or shouldn't behave. I'm not sure who you think has 'berated' people for day trading. I genuinely don't believe JOG is a good share to trade, simply because I see it as safer, given my belief the shares have a long way to go, to buy and hold. There has to be a realistic chance of jumping off and not being able to jump back on again at a lower price. I'm not sure why you think people who were invested in TRAP should keep quiet about it? P2170 was a TRAP licence, for instance. Was that something to be ashamed of? TRAP looked a reasonable play based on the prospectus supporting the IPO in 2011. What followed couldn't have been predicted. I decided to ignore the "you're throwing good money after bad" warnings of experts at the time JOG came along and increased my Trap Oil olding(divided by 100) multiple times over at prices between 22p (Aug 2015) and 8p (Jan 2016) and back to 20p (March/April 2016). Is this something I should keep quiet about? I note you'll be selling your shares from �4. The lowest value of the oil in the fields making up Licence P2170 is �83.7m, according to JOG in the RNS explaining the share placing to raise �20m (issued last November). The Company is now sitting on cash of c.�25m. JOG has no debt. Without ascribing any value to the intangibles (eg the accumulated knowledge in JOG's team that is focused on generating significant returns for shareholders) the minimum value of JOG's tangilble assets is �109m. There are fewer than 22m shares in issue, which gives a minimum net asset value per share of c.�5. If the market likes the news JOG will likely release sooner rather than later, �5 a share should quickly become history. Sounds as if you will be providing liquidity, which Judge-mental will approve of :-) Good luck whatever you decide to do

Cebo - re:...... 'I do agee however that all types of traders make the market, and find it strange when some "LTHs" berate short term traders for trading, taking profits and working percentages. - If I had held those shares since trap oil days then not only would not only be reviewing my strategy and model, I would also be keeping quiet about it"........... .........before I respond, can I ask if you're referring to me?

All opinions/views are valid, Judge-mental - it's up to each individual how he/she chooses to invest/deal. I was only asking if a share with very limited liquidity is a good one to trade and making a few observations on how I think as a LTH. It might be difficult to buy in any volume if the next RNS or two is positive. The reverse is of course also the case, but we won't talk about that. I have every confidence in the directors (and advisers) to do their stuff and hope to be surprised on the upside one of these days............ GL

Is JOG is a particularly good share to day-trade, given the low number in circulation and the lack of liquidity? Ref short term trading being good for companies and their shareholders, is it? Has the result of lots of people not understanding the basics here resulted in the shares trading at the right price? If all the demand is caused by hysteria, who does that benefit? The reverse seems to be the case here now - few are buying because the ones who understand are 'full up'. A lot of the recent action (ie since the Offer) has been selling by people getting bored waiting for news and moving their funds into much more exciting and safer plays like UKOG, FRR, SOL and a few others of note, thereby confirming their status as Einsteins of the investment world. The number of shares traded by short termers doesn't give investor with any kind of holding any comfort at all. My guess is that the LTHs are happy to to wait either for takeover or an orderly exit from a much higher platform, always assuming JOG gets onto one. My target is a long way ahead of where the price sits now. Some patience will be needed, which is where a lot will fall down. There is of course no saying I am right.. But I am allowed to hope

Fair enough happy_hatter - thought you meant the subscribers to the placing were trading their shares. Some of the shares available in the offer (which weren't fully taken up) will have been sold because it was expected the offer would be oversubscribed and some people ended up with more than they wanted. My personal view is that this is what led to the fall in the SP to below the offer price but the effects will be over by now as it's 2 months since it all happened. By the time the bookbuild was announced there were a few hours left to participate, which suggested to me there was enough interest from institutions/PIs JOG (or its brokers) had approached in advance, so it was effectively: 'by invitation'. Yes is the answer (if you mean have I ever taken part in one). I'm not a grammar Nazi, Judge-mental - there are some basic clues to be had from what people pen on these boards - lack of education being one of them. How sensible is it to take notice of people who've spent the whole of their time at school failing to learn the basics?. If I'm honest what bores me is messages about how MMs are crooked, it's fraud, no-one will let me buy, no-one will let me sell. it isn't fair, miss. Everyone knows JOG's <24m shares are tightly held. MMs are no different to street traders. They'll try all sorts of tricks to favour their own (and perhaps favoured 'clients') positions. Whether or not a fair market is made in the shares doesn't come into it because everyone knows there's no regulation anymore. 3,000 people in the FCA turn up (not Fridays, that's a 'work at home' day) just to collect the money. 'Buy and hold' would seem to be the sensible route here if the oil man is anywhere near right. Hope there are no foux pas above :-)

happy_hatter - it would surprise me if you had any knowledge of the identity of investors who were invited to participate in the book build to raise �20m. As a general point, I have difficulty taking seriously the views of people who think the word 'of' is a verb ("......it would of happened in JOG"). I've woken up - all day traders are rich. They get rich by day trading.