London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

bullson - we haven't been told JOG (or anyone connected with JOG) has submitted bids in the supplementary round but it is difficult to imagine someone in the P2170 partnership hasn't. The partnership seems to function effectively so my guess is that it would remain intact if adjacent licences are secured.

It's only a guess.

LA - what rate do you think it would be fair to charge on the loan to reflect the risks involved? Would you put up unsecured money for the benefit of holders of the other 89% you don't own?

Think it through!!.

The predicament PIs find themselves in here is imo the result of CLNR over-promising in the past, the shares finding themselves trading in a range that defines them as "penny shares", a failure to provide clear (or, latterly, truthful) visibility about the cash needed by CLNR to pay its share of future drill costs and - perhaps most notable of all - skills in leadership and negotiation shown by CLNR's CEO (and maybe others) that make Theresa May appear a world leader by comparison. Given CLNR's weak cash position, one would have thought that a free carry on the drills of some measure at least would have been a pre-condition to farm-out talks even starting.

CLNR still has good prospects and has a much healthier cash position than it had before the £15m came its way (assuming it gets the nod at at the GM ). Clearly, if Shell decides to drill, there will be a measurable chance of making a discovery that is bound to materially impact the share price. But for some reason what's happened has focused my mind on what's looking more a binary play now than it did before. With 1.4bn shares in play there are a lot more people to share the proceeds of any success with and this changes the risk/reward ratio significantly. Upside is more than halved,

A farm down of P2437 and smaller raises to provide working cap as and when would have been preferable to me but wdik?

It's an insult that the directors aren't taking much risk themselves. £50k of the £15m put in by them and "other senior personnel" in total? Are they kidding? Don't tell me they can't afford it - the two execs have enjoyed significantly increased packages over the past 2 years while the SP has been doing nothing. I don't suppose they they need to invest their own money because GS & AN have 37m options (at 1.32p to 2.32p) to exercise and sell in the event of good fortune.

That probably won't be enough though. It's unlikely to be long before more soft options are awarded to them to compensate them for the dilution they've caused (sorry - suffered). There should have been a share consolidation a long time ago (say,1 for 10?) to take CLNR out of "joke territory" and put the SP above the level the penny traders like to play at. Price is all that counts to them and CLNR's value has suffered as a result. The BoD has now locked in the wrong value for good. If there was going to be a big raise why not at least do it when the 2nd Shell farm in was announced and there was more optimism?

Conclusion imo? The Company's great but management is weak. I'm planning to reduce by 60%.

And sack Allenby Capital. 17.4p and they back a huge raise at 10% of it?
http://www.allenbycapital.com/research/research-cluff-nat--resources_30_3186950600.pdf

all imo
dyor

I have been puzzllng over who is providing the supply side the market makers have had seemingly unlimited numbers of shares to fill over the past 4 months. The result has been a price that has fallen from 5p on first news of the Shell deal to what it is today. The number of trades executed can hardly have been the result of day trading - short termers nipping in and out to make a quick buck. They won't have been trading when the direction of travel has constantly been south. To have tried would have been insane.

When I checked (I have an account with IG Index) it wasn't possible to place short spread bets on CLNR (I wasn't trying to do it, just finding out if I could). IG quoted an inability to borrow the shares (to hedge their own position) as the reason.

Nearly 40% of CLNR's shares are held by individuals, funds or wealth managers that have provided no notifications of changes in their holdings since early Feb. Algy holds about 2% and I dare say there are a few around who have meaningful holdings that are below notifiable level (3%) and many others with smaller positions who are also in for the long term, based on fundamentals. They won't have been reducing either. So a big % of the shares in issue won't have moved over the 4 months (I have added about 10% and others will have done the same, little effect this has had on the SP).

400m+ CLNR shares have been traded in 4 months since 8 February. For every seller there's a buyer, so the number actually traded is halved - ie 200m+ shares. Who has been selling?

Some holders will have jumped off on the two discernible spikes, but what about the rest?

One internet broker who shall remain nameless states: "XXX Services Limited does not operate as a bank, does not have any exposure to under-performing assets (including sub-prime) and does not lend any of the stock it holds for customers". This suggests to me other brokers might lend stocks held for customers - effectively turning these shares (held on trust) into weapons used against their beneficial owners.

If you were such an internet broker, what means would you choose to ensure a downward movement in a company's share price so that shares dumped into the market, or used as a means to extinguish any flames of recovery had the desired effect? Might they be inclined to pay bulletin board bashers to dishonestly present a totally negative situation.

Suggestion: ask your broker directly if they EVER lend shares held in their nominee accounts and - if they do - for what purpose.

I intend to check the position with the regulator. I tried the Financial Services Ombudsman's Service earlier but they referred me to the FCA. I'll give them a bad time until they give me an answer. Others might want to do the same. Someone imo needs to go to prison for what's been going on here. Not as bad as Juridica (watch this space) but fundamentally dishonest nevertheless.

dyor

Stories like this one on AIM are how investors willing to take reasonable and quantifiable risk can make very significant gains, because they see a situation that is way out of balance (risk vs potential reward) and are willing to embrace that risk. CLNR has mitigated the overall risk by adopting a "portfolio-based" approach to licence ownership. The Company is well-funded (working capital) to the end of the year at least and can farm out or farm down existing licences to raise the money needed to pay its share of future development costs (adding some to working capital if needed) given Shell's commitment to meet all the costs associated with P2252 up to the point a well investment decision is taken. CLNR is 75% carried on P2437, which is expected to be drilled at the end of 2019 or early 2020. It is stated to have a CoS of 39% (v high).

Some investors might be feeling somewhat over-extended as a result of having been unable to resist the value increasingly on offer, but with the odds of one or both of the wells being successful - and who has a better record that Shell in this regard - their courage might well be generously rewarded before too long. I have no idea what the term: "trapped bulls" means, but it seems clear that various fundamentally dishonest people working from scripts prepared by others, always talking of hypothetical future events that have no more likelihood of happening that the relevant posters being found to have the moral integrity of a rat, have been trying their hardest (using such meaningless jargon) to frighten people into either selling or at least avoiding CLNR. Those falling for this nonsense would make the same mistakes they have - becoming so unsuccessful they spend all day every day rubbishing CLNR for what most would regard as a pittance. Pitiful really, when one comes to think of it :-)

This share has the potential to fly. 30p+ on a single discovery of the volumes indicated is nailed on and 60p+ if both drills are successful. Plus there's 5 more licences still to farm out. If people don't look on this as a steal on a risked basis, they're daft.

When you weigh it all up, CLNR really looks like a cracking investment for those with the courage of their convictions who don't mind risk they understand. Average luck with the drill tip is always a given. Risk can never be eliminated.

-The COS says to me that the drilling has a good chance of being successful.
-The price includes no likelihood of success
-The Co has said it can raise money to fund the highly promising drills via farm down or farm out, with any later fund-raises on the back of a much higher share price

So when you put all that together, CLNR is a great buy for those who realise you don't get reward without taking risk. I personally prefer the views (backed up by money) of someone like Shell to the drivel posted on discussion forums and social media by some of life's biggest losers.

dyor

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for dickupham

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)