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

"The temptation to insider trade in these small AIM companies must be huge"...............

...........only if one were to be dishonest, Motchjv. There are still a few honest people left in the world, even if they're now regarded by many of the modern generation as 'quaint' in their approach.

There was many occasions in my career when I was in possession of information that was either clearly 'insider' in nature or might otherwise have been regarded as 'price sensitive'. Not once was I ever tempted to disclose this to others who had no direct need to know - even others within the Firm in which I was a partner. As for the temptation to trade, are you kidding?

So, respectfully, I disagree with your statements.

Who do people here believe is the more honest: a1m1 or John Bercow?

I'd go (narrowly) for Bercow, deceitful though many believe him to be.

The track a1m1 says I have inadvertently wandered onto correctly in regard to finding the trading profile of this stock odd is the same one that caused me to invest significant amounts in JOG @ an average of <20p and SQZ (Serica Energy) @ <22p. The risks were worth taking there and there's every reason to have confidence CLNR will be a longer term winner. Not sure why a1m1 should constantly refer to holders here being 'underwater'. Not true I'm afraid (in my case at least).

I have not seen anything like the trading behaviour exhibited by this stock in the other two companies I mention, despite there being big swings and falls in the SP as a result of price influential announcements made by each company from time to time.

The way market makers here appear to have consistently been able to find sufficient shares to keep dumping on top of any small flames of recovery for several weeks now is really quite remarkable. With so much time having elapsed since the Shell announcement and no TR1s having been filed with the Company, it seems to me the selling activity has been too great to be explained by a share overhang - or by holders losing confidence in sufficient numbers. Shell coming aboard easily outweighed the P2248 surrender. CLNR seems unaware of the presence of a significant seller so where is the evidence there is or has been one?.

Since 8 Feb approx 270m CLNR shares have been traded. If these trades were genuine, then 135m were sold and 135m bought. There might have been repeat buys but it is difficult to imagine people buying, selling at a loss, then doing the same thing again multiple times. Holders of 250m shares haven't moved (source: CLNR website - major holders) and there will be institutions etc holding below 3%, plus many LTHs like me with up to a few million tucked away for longer term reward. With 550m shares in issue, form you own views on the 135m all being genuine sales and purchases of the stock.

If one didn't know that most market-making firms are off-shoots of investment banks (all scrupulously honest) and that what were formerly called 'jobbers' working in them are people of the highest integrity (many having been raised on council estates in Essex) one might suspect that one or more of the market makers in CLNR shares had been abusing their ability to hold short positions in a client stock as long as these arise as "a normal part of their market making activities".

CLNR has good news to come - it has too much going for it not to have. Algy won't be looking to bow out with anything other than a rousing swansong and I commend him to you. I feel sure he'd be pleased to address any concerns you might have a1m1. Why not try him?

5p soon - then a lot more.

imo/dyor

.......just switched on without logging in and see that the 'monotone' has been working on a Sunday. One can only feel pity.

Don't get taken in. I was working from memory with the broker's valuation - apologies if people went out celebrating prematurely as a result of my slip. It wasn't important anyway because so many assumptions have to be made when trying to get to individual numbers. Whether the broker's valuation included P2248 or not is academic. I used my own much lower numbers (which excluded P2248) anyway - a1m1 says otherwise, which defies logic.

I and most other longer term holders aren't here for brokers', or our own, interim valuations - we're here for returns of multiples of our investment cost if one (even better if it's two or more) discoveries are made in the areas covered by CLNR's 7 current licences, 6 of which remain to be farmed out, should this be the route chosen.

The one misinforming you is the one who points out my failure to recall that the 15.7p broker's valuation included something for P2248. Exploration has clearly explained why the relinquishment of this licence might be no bad thing anyway. Who's to say it won't come back in a better form?

No "dilution" will be necessary for CLNR to meet its share of the exploration wells. In its most recent presentation (on the website) it is clearly stated that farm-down remains an option to meet these costs. Maybe a small % of the relevant licence might have to be ceded, but we're looking into a crystal ball - a great deal could happen in the meantime, including a sale of the Company at multiples of the present SP.

A discovery somewhere around mean prospective estimates (or better) in either of the two licences in which Shell has an interest would imo see CLNR assume an immediate value of 30p per share or more (using 600m shares as a base) and 50p+ should discoveries be made in both. It isn't rocket science to work out why.

Don't get drawn into discussions about things that have no real bearing on the longer term fundamentals. These are not about what disingenuous people like a1m1 try to convince you they are. He is interested in causing damage to the the short term price by destroying people's confidence in anything CLNR has achieved to date or is likely to achieve in the future.

A lot of wise and patient investors (who are not only a lot more honest than a1m1 shows himself to be, but I dare say are also a lot more successful in life generally) are willing to accept the high risks that invariably go with junior explorers like CLNR. Have these been sellers in recent times? Or at all?

If I wasn't already holding so many shares (bought from top-sliced profits on my other two AIM-listed oilcos - JOG & SQZ) and I was holding more cash, I'd be increasing my holding, not the reverse. £12m is a silly value for the market to attribute to CLNR, given the new presence of Shell and the considerable upside potential in its valuable UKCS licences.

dyor

GB - it's pointless trying to compare our respective positions and trading styles because you're a short term trader who is focused on price and events that might cause it to rise or fall and I'm interested in long term capital gain. The latter depends on something other than the short term behaviour of what are essentially gamblers that's evident in many smaller listed companies. No criticism is intended in saying this. Everyone deals in the same market.

I try to find out as much as I can about companies I invest in - it would be foolish not to. It does not make sense to me to make critical comments about these companies or their directors, who I know are doing their utmost to serve shareholders well. Were I to believe they weren't doing this, I would either reduce my holding or sell it altogether. I know only a fraction of what they know and have to deal with every day and therefore I don't presume to judge.

Where JOG is concerned, you appear to think my views about it are one-sided but as far as I'm concerned there isn't much to be critical of. The degree of professionalism that is evident in the way JOG's affairs are run is rare in what has turned out to be a junior explorer. I am a former Trap Oil holder, where what I refer to was less evident. If you don't believe I am ever critical of companies I invest in or their directors, you might care to review the minutes of the 2015 AGM in London in May 2015. When AB & RL came on the scene I was expecting JOG (formerly TRAP) to be become a producer. Events rather took over and we find ourselves where we are today.

I'm certainly not complaining about anything that's happened since those early days (even the failed first drill). Failed drills are not generally down to directors' competence - oil is a notoriously risky sector, particularly at the junior end. The risks are high, but so can the rewards be - if you read the signals properly and are prepared to wait. TRAP was as good as dead in the water (directors largely to blame imv) in 2015 and people with their own money on the line took over its operations, such as they were. The early stage Licence P2170 was among TRAP's assets. What JOG's directors did with it was almost beyond imaginable. No farm-outs had been done in the NS for more than 3 years and the oil price was on its knees. They came up with Statoil.

People are what make good companies. There are winners and there are losers. The skill lies in backing the winners.

As I acquired the greater part of the shares I'm presently holding at 8p to 25p, it seems to me there's cause for me to be a bit one-sided about this Company. If I started to feel otherwise I would reduce. I accept the risks, however, and hope the Company will continue to advance. I do happen to think JOG is only at the start of its journey, otherwise I wouldn't say it.

What the price does at any point seems to me to be unrelated to longer term prospects. We shall see.

dyor

.........a1m1 (and others) are arguing as if CLNR was a blue chip. It isn't; it is a junior explorer, but importantly it now has very real potential. One discovery and the value would see it worth many times what the market (in all its wisdom - the irrational behaviour of the 'don't knows' and 'don't understands' fix the share price) says it's worth today.

a1m1 and his cronies are just 'bashers' who work in the sewers. They only ever promote negativity. It's of course your choice, but they won't accept anything you say, no matter how logically and intelligently you present it, so imo It isn't worth engaging with them and giving them oxygen. I applied the filter ages ago to a number of people who spend every day spent trying to destroy other people's savings in return for a few pence per post. The word 'pitiful' doesn't adequately describe the lives they must lead.

Those invested for the longer term here understand the risks and are willing to accept them. I have a few million shares and I'm not in the least concerned about here - particularly given Shell have now become involved. Fundamentals always play out in the end and CLNR has a number that are impressive, not least the number and quality of so many licences for such a small explorer. The OGA must see something the bashers don't. I think we know who understands more about the UKCS and the industry generally. They might even have some respect Mr JG Cluff OBE

The ultimate fundamental is cash consideration on the sale of a company to another. I wouldn't be surprised if Algy is fed up with the lousy bottom end of his share register which is like a mill-stone around the neck of the share price. It has adversely affected the Company's ability to get itself properly capitalised for the medium term at least. He might well decide the valuable licences CLNR holds would provide better value for CLNR's shareholders in the ownership of a bigger and better cash-resourced E&P company.

A sale even at around 8-10p a share (recent broker's valuation 15.7p post P2248 relinquishment) might catch a few napping. The broker's valuation looks a bit 'sporting' to me but the range indicated is totally justifiable on any properly risked basis based on a discovery in either P2252 or P2437, using DCF to get to NPV. I am professionally familiar with valuing companies, which a subject that requires skill and experience. Many would argue that valuing shares is more of an art than a science and I wouldn't disagree. DCF modeling requires all kinds of assumptions to be made but as long as they're realistic value within a range can be determined. There's little doubt DCF/NPV is by far the best way to value a company (and hence its shares). Where there is a ready market for the shares, the complications around majority/minority interests don't arise, which makes life easier.

The bottom line is that CLNR could assume a worth many times its present one within 3 years. I intend to hang in for the ride.

dyor

Royscott - fwiw I agree.

The only thing one can do is try to promote clarity. Unfortunately, this usually falls on stony ground. Price is all that interests most short term traders, based on news releases they get wind of and others' interpretation of what these might mean. Even the most basic level of understanding is beyond them, although they will never admit it. A bloke on the CLNR blog (a builder by trade) said recently that he was happy to pass on the knowledge he'd gained from 'investing' over a long period, then went on to explain that it didn't matter how many shares a company issued because shareholders could just buy more so that they didn't get diluted. He further went on to extol the virtues of UKOG, where he said it didn't matter there are 6bn shares in issue because oil has been discovered and it's only a matter of time.

I agree it's only a matter of time. The South Sea Bubble comes to mind.

TG for the honesty, decency, commitment and talent we see in JOG. Its directors and others in the team are true professionals and deserve to succeed. I have every confidence they will. And if they do, then so do we. Interests are truly aligned in this company.

One description: "Appraisal wells can be abandoned after drilling or kept as future production wells. An Appraisal Well generally has a chance of success greater than an Exploration Well, but less than a Development Well".

2km away (ie where the present well is being sunk) was described recently by the CEO as 'fairly conservative'. It suggests to me the P2170 Partnership is confident Verbier contains a lot more oil than the bottom of the range estimate of 25MMboe. 2km away could hardly be described as "in the immediate vicinity of the (2017) well-bore", where the 25MMboe was 'seen' in 2017. Maybe it's suddenly evaporated after 65m years?.

I was being flippant in saying there is 100% CoS with the appraisal drill. There is always a chance of not finding more oil, although the CEO's use of the term 'fairly conservative' doesn't suggest to me that Equinor and partners is expecting to drill a dry hole. I've got 90%+ chance of mean estimate (69MMboe) or better plugged into my thinking. I might be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but have great confidence in the technical skills and understanding of Ron Lansdell (in particular) who's spent a lifetime in the industry at the right level. Equinor are said to know what they're talking about too.

Most convincing of all, I saw Andrew Benitz smile at one point when he was talking to Malcy in his recent '20 mins with a CEO' video. The last time AB is known to have smiled was when GB popped in unannounced to see him and he discovered they were both wearing purple trainers bought on eBay.

£10 a share would be justifiable at the top end of estimate. This would be a good start and put JOG well on course for success in the longer term.

dyor

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, blackrocktrader.

Free cash flow? Depends how you view Greek tax and "other separately disclosed items" skilfully placed below the line. Can't work out which of the latter aren't regarded as ordinary revenue items - Greek tax is in there as well at twice the amount. A lot of the other expenses seem pretty normal to me.

The FCA is a waste of space - everyone knows this. This only leaves the FRC (unless the SFO can see a way of making money for itself by becoming involved) which is shareholders' last resort, because it is able to 'pin' auditors who lend their name to ponzis and their equivalent. Auditors' pockets are deep so there's at least some prospect of recovering some of what was invested in companies that went 'pop' when it's shown that auditors should have seen the big picture. Carillion was a case in point. Who were the auditors there? In any event I was wrong to say the FRC can't become involved; it can. Apologies. It's only Crown Dependency companies listed on AIM that don't fall under its remit. Phew.

GVC is up to its eyeballs in debt and has just reported a loss after tax of £56m. So all those intangibles made a return of 'zilch'. How much does it make them worth I wonder? Numbers don't lie - only people. The "quick ratio" is a big negative and £312m of the £421m reported as 'cash' belongs to customers. GVC has clocked up losses of half a billion in its existence to date.This is through brilliant management that has made itself rich. The answer is to keep buying businesses to muddy the waters - a lot can be hidden in acquisitions.

It's little wonder people are talking of leaving (after unloading most of their shares). If institutions wanted to buy in, one would have thought the directors had the power to issue new shares for a small % of the overall shares in issue and place them with the 'desperate to buy' institutions. If the directors' shares have been used to satisfy this demand, they've chosen the one way possible to avoid the Company raising funds to reduce debt. Funny, that. Of course had they tried to sell their shares in the market, they'd have got nowhere near as high a price for them.

I'm outta here. I hope most of you manage to make decisions that turn out right for you in the end. I'm just telling it as I see it - no-one can deny the warning signs are there. I made a typo in my earlier post - intangibles are £6bn (not £2bn - why didn't you correct me, blackrockadder - you did on everything else, not that I was wrong?) . Debt is £2bn+

Would the last one out please shut the door..................

Now watch the price fly. Takes all sorts............. :-)

all imo/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)