Member Info for extrader

Hi shaun86,

From the same edition of the Economist, "In a hole..." (mainly about GLEN's current travails with DRC / the US DoJ), they had this to say :

…"How and when the Glasenberg era ends is what investors are most curious about now. Aged 61, he has already started indicating to investors he won’t be around for more than three to five years—as it happens, roughly the time frame of a DOJ investigation of the scale Glencore faces. None of his lieutenants are in line for promotion; even in the gossipy world of mining, no one has any idea who will succeed him. Once, the obvious choice would have been a swashbuckling trader willing to win at all costs and to plough on in the face of criticism. Less so, now."

Regardless of the above, it's not uncommon for CEO's to sign off on something that they don't expect to complete themselves. I'd hope sign-off (at least) on Stage 1 would happen quicker than the 4 years you envisage !

ATB

Hi jay12,

People really should put this canard to rest :

…"not sure finance is a major thing for glencore.. I mean they spent over 200 million proving up nearly half the reserves... "

Xstrata paid for the exploration and feasibility study. GLEN bought Xstrata - for other reasons - and in the process / incidentally acquired the stake in ZIOP.

It is misleading to trot this out as 'evidence' of GLEN's commitment/interest.

ZIOP is very much an option for GLEN and sure, Ivan would like to make a turn , if he can. But unless the causes and conditions are right, nothing much will happen. The management shifts , to add some project experience to the hitherto accountant-driven 'trading' business (see The Economist Dec 1st, " Taming Glencore") is a positive.

As others have said, the key is the new port ("ground-breaking in January", the enthusiasts would have you believe) but this is seemingly contingent on an IMF deal with C-B, which in turn, it seems , is dependent on China playing ball re existing debt treatment.

Lots to play for, but still a lot of pretty crucial boxes to tick.

Looking forward to an 'interesting' 2019.

ATB

Hi ifonly1,

….but PFC is currently around 450p and moving around, in a gently southerly direction (from the graph, I don't follow the share in detail), so you need a 10-11p POSITIVE move there for each 1p move in HUR.....

Oh, well. Good luck.

Hi ifonly1,

…"lovely abit of sub 40p."

Does that mean that you're short ? Or that you've taken the opportunity to buy ?

I'm asking because we've been getting a lot of (erhaps unintentionally) cryptic posts of late....and I wondered where to put yours.

ATB

Hi all,

Re Spark Exploration's supposedly somewhat improbable emergence in our backyard, what's to say that they're not just a stalking horse/placeholder for some 'friendly' interests ?

There's past reference to WoS's potentially strategic importance to UK plc and OGA's / HMG's legitimate interest in 'managing ' activity there - weren't we ourselves given an out-of-phase licence approval a while back, to lock up a bit of extra acreage for HUR ?

With HUR shortly due to test the fracked basement reservoir concept in home waters and BP's recent announcement of its own intention to re-visit the scope of Clair, is it surprising that A.N.Other should crop up to take a potentially short term maybe even speculative interest in the acreage in-between ?

Spark's key players have relevant experience and 'kosher' backgrounds, Cambridge Carbonates ditto (adoubleuk, what was the context where they figure , pls ? - and why do you appear to doubt them, a geologist consultancy that appear to have been around 25 years or so ? )

We also know from HUR's own origins (the Trice/Huddleston story) that there's a lot of (private) capital out there looking for a home and willing to back 'speculative' ventures, Spark seems a relatively low cost/low risk option, by comparison : the heavy lifting's already been done.

History may not repeat itself, but it might well rhyme : what's to say this isn't an officially-blessed variant replay ?

If I were feeling mischievous, given his various interests in the area (BP ties, Forties pipeline, Grangemouth, issues with onshore fracking in Scotland etc) one might suspect the hand of JIm Ratcliffe / INEOS somewhere in the mix ;->….

Just some idle musings, whilst we wait for our boat to come in - or rather, head out !

Happy holidays one and all, esp. best wishes to HTL.

ATB

Hi all,

When I enter the 'zioc' EPIC, I've recently got a choice : either ZIOC Zanaga Iron or ZIOC.GB.PL Zanaga Iron Ore Company Limited.

Does anybody understand what the second is about ?

ATB

Thank you , missdosh,

From Holdsworth's bibliography/consultancy work , 2 items that appear of particular relevance :

- Holdsworth, R.E. & McCaffrey, K.J.W. (2016). Understanding the Clair field basement and its associated fracture systems: implications for reservoir appraisal. Confidential Final report for the Clair JVG.; and

- 2015 - BP: "Understanding the Clair Field Fractured Basement: Implications for Reservoir Appraisal".

No doubt the 'two Bobs' had an opportunity for a chinwag at this event in October 2018
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/documents/specialist%20and%20regional%20groups/petroleum/2018/PG%20Poster%20Fractured%20Reservoirs%202018.pdf

ATB

Hi adoubleuk,

Here, FWIW, is the IC's comment on the state of play in September (in an article overall cautious about the prospects for the sector https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/shares/2018/09/28/hot-oil/ )

…"investor attitudes towards the sector are bifurcating in extreme ways.
On one hand are the likes of Sadiq Khan and Bill de Blasio, the London and New York mayors respectively, who are calling for cities to pull their money out of fossil fuel extractors to help send “a very powerful message that renewables and low-carbon options are the future”.
On the other hand are hedge funds, most major banks, the core of institutional capital and fund management, and the likes of Schroders (SDR), whose European equities head described his “optimism towards” the “cheap” and “attractive” sector earlier this year.
Caught in the middle are the largest producers, who are starting to talk a good game when it comes to climate change, while placing bets on oil’s long-term future and failing to campaign for a carbon tax system."

Worth remembering , in the specific HUR context, that BP has just splashed the thick end of US$ 10 billion in shale oil, of all things (a subsector that arguably barely washes its face), which seems a 'courageous decision' to take if you believe your days are numbered...!

ATB

Hi NigWit,

Again, I find myself having to disagree with your argument : when you/the IC say that II's and pension funds are increasingly reluctant to invest in hydrocarbons because …"This makes good business sense to them since they want to prevent reputations damage...."

On that basis they should not be invested in tobacco companies …..and should be actively disinvesting from companies like British Aerospace and Rolls Royce , given their involvement with unsavoury Governments overseas and specifically their active roles in the carnage in Yemen, to name but the current abomination.

It seems to me that you/the IC are giving IIs and pension funds credit for a level of morality that they don't (some would say, shouldn't ) possess...

For a different take on this issue - admittedly from 2016 - , see https://www.ft.com/content/e87a9b3c-0708-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce

…" Just 15 years ago, the tobacco industry was considered to be in terminal decline, given its exposure to multibillion-dollar lawsuits, government clampdowns on marketing and rising consumer aversion to smoking in developed countries.
But fast forward to 2016 and cigarette makers like Philip Morris and British American Tobacco have emerged unscathed from what was considered a lethal combination of threats to their profitability.
The FTSE All World Tobacco index, which tracks the performance of the world’s biggest cigarette companies, has returned 988 per cent since 2000, significantly outpacing the 131 per cent return for the FTSE All World index...."

It would be a brave manager, it seems to me , who would forego that contribution to his/her performance evaluation ;->

And where do ETFs or index tracking funds fit into the mix, in this construct ?

ATB

I'd think 156p a tad on the mean side, too.

P.S.

I also think that the concluding words …" a chance of building a better, more secure future” are significant : they're not about investment or financial security but a (political) aspiration, IMO.

ATB

Hi NigWit,

Thanks for the IC extract. My point remains, however : you could uses the same text, suitably tweaked, for Big Tobacco.

I'm not aware of their issuing a similar investor-health related warning, if anything pundits have been touting Big Tobacco's defensive (dividend-paying) qualities !

ATB

Hi NigWit et al,

It seems to me - maybe I'm in denial/ unduly complacent ? - a bit of a stretch to argue that II ethical or similar concerns are likely to impact materially HUR's fortunes.

You only have to consider how resilient Big Tobacco ( a supplier of known , addictive carcinogens and quantifiable medical and social costs) has been to see that Mr Market (and tax-revenue dependent governments) are pretty cynical about these things. Ditto re 'Big Alcohol'......and , maybe in due course, 'Big Pot'....

The markets are jittery, it's pre year-end, HUR's 'special sauce' is untasted and untested, there may be residual governance concens .....why go out on a limb right now ?

A case of Occam's razor, shirley ?

ATB

Hi AJA5 et al,

Thanks for clarifying ! I see that my decimal point was out on both sides and a reality check would have shown that the GBP 240K was wrong. You guys obviously deal with bigger shareholdings than my own.

Thanks also to Mitch984 for the comment re possible understatement of Everitt's costs re RNS 1 (threshold crossed after a falling s/p), so maybe 14p is a bit mean.

However, the underlying original point - that Everitt is close to being back 'in the money' - remains.

ATB

Hi AJA5,

I've found that it's usually more productive an exchange if a disagreement is accompanied by a reasoned counter-argument or explanation of where you believe an error has occurred : simply saying 'you're wrong' doesn't advance the discussion at all.

I've done you (and the board) the courtesy of showing the workings that support my comment, perhaps you'd care to do the same ? That way, everyone's the wiser.

ATB

ATB

Hi shaun86,

If you look at Everitt's 3 x holding RNS's, he reported 3.22%/9.2M shares around 2/7, when the price was abt 10.25; 4.09% / another 2.6M shares (to 4.09%) 27/7 when the price had been rising to around 15p; and a final 5.5M shares (taking him to 6.01%) on 23/8 when the s/p had a further run-up to around 20p.

Total 17.3 M shares. If you assume , conservatively, that he bought all at the highest, threshold point, that works out at a cost of around GBP 240K, for an avge holding cost of 14p. It's likely to have been lower than that, in practice.

He's probably close to b/even by now, so (apart from opportunity cost considerations) can await developments in a pretty relaxed frame of mind, whilst he waits for his more recent FLYB punt (where he seems to be just in the money) to deliver.

ATB

Hi all,

A little late to the party.....actually currently in sunny San Francisco....but re the IC article : I'm surprised no-one's brought up the common-place that the Chronic Investor is frequently a contrarian indicator !

The more thoughtful climate activists I've met here are murmuring (sotto voce still) that there's actually a good case to be made for nuclear , to overcome the ongoing intermittency problems of wind and solar.

But that, as they say, is a whole new ball of wax.

ATB

Hi Mr Toad,

MBS is somewhere between a rock (Iraq ?) and a hard place : he may want to placate Trump and keep him on-side whilst he deals with Khashoggi fallout, on the other hand (a) Putin seems to be more reliable (never thought I'd see myself writing that. Everything is relative, I suppose) (b) a low POO plays havoc with Saudi (and Russia) finances.

It 's at least possible Trump's pressure will push Saudi more into the Russian camp. Another Trump own goal ?

Goodness, gracious me.... what to do ?

ATB

Hi NigWit,

You ask why NEDs haven't been appointed , citing a January 2018 RNS.

I think part of the answer's in the RNS, where it states that NEDs will be appointed following input from the new Chairman, who wasn't in post until May 2018, i.e. 6 months ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Hannam report, apart from being part of HUR's PR campaign, will itself be part of the recruitment process.....;->

ATB

Hi Moonlanding,

Thanks for this ! A quick skim suggests it tells the 'Hurrricane story' pretty comprehensively....and some of the numbers it comes up with make very encouraging reading.

I've a 10 hour flight coming up in the next few days, I think I've just sorted my reading material.
ATB