Member Info for Genghis15

I am not sure Dr T can bew blamed for the SP ; what more could anyone do in the face of the current crop of doubters, led by dspp, over at TLF?

Dr t has issued clear RNSs stating the wellsare being flowed, as planned, to determine reservoir characteristics ; that produced water is perched, not aquifer ; and that any significant variation from expectations will be RNSd.

So, the wells are producing as expected and all is well. Wait for CMD, it's only a month away now.

That can only be weather related ; bring it on.

Albi

Quite right.

I have filtered TSD, all those replying to him are only heling his deramping by keeping his post at the top of the page.. Filter and ignore ; respondin only pushes his message,

I believe the price is set at the point of offload at Brent spot, more or less.

Lw
If you look at LF, it is not so much dspp who is concentrating on the bonds, but other posters who are talking detail around embedded derivatives.
All complete nonsense, really ; it may be serious stuff to serious investors, but is completely irrelevant as long as the wells work.

I used to go over there to read some pretty serious analysis of the sort rarely seen here ; but when you go over there these days, despite all the technical, learned, and earnest posts, it is hard not to see a fearmongering conspiracy, whether or not that is the case.

I have returned TSD to the filter list where he belongs, I suggest you all do the same.

Its complicated but in think it does payback.

Easy to create these partial articles to create the impression they dont.

Wessex, you are linking the wrong article. This thread is about the energyvoice article, not the ft one which I posted as a giftlink from my FT subscription on another thread, which should work for everybody.

VHB
PDMS view may be pessimistic but it is not illogical. He has highlighted that the existing SP does not account for a successful well test, which is indeed not entirely a given. I would suggest it should be very likely, on the basis of previous results ; but subsurface risk is ever present

You pays your money......

The article is behind a paywall, so I haven't read it.

But the idea that a predator might be looking to buy HUR as well as Spirit, while it smacks of wishful thinking, would fit well with the driving down of the SP in the last weeks.

JAdam, you are welcome to post your opinions ; that's what the bb is for. But it seems to me as weellwell suggests, that your opinions are emotionally, rather than factually, formed.

this gives the lie to that.

https://on.ft.com/37l19sB

"'Commercially', would include trading in the companies shares" I disagree. It has no bearing on the co's commercial operations.

"what about the tie back,". you answer your own question ; this would be subject to discussions with multiple parties incl OGA, Spirit, and who knows who else. It is perfectly feasible that the decision had not been made @ 29 Jan. Again, you are making assumptions to match your preformed view, then lambasting the company based only on assumption.

You are able to do this bcos you are not subject to FCA disclosure rules. The company is, and I can see no reason why it would break those rules to keep a decision quiet for 5 days.

Why are ou raising the subject at all?

"that was a lie, "

Calm yourself, and take a look at facts before throwing that sort of accusation around.
The wording was ""We note the recent weakness in the Company's share price and I can confirm that we are not aware of any subsurface, operational or commercial reasons that would have caused such decline. The production performance of the Lancaster EPS wells is above our base case expectations and we remain on target...." NOTE ; "subsurface, operational or commercial reasons "

Whatever else you say about shorters, or major sellers, is pure conjecture on your part, and not grounds for impugning the character of the BoD.

Next, everyone else! the statement above was made by RNs on 29 January ; wasw revalidated by omission (given the co's pledge to advise on any departure from guidance) by the 6 Feb update. So, at the moment, all is well subsurface, commercially, and operationally.

This falling SP may be giving people the willies, but it is time to ay attention to the facts as currently known, not to hypothesis, rumour, and fear mongering.

Here we go again, ill informed nonsense not being corrected.

SP driven down could be for a "call for funds". Yes, often happens ; almost always happens when the market knows a co has to raise.

HUR does NOT have to raise. It has a potential $300m cash coming in this year, enough to fund all its drilling commitments. It has NO need to raise funds.

https://on.ft.com/39sfGnV

Good spot Balerno.

I dont want to get involved with the *****ing on here, but how long are people going to take to realise the last raise was , in the main, not dilutive?
We acquired an increased share of WN in return, which us why S&S described it as "value accretive".

So those saying that getting back to 1.40 is too far uphill bcos of dilution are getting it wrong. Yes, theMcap is greater, but so will be our share of WN.

Once we get news, 1.40 should be very achievable post well testing, and mb much higher than that imho.

Just reminder that this thread us share buyback.

Perhaps electric cars coal and CC could go on a different one?