Member Info for HeadInTheSand

I rest my case. Lucky, I knew I could rely on you not to disappoint.

If only the ANGS SP was as easily influenceable to get up to my personally desired "escape the lobsterpot" sell trigger point...

With respect, I think that endlessly repeated copy n pastes of the exact same material, primarily based on company-issued verbiage in the public domain, is significantly more boring.

As is any equally endlessly repeated positive opinion on ANGS that is quite literally based solely on nothing more than "because George said so".

Firstly, any short-term trader that's already bought in (unwisely at the moment) will be doing his/her level best to ramp the living bejaysus out of the SP at the moment, so he/she can exit with the typical few percentage point marginal gain looked for. It's stating the crushingly obvious that short-term traders try to influence any SP in both direction, depending on what point in their trading cycle they are at.

Secondly and more importantly, the market as a whole is voting with its feet on UKOG's current position. The current SP is not at the level it's at because of some evil band of short-term traders, nor the famed mythical Evil Global Shorting Conspiracy (tm).

The market as a whole is quite rightfully expecting an imminent placing, which is of course no news at all - but I'd also say that for whatever reasons, the market as a whole currently at least doesn't place much credibility at all in the UKOG BoD's claimed predicted outcomes for its various operations.

Perhaps because the market as a whole has taken a look at the UKOG management's track record of delivering against its numerous previously issued assurances and predictions?

Mannan... "looking to the future. forget about the past."

That's surely insane? If one adopted and stuck by that philosophy when it came to investing, you'd continually happily throw all your money at any company that came up with any tenuous "jam tomorrow " story, regardless of how many times it had failed to make good on previous "jam tomorrow" stories?

To reprise an analogy I've used before. If Dr Howard Shipman were alive and at liberty today, no matter how many times and how fervently he might assure me that from now on he's honestly going to be an excellent and caring physician, I still wouldn't be signing up my ageing mother to his tender ministrations.

What Ocebot is doing its level best to try to hide is that an absolute maximum of 5% of all votes that shareholders are entitled to cast were cast at the recent GM in favour of the board and its resolutions. Basic arithmetic... 660m is 4.99% of 13,218m. Plus as has been pointed out this morning, the 660m votes actually cast are now considerably lower in total than the claimed number of eligible votes gained by the action group. No wonder levels of concern seem to be growing within UKOG towers and its attendant PR drone fleet.

So no, despite Ocebot's latest misrepresentation attempts, "93% of shareholders" are categorically not proven in any way to support the current board.

So, Ocebot has quite deliberately misrepresented that number by a factor of over 18... no surprise there, then.

But I suppose at least that level of deliberate distortion fits in with the levels of the company's own historic misrepresentations when burbling the latest piece of what turns out to be massively over-exaggerated nonsense in an effort to scrape up more funding (presumably for the BoD's lifestyles?) from long-sufferingPIs.

LS you have missed something - as ever.

Namely, what is it that leads you to ascribe any credibility to George's latest issued set of projections?

Ocebot, your misrepresentations are getting more obviously transparent every day.

Remind me, at the recent GM, how many votes were counted in favour of Sando's resolution. Let me help - 660 million.

And what percentage of overall UKOG share capital did those votes in favour represent? Let me help again - 13, 218 million (currently).

660 million is 4.99% of 13,218 million...

So, it is in fact true to state that UKOG management has the backing of only 4.99% of shareholders votes, and not the deliberately spun nonsense you've spewed forth again.

It's of course not at all a question of Ocebot's latest "pearl of wisdom" from this morning, where it wrote "It's taking the market a while to realise that UKOG is in no great hurry to get its next fundraise away (imho)."

UKOG needs the cash before it can even start to test the waters in Turkey. As others have already diligently extrapolated, it doesn't have the funds to kick this off - and it desperately needs those funds imminently.

Combine the above with the fact that Sando and his BoD have recently been compelled by PI discontent to commit from July to use between 5-10% of their eye-wateringly high monthly salaries (all entirely funded by PIs) to buy UKOG shares (and thus only continuing to trouser the remaining 90-95% of PI hard-earned every month) and I'd say that we're two weeks away max from a placing. Sando and chums are going to be irritated enough at having their monthly amounts of filthy lucre minorly reduced and they're certainly not going to put skin in the game (and remember, that's actually PI skin, not their own) before any placing.

The only question is, how many shares and at what discount? The amount that's needed to be raised is largely known - and given current market faith in the company, there may be difficulty in getting said placing away. It'll certainly have to be a very large number of shares at a savagely discounted price and thus doubly damaging - both in dilution and value terms - to existing investors.

As already stated to another poster, if the entire level of your research consists of slavishly copy n pasting information issued by ANGS itself, what is it, given ANGS' entire historic track record to date, that gives you any reason to treat anything the company says as being in the least bit credible?

Perhaps you could point to an example of ANGS delivering anything of value that it previously assured shareholders it would, within the timescales that it itself previously communicated to shareholders and at the costs that again it itself previously communicated to shareholders?

Needless to say, no genuine investor would ever take any mere assurance issued by any company as the unquestionable gospel truth. Let alone a company like ANGS that has literally unbroken form of non-delivery.

So this morning, Coinexpert claims this:- "Can’t wait to hear about the Geothermal Plans. With Sfb bringing in money whilst we go green the share price has crazy potential to go bac---k to the 30-40s. Really pleased with Lucans progress."

Okay, trying to ignore the fact that Coinexpert is a new ID that only joined the LSE BBs a month ago, and trying to ignore the perma "strong buy" opinion set (which those used to these BBs will all know is the classic mark of the shill), I'd ask the following:-

Given that you're claiming that ANGS has the potential to be a 40 bagger, and since to have any credibility in doing so, you must have done your detailed research - despite only having been here a month - what is your educated estimate on the realistic total costs required for ANGS to get to a position where it is delivering positive revenue from any geothermal activities? And equally, what's your educated estimate on the realistic total timescale required for ANGS to do so?

I tell you, back in the day, you used to get slightly more clued-up and adept shills...

Ocebot writes "The world’s largest independent commodity traders see oil prices rising further this year as demand continues to grow and supply remains constrained."

1. The company experiencing the biggest restraint in supply of oil is in fact UKOG itself, because it barely produces any.

2. As I've stated before, today's oil price is irrelevant at any level if a company has next to no oil to sell.

C'mon shills... surely you can do better than this?

LS I am (obviously) happy for you to disagree - it's your inalienable right to do so.

However, I think the difference of opinion here is on the issue I highlighted as the core. You ascribe some credibility, merit and value to George's latest set of statements and estimates for whatever reasons you like... you must do, since you repeat them often enough.

I and others of like mind ascribe little to no merit, credibility or value to them, with such alternative judgement being based in good part on earned credibility and easily identifiable track record of meeting self-imposed deadlines, coming within self-stated cost estimates and delivering on self-promised assurances.

That's the whole ball of wax in a nutshell.

At the very least, waiting for the placing that the entire market knows is coming is the most sensible thing.

Pointing at today's oil price and claiming that this is "more profit" is of course utter nonsense. To state the crushingly obvious, in order to be able to profit from the rising price of oil, one has to actually possess meaningful quantities of it for sale.

Not a position UKOG finds itself in at all currently...

LS George did indeed state those numbers - but that simply doesn't mean anything at all.

The actual and sole relevant question is this: do George's words, statements, promises, assurances and estimates merit any credibility? Has he earned any trust and credibility, with a view to what he has achieved or not to date?

It's so depressingly banal.

A "brand new" person (well, a new ID that's only less than a month old, which is of course not the same) bursts on here making all sort of predictions that are utterly unsupported and unsupportable. When a reasoned counter-opinion is advanced and justified with evidence, what does that brand new ID do? Offer any backing for his outlandish prediction?

Of course not. He just instantly resorts to insulting those with reasoned opinions - because that's all he's can do.

Yawn.

Nobody posts on any dead shares.

ANGS is still alive and as such, capable of movement. Down as well as up.

Hence it will attract short-term traders, who will ramp or deramp, depending on whether they've bought in and want to exit with their usual marginal gain, leaving some other poor mug catching the knife, or whether they're seeking the lowest possible SP to buy in and then do exactly that. Such individuals will of course pretend to be long-term investors.

Given its history of unbroken non-delivery, it will also attract negative comment from genuine long-term PIs who are seriously angry at having been suckered in previously. It may also attract positive comment from genuine long-term PIs who are either trying to escape the lobsterpot they've got themselves into, or who, against all the evidence, need to keep maintaining their original confirmation bias and tell anyone who'll listen that there really will be jam tomorrow. This time. Honest. For real. That's easier than facing up to unpleasant realities.

You could pretty much apply the exact same paradigm to 90% of AIM listed companies.

Trades seem to be all one way today. The market doesn't seem in any way to share the claimed optimism of some posting here. It does make one wonder if word's got out that the inevitable placing that we all know is due at some stage soon is imminent?

Ozzy, my mistake was clearly answering your question genuinely, calmly and rationally. I obviously shouldn't have bothered.

Perhaps you should look up the meanings of two phrases, namely non sequitur and ad hominem. Both are trite logical fallacies, much adopted by those either suffering from confirmation bias or looking to ignore the truth of things and spin their own narrative for whatever purpose.

Ozzy, it's really not that difficult.

I have my opinion, which I have already expressed - and backed up with the grounds on which I hold it. However, because I do not automatically assume I am eternally right on everything, I remain interested in seeing any equally supported opinion or indeed counter-opinion. Such things - if supported and thus tenable - may help to further inform my own personal buying and selling decisions.

Told you it wasn't complicated - now, why are you here?

Ozzy, I'm well aware that the past is fact and thus unchangeable. I'm also not concerned about "saving" anyone.

What I am doing is expressing and more importantly, justifying a genuinely held opinion on the future. Justifying it with reference to past facts - the "track record and earned credibility" things I mentioned before. There's an awful lot of utterly unjustified and unjustifiable opinions pumped out here. However, it is a guaranteed truth that it's anyone's choice as to whether they pay the slightest attention to my own opinion or completely disregard it. I'm really not bothered either way.