Member Info for HeidHoncho

tymers, "I'm holding my 25 million to 1p minimum" ?

What, in the same way that you proclaimed, as recently as the 23rd June, and I quote, "Not slicing until at least 1p way undervalued ukog united".

Listen, I have no problem with people taking profits, but it is rather poor show claiming one thing yet doing another, don't you think ?
(No need to reply to that question, it was purely rhetorical, I can assure you).

Somewhat blows any credibility that you felt you may have had, regarding how much faith anyone can have in any future posts you make, out of the water.

So, you will understand why others will receive your post of today claiming "I'm holding my 25 million to 1p minimum", will be taken with a rather liberal pinch of NaCl.

IMHO.

Appreciate the heads up Miss Dosh.

Many thanks.

manager, I am not going to waste my time getting into a protracted discussion on the subject with you, as your very own previous posts harm your defence more than I will ever need to do.

But in this instance, I will on this occasion, grant you a response, if for no other reason than to prove that you are a stranger with the truth.

On the 7th June, when the flagged share price at the time was 8.845p (hence the utilisation of "circa 9p"), you stated in your response to another poster "I am in to for enough to make me happy".

So, that would open up 2 possibilities.

There were around only 8 trading days prior to that date in which the share was trading in the 6.5p-7.0p range, during which you may possibly have bought.
However, your first post on this share was not until after the share was already trading in the 8.2p-8.85p range.

So, this leaves us with 2 possibilities.

You didn't buy in until just prior to posting on the HUR board for the first time on the 5th June.
A logical assumption to make, as a large proportion of posters make their first post upon having made an investment, though not all.
That being the case, were the assumption initially made that you bought your initial stake around the time that you made your first post, then that would equate to the example which would require you to circa quintuple that initial investment from circa 9p down to circa 6.6p.

However, and in your defence, even though you chose not to post on the board upon buying in, there is a possibility that you may have been fortunate enough to have bought in during the proceeding 8 trading days when the SP was floating between 6.5p-7.0p.

That is a possibility, and you may have done so, there is no question in that, though it does not tally with you professing to be a day trader where possible, and that you are in and out of a trade in rapid fashion.
This is a logical assumption, as you yourself stated " and also buy and sell shares as quickly as poss, buy today sell today if I can and run with the cash".

You also stated "if the share price moves just a little i can walk away with the biggest smiles and a lot of money".

Therefore, if your initial share purchase was in the short period when the SP was hovering between 6.5p-7.0p (you latterly claimed having a 6.6p or 6.65p average I recall), and you are as you proclaim a day trader, then why by the 7th June when the SP was circa 8.845p, you didn't bail out with a circa 33% profit (differential between a purchase price of 6.65p and 8.845p).

So you can see why it appears to me that your story doesn't stack up, as a trader with an alleged 30 year history would have fled laughing with a circa 33% profit margin had that been the case.

But hey, that just my opinion, I'm sure others have theirs.

And on that note, this communication conduit between you and I ends.

Mole, thank you for clarifying your point further, and focusing on a CPR necessary for FRR to be able to raise finance on.

With regards to that it raise, at least for me, a further question.

Will sources of finance deem any proven reserves "bankable" (i.e. suitable to be utilised as a lien to lend funds against), if there if there is no approved FDP in place and/or there being no viable/credible means (with regards to the production volumes necessary to finance the level of borrowing sought) to get the required level of production to market (i.e. pipelines, or a robust and credible alternative transportation solution, to handle the volumes necessary).

In essence, what I am questioning is, would a properly conducted CPR in isolation be sufficient to raise funds, or would the reserves be deemed to be "stranded" and not be suitable for raising finance against, until such time as an adequate field development plan and/or a credible route to market, be in place so as to prove ability that sufficient funds would be generated from production going forward to realistically repay the funds raised ?

I wouldn't pay manager any heed, as a quick review of his posts shows that he is a failed day trader that is stuck in a position, and is lashing out because he is hurting.

He is a self confessed day trader "buy and sell shares as quickly as poss, buy today sell today if I can and run with the cash, And am proud to say so" , he has been in this share from at least north of circa 9p and claims from that point to have a large shareholding since that time "i have a very large share stake in this company and if the share price moves just a little i can walk away with the biggest smiles and a lot of money".

Since that initial posts he has then gone on to proclaim he has an average SP of 6.6p as he has averaged down, and this may now be even slightly lower if he has averaged down further.

Given that he claimed to have already had "a very large share stake" at circa 9p, and the SP to have rarely been less than 6p, then logic dictates that he must have bought a humongous additional number of shares since the circa 9p days to now allegedly have an average SP on his holding of 6.6p, or lower.
I will let you work out for yourself just what percentage of additional shares to an original circa 9p stake to get it down to an average 6.6p given that the share has barely been at 6p since then.
In case you don't want to perform the calculation yourselves, using for example an initial holding at circa 9p and a recent minimum SP for averaging down being circa 6p, even if he had doubled his initial "very large share stake" in his attempts to average down that would only have got him to a minimum average SP of 7.5p, and if he had trebled his initial "very large share stake" it would then be only 7p, and if he had quadrupled his original "very large share stake" it would be in the 6.75p range, but it would take his original "very large share stake" to have quintupled to arrive at the claimed 6.6p average SP now.

One could opine that the originally claimed "very large share stake" was said relatively speaking, as what is large to some may only be small change to others, or this is someone who having quintupled their already "very large share stake" is close to having to consider whether they need to generate a TR1. (if only)

Either way, having had to quintuple an initial shareholding to have achieved such a scale of averaging down as has been claimed, especially so given that the holder is a self proclaimed day trader, must be hurting him tremendously, hence the consequent petulant lashing out one would imagine.

IMHO only you understand, but a review of his limited number of previous posts will let you formulate your own opinions.

IMHO, majors do not give a jot about any CPR, as their due diligence is to review the raw data itself and perform their own pseudo (in the initial stages) CPR to perform a balanced view about the commercial viability of any venture that they are willing to enter into.

Simplistically speaking, and to put things into layman terms, consider yourself buying an expensive car, whereby failure to unearth underlying mechanical issues would cost you dearly in the future, and thereby making the purchase a damned sight less commercially attractive/viable to you.

Would you accept a mechanical report produced on behalf of the seller, or would you look to commission your own mechanical review yourself.

AND produced water, as it has been contaminated by oil.

The photograph showing the plates on the tanker, and the driver of the tanker confirming the contents, states that.

Just because a tanker is carrying “1267” plates does not mean that the contents of the tanker is oil, it may be waste that has been contaminated by oil.

At least, that’s what those photographs attest to.

Forgot the link.

https://twitter.com/N66BKP

Plenty of information relating to whether the carriage of product in a tanker carrying “1267” hazard plates can be solely attributed to oil or not can be found here.

The photographs prove that they carry “1267” plates even when all that they are carrying is produced water.

This I assume is because the water is contaminated with hydrocarbons, and therefore must be identified as such.

Might put some arguments about tankers carrying “1267” plates to bed.

I note that only 6 IoW residents have voted so far, and all 6 have objected.

The only ones voting in support are non residents of the IoW, though not all non residents have voted in support.

Given that the council members are only elected through garnering the support of the IoW electorate, and consequently the only votes that they would be best heeding were they to wish to be retained on the council at the next election, whose votes do you think will be taken into consideration when reviewing the votes cast ?

It would appear futile for shareholders who are not resident on the island to cast votes in support of the application, in fact it might even be seen to be negative by the council were the majority of votes cast in support of the application be from non residents, as that could be perceived to be a NIMBY reaction from those supporting the application.

IMHO.

Thank you for putting up that link.

I note that out of only 2 public bodies that have commented so far that one (Historic England) have stated that they aren’t interested as the application has nothing to do with them.

However, the other public body to respond so far, the islands roads department, have failed to recommend the proposal as it currently stands.

https://publicaccess.iow.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B4550AB2CBADFD907BC82AC0308834AA/pdf/20_00513_FUL-MR_ISLAND_ROADS-2838721.pdf

Apologies one and all, I had intended to substantiate the information relating to pricing through the inclusion of a substantive link, but omitted it in error.

https://markets.ft.com/data/commodities/tearsheet/summary?c=Iron+ore

observer, thank you for clarifying that the rate was stated by Kiran.

That being the case, and it is then likely a CFR rate (or possibly, a CIF rate), then that equates to the current spot price for delivery into China.

Which is arguably a less than conservative figure, as we are currently experiencing a peak due to the supply issues brought about by the Covid impact on Brazilian supply that the market has currently got priced into the rate.

Circa $100 per tonne is the highest that the price has been in the past 10 months, so going forward it may be more prudent to base our expectations at a more conservative level, perhaps at a more conservative figure of circa $80 per tonne.

And to review that figure on a quarterly basis, be that upwards or downwards.

IMHO

Do we have confirmation of the Incoterms associated with the quoted rate of circa $100 per tonne of 62% Fe ?

In a global market, where the ultimate destination of the product may be near or far (possibly 500 miles away as equally possible 10,000 miles away), it is unlikely that any rate quoted on international markets would be a delivered price, such is the variability of shipping distances, and consequently shipping costs, that this may entail.

That being the case, is it not more logical to perceive that the rate is for supply as EXW, or more likely FOB.

Were that to be the case, then with regards to the revenue achievable, there is little/no relevance to the shipping costs being, as suggested, $27 per tonne for delivery to China.

IMHO, obviously.

As if to put the boot in when a man is down, did anyone see the RNS released by UOG ?

Subliminal message to any of your followers (should they exist) ?

or

Posted the same message twice within a period of 4 minutes for those that are hard of reading ?

"Will be a pound when drilling starts" ?

Behave yourself, and at least be a little realistic, and manage your expectations realistically.

At the start of the campaign it is little different to how things stand now, without the reservoir having been entered in both instances, so consequently little more will be known regarding the true potential until the target has been reached.

The reason why the sp isn't at a pound now will remain why it will not be at a pound when the rig arrives on location, and that is risk.

The risk that what they perceive to be in the target formation is not there once they enter that target.

That risk exists now, as it will exist till they have proven, or otherwise, their predictions, once they have drilled into the target formations and conducted logging and sampling/testing.

If anyone believes that an undrilled virgin formation is worth north of 2.5 billion pounds prior to it having been drilled is seriously in need of having their bumps felt.

IMHO

valju, I made two small purchases this morning (totalling circa £2000), neither off them have shown up yet.

Both purchases were at a little over 7.4p, so clearly there is a seller around at 7p or under, and I am wondering if my two separate small purchases will not show up as trades, as these small purchases are getting aggregated together with other small purchases and will ultimately show up as a larger sell trade.

Who knows, but there is clearly someone around who is selling sub 7.4p, and that all purchases are not showing up as bought trades.

Confused by your post mapp.

You previously posted on the 20th “ Sold most of my GGP and AVCT and only kept a FREEBIE
in each company.”

Surely if you were so confident about the potential success of AVCT you wouldn’t have sold the majority of your shareholding.

Having done so prior to the rise yesterday you will have missed out, I hope you don’t let that missed opportunity continually run through your mind.

ValJu, were we (the shareholders) ever informed of the scale/size of the proportional shareholding that we would have in Black Cat ?

For us individually to arrive on a balanced view on how beneficial the deal may ultimately be to Valirx it would necessitate us being informed of what percentage (certainly will not be anywhere close to the 55% that we previously held) of Black Cat that will be held by Valirx, don't you think.

"The LOI provides that, subject to Black Cat raising a minimum amount (details of which are commercially sensitive), ValiSeek will revoke its license for the VAL401 patent portfolio and Tangent would execute a new IP licence with Black Cat and Black Cat would be responsible for funding and executing future clinical development of VAL401.

It is proposed (subject to a successful fund raise) that ValiSeek would enter into an agreement with its shareholders to undertake a corporate reorganisation whereby existing shareholders in ValiSeek would become shareholders in Black Cat.

Therefore, following any reorganisation, ValiRx would hold a proportional shareholding directly in Black Cat and would benefit accordingly from future commercial upside."