Member Info for HeidHoncho

Geeeeeez, I never noticed the goddamn autocorrect ...... “drill crews” nor “drill clues”.

adoubleuk, I had intended to add, that although I stated that MI Swaco product was available at a number of quays around the harbour Waterloo Quay is not one of them.

Your memory is correct, there are dry bulks available on Waterloo Quay, but these silos contain Halliburton/Baroid product.

Hurricane utilise Schlumberger/MI Swaco for cement/mud/, and their silos are found on numerous berths around the harbour, depending on the product type required, but their largest silo farm (and consequently their largest Offering) is to be found on their Pocra Quay facility.

With regards to the intricacies of drilling fluids in fractured basements, and the losses that go hand in hand with that (yes, losses are good news, no/little losses is an indication of a poor fracture matrix, and no fractures - no production), it takes a deal of conditioning/acclimatisation for the drill clues to become comfortable with the need to drill on whilst encountering measured/controlled losses.

Drilling fractured basements require most normal ideologies to be sometimes turned on their heads, and standard drilling conventions, and fluid programmes, need to be continually challenged, and to further consider that not all reservoirs/geologies/hydrocarbons within a localised area will remain similar throughout, and being so that you will require to utilise different horses for different courses.

adoubleuk, just for the sake of accuracy, and so as no further incorrect assumptions are made, I would respectfully correct your post “..... but the thing to watch for if significant quantities of bulk brine are required is a boat hopping over to Pocra Quay before sailing. That stuff doesn't get loaded at Waterloo.”

There is no bulk brine facility at Pocra Quay (at least there wasn’t any as recently as June of this year).

Bulk brine in Aberdeen is supplied by Pea****’s, who have their facility over the other side of the harbour on Point Law.

It does not have to be loaded directly from the berth at that facility, and it is commonly tankered from there to any of the regular loading berths (Waterloo Quay/Torry Marine Base/etc.).

whippet, you aren’t even close if you believe that only 1% are held by PI’s.

Maybe if you had been around a tad longer that fact would have already been apparent to you.

One of the main issues here is the lack of II’s, not the multitude of them.

I would have absolutely no doubt that over 75% of the shares are held by PI’s.

or pass comment on, a number of trades that occurred just after 11 o’clock today.

15070 bought at 9.225 at 11:09, then sold for 8.59 at 11:19.
21637 bought at 9.225 at 11:09, then sold for 8.1125 at 12:09.
7527 bought at 8.25 at 11:06, then sold for 8.199 at 12:07.
4480 bought at 9.25 at 11:10, then sold for 8.199 at 12:06.
also likely similar (though hard to guarantee, as round numbers) with the following 2trades
50000 bought at 8.925 at 11:09, then sold for 8.50 at 11:21.
50000 bought at 9.00 at 11:09, then sold for 8.50 at 11:21.

These are not ISA transfers, as the price differentials, and the time gaps between trades, are too high.

So what may be the reason behind them ?
a) someone testing how quickly and easily the sp can be manipulated, using a minimal amount of shares.
b) someone believed that news was about to be released, but then when informed that it wasn’t going to be released today they then traded back out for just now.
c) something else
d) it is merely a coincidence (but I don’t buy in to that possibility).

Are you talking about the Troms Capella, that was loading at Torry Marine Base ?

Notice that she was fixed on a 21 day, day by day, charter starting today.

If it has been fixed to primarily support the TOL rather than the AM then the potential fixture duration piques my interest, especially so if we are near to be entering the reservoir, or better still be nearing half way to reaching TD in the reservoir.

IMHO

Freddy, my recollections May be wrong, but didn’t George once say previously either “no more placings” (I think it was before news), or “no imminent/immediate plans for a placing”, and within a very short time after saying that had a reasonably large placing ?

If my recollections are correct (with my fading memory with age, it is equally likely to be incorrect) then I am sure you can forgive me for not placing faith in his words in this instance.

I think I will give it a couple of days to mull things over, and see how the market is reacting, before diving in again.

My worst downside is that I currently do not hold as many shares as I did, but I currently still hold about 75-80% of them, so if the sp was to rocket on news prior to me topping back up again I wouldn’t be too perturbed.

Are you in the same quandary as myself this time around Freddy ?

After numerous similar previous incidents we correctly read this one correctly in this instance, and we locked in some profit from this particular rise through cashing in some of our chips.

The quandary now is, given we could buy back in now for significantly more shares than we recently divested ourselves of, do we buy back in now, or do we hold off for fear of another placing prior to sp accretive news (such as 401 partnering news, or positive 201 results).

The news that we were previously anticipating has not changed, so therefore FOMO would indicate that I buy back now whilst the sp is still below the recent placing price, whereas the complete loss in faith regarding the BoD’s business/commercial acumen (not a reflection on any positivity we may have in the products) has me currently swithering about doing so now for credible concerns (based on previous history) of them attempting yet another placing prior to news and before the sp drops below it’s currently nominal value.

I guess a couple of quite days reasoned contemplation is required prior to me arriving at a conclusion.

valju, having a consolidation will not effect the overhead that they have left to play with.

If they consolidate at a ratio of 10:1 for example then they will only be able to issue 20 million shares prior to having an EGM to request more, and were for example the consolidation to be at 100:1 then they could only issue 2 million more shares before requesting more at an EGM.

With the BoD’s Previous massive dilution habits, proven over many years, do they honestly think they will get away with requesting a yet bigger disapplication again ?

Especially so given that they lied to their shareholders about being allowed in on an OO during their request to have the shareholders vote through a disapplication at the last EGM.

Personally I don’t give a flying toot what goes on with IG, as that has no bearing on my holding.

Most likely true, if the company does not resist (likely were we to be bought over), then those long on IG do not benefit one iota, as theirs is one of no physical holding of a stock.

Whereas, those holding shares will either receive the offer price, be it in cash, in stock of the company taking us over, or in a mix of the two, without the shares ever requiring to be relished on any exchange to accomplish that.

That is not to say that I am confident that we will be bought out, more that I feel it likely we will remain unlisted till the boom or bust point is reached.

Hence why I feel that IG can close out their positions, as if the share doesn’t relist then those with a short bet win, and those with a long bet lose, and why those with a long bet will not benefit even if the company is sold.

At least, IMHO, that is the fate of those long on the share through betting with IG, but how those with a physical share holding could still benefit were the company to be bought out, even if we never relist on any exchange.

Somewhat confused by the details you placed in your post, and your apparent high expectations of success on Serenity.

You mentioned that the company stated an 80% CoS for the pilot hole, but are not concerned when the drill failed as even with an 80% CoS there are no guarantees.

However, you are apparently more confident that Serenity will be a rip roaring success, yet the BoD have only given a 72% CoS for Serenity (arguably lower still, as their broker and nomad only have it down as a 56% CoS).

Surely it is logical with a lower CoS on Serenity than on the pilot hole, and given that they already had a failed drill on the pilot hole that had a greater CoS, that the lower CoS on Serenity should make you less confident of success on Serenity, not more confident.

After all, the above is the logical conclusion to be made from the details you provided, isn’t it ?

KDNC have 30% of two JV areas in the Sonora project, with BCN holding the other 70% (soon to be reduced due to giving Gangfeng circa 22-25%).

The circa 2% that you mention more likely reflects the direct holding in BCN shares that KDNC were last known to hold.

the Problem with issuing warrants, especially so in exploration drilling, is that the risk adept would immediately sell their underlying shares as soon as they were notified of the OO share numbers that they had been allocated.

You do not require to retain the underlying shares to take up the option on the warrants.

The risk astute would recover the capital they had tied up in the shares that they held, hopefully with little or no loss, and in effect have a risk free investment in the warrants that they would profit on if the well was a rip roaring success, whilst at the same time not have any of their capital at risk if the well was a failure.

Were that to be the case, he SP would take a nose dive after the OO allocation was announced, as those deriding in this manner flooded the market with the underlying shares that they were going to divest themselves of.

IMHO

Hargreaves Lansdown, as are Interactive Investor, and Halifax, are likely to be nominee accounts aren’t they ?

i.e. the holdings of us mere mortal PI’s, and not II holdings.

If the do not perform a DST on Serenity then how will they arrive at a flow rate for it ?

Is it just a projection that will not be proven accurate until production commences, or will the projection not be confirmed until a further appraisal well is drilled in later years that will get tested ?

I can appreciate why they could be more confident in projecting the flow rate from the Liberator well we’re it not to have a DST performed on it, as they have likely got previous license data to corroborate that, but I’m not sure that they have that level of necessary data for Serenity, or do they ?

Freddie, it’s starting to look like we may have been astute this time around.

Who says that we old dogs can’t learn new tricks.

manyana, you omitted an option from your list.

5. Own your own company and have no one to answer to for your internet utilisation, and are adept at time management.

over the last 24 hours or so, when many of us were able to buy when the bid and ask were almost at the same price is perhaps a tranche of shares that were issued in the way of commission for arranging the deal.

i.e. they were issued irrelevant whether the deals ultimately get passed by ourselves and Rathlin shareholders, as that is out with the control of the entity who arranged the proposed deal.

If so, and being as they likely received shares instead of cash, they were permitted as part of this commission to immediately liquidate those shares to monetise them, subject to not doing so below the placing price.

Hence why we were all able to purchase shares at between 0.9000p and 0.9015p.

Just a thought.

Might have a clearer view at close of play today.

If this was indeed a trader’s influenced spike the sp may well drop off towards the close, as traders will not wish to risk exposure to their capitol being tied up over the weekend, especially if VAL were to RNS a placing at 07:00 on Monday morning (or post close today), as they would then be locked in like the rest of us investors.

IMHO