Member Info for HeidHoncho

I never at any point stated that it was.

If the AIS details have been accurately entered by the vessel crew then that would scupper the suggestion that the reason for the charter is to recove an anchor from Warwick.

Mind you, the destination may have been entered incorrectly, so we will only know after the event through the utilisation of the past track facility, or during the event if anyone is going to be watching AIS live.

Anyhoooo, I don’t anticipate that it is anything of significance, it’s just intriguing.

The RNS stated that patient enrolment was to start immediately, not patient dosing.

johnny, I assume you then laughed right back at them.

After all, you posted on the 3rd of October that you had sold up all your other shares and gone all in on FRR.

I can but assume that this was prior to your alleged meeting with the GOGC, so their stating that Zara was a fantasist, and that FRR had no oil or gas, must have dismayed you somewhat.

news, as posted in response to you on the nex BB.

news, I would like to take this opportunity to challenge one of your statements made in your original post on this thread.

You stated “Someone posted that KDNC wants to raise $500k. The mkt cap after consolidation will still be £9m. The only change is that the shares will go from 10.5billion mark to 103 million+ [see KDNC RNS]. So, if there is a raise, say of $500k or £500k, that is about 5%.”.

The 500,000 to be raised is based on the nominal share value, which will be 1.0p post the consolidation (current nominal share value is 0.01p).

At a nominal share price of 1.0p that equates to an additional 50 million shares post consolidation, which equates to a potential (if the motion is passed, and the authority is utilised) 50% further dilution, and not merely the 5% you postulated.

A question shareholders should ask themselves is whether they wish to authorise the company to yet further dilute their share holdings by yet a further 50%, especially so when the BoD’s Past track record in monetising their previous investments has been abysmal, and they are giving no indication of how this potential further fund raise would be better spent.

There becomes a point in time when they have no credibility we’re they to continually keep coming back to the well, especially so if the seeds (investments they make) they keep spending share holders money (the water they keep coming back to the well for) on fails to grow a crop (investment monetisation).

You cannot keep planting seeds in the hope that they will grow, and if they want to plant more seeds (make further investments) then they need to harvest (obtain a return on an existing investment) them from a previous crop that they have sown (investments previously made).

IMHO, obviously.

news, I would like to take this opportunity to challenge one of your statements made in your original post on this thread.

You stated “Someone posted that KDNC wants to raise $500k. The mkt cap after consolidation will still be £9m. The only change is that the shares will go from 10.5billion mark to 103 million+ [see KDNC RNS]. So, if there is a raise, say of $500k or £500k, that is about 5%.”.

The 500,000 to be raised is based on the nominal share value, which will be 1.0p post the consolidation (current nominal share value is 0.01p).

At a nominal share price of 1.0p that equates to an additional 50 million shares post consolidation, which equates to a potential (if the motion is passed, and the authority is utilised) 50% further dilution, and not merely the 5% you postulated.

A question shareholders should ask themselves is whether they wish to authorise the company to yet further dilute their share holdings by yet a further 50%, especially so when the BoD’s Past track record in monetising their previous investments has been abysmal, and they are giving no indication of how this potential further fund raise would be better spent.

There becomes a point in time when they have no credibility we’re they to continually keep coming back to the well, especially so if the seeds (investments they make) they keep spending share holders money (the water they keep coming back to the well for) on fails to grow a crop (investment monetisation).

You cannot keep planting seeds in the hope that they will grow, and if they want to plant more seeds (make further investments) then they need to harvest (obtain a return on an existing investment) them from a previous crop that they have sown (investments previously made).

IMHO, obviously.

Must be a quick job, as the Skandi Hera has an existing fixture on the 3rd September for DOF Subsea Norway.

So, unless Hurricane have contracted DOF Subsea to perform a subsea work scope at either the GLA or GWA then the vessel will require to be back in time to perform that previously chartered commitment.

Whatever the Skandi Hera has been chartered by Hurricane for it must not be overly complicated, as Hurricane are confident that it can be completed quickly, so that it can be released in time to meet that commitment on the 3rd September.

Skandi Hera is an anchor handler, not a PSV the likes of the Grampian Sovereign.

So no, not a direct replacement for the Grampian Sovereign.

Additionally, the Skandi Hera has a work class ROV, so it has not necessarily been chartered for anchor handling duties.

before choosing not to attend the AGM, due to perceived transport disruption, or otherwise, for them to read article 51 in the companies Articles of Association.

It states, that unless demanded by the chairman of the meeting, not less than 3 members present or by proxy and entitled to vote, or a single member present or by proxy representing no less than 10% of the shares in issue, that the poll will be cast by a show of hands.

Now unless I am mistaken that equates to one vote per attendee, irrespective of the number of shares that they hold individually, or may be acting as proxy on behalf of.

i.e. any votes cast by proxy will not count for squat, and all it would take to force through a vote would be for the BoD to ensure the turn out of all staff and friends to vote in the manner that most benefits the BoD’s Desires, and this is made even more likely the lower the number of shareholders that attend (coincidence that the day chosen for the AGM is a date when travel for the shareholders may be problematic, such as previous AGM’s having been held on public holidays perhaps ........ can a leopard change their spots ?).

Obviously, prior to the AGM it could be announced that the votes cast will be counted by the shares held that were cast, but as far as I am aware this has not been announced, but I am happy to be corrected if I have overlooked that announcement.

Just IMHO, and reading of the Articles as they stand, I hasten to add.

Well, we should have an indication within 24-26 hours or so, as the Grampian Sovereign has just departed port.

Mind you, it has a low is how draft, so perhaps no mud on board.

Only time, and future track, will give any further indication.

As stated last night, without corroborative data it is likely that all and any presumptions are likely to have 2 + 2 = 5, but keeping a watchful eye on things is more entertaining than watching morning TV.

DC, like I stated, there is a lack of substantive information to make a balanced opinion on.

At the moment all we have to go on is berths/quays visited through the past track function, and that in isolation could have us ending up adding 2 + 2 together and getting 5 as a result.

Given that both are in port at the same time, it could be that one is in to discharge a system (reserve only, as the active system may well still be in the well) and tank clean, whilst the other vessel is collecting a new batch of mud.

Did the Edda Frende get chartered to take a new mud system out to the TOL ?
Did the Rem Trader accept the displaced (by a new mud system taken out on the Edda Frende) old mud system from the well for return onshore, and then to be tank cleaned prior to further use of its bulk tanks ?
Has the Grampian Sovereign picked up an additional quantity of mud for shooting up onto location with (perhaps due to a need to tank clean the Trader, which would delay its departure from port) ?

Far too many unanswered questions, and unless anyone has any corroborative evidence as to the recent load outs on the Edda Frende/Rem Trader/Grampian Sovereign we could postulate on a myriad of possible scenarios, and every one of them would be wrong.

Never the less, 3 vessels on at one time, with “potentially” the AM’s support vessel having visited a berth where mud can normally be taken on, is certainly sufficient for me to keep a closer eye on.

IMHO

Damned autocorrect ......... “Rem Trader”, and “Edda Frende”.

Having had a look of the past track of the Grampian Sovereign it is intriguing.

During this port visit she has visited Waterloo Quay, as would be expected as that is the main berth (other than TMB on occasion) that it would visit when conducting cargo ops in support of the AM, but it has recently been sat on North Pocra, which has a line to it from MI Swaco’s mud tanks.

Just because it is the AM’s support vessel does not preclude it from also supporting the TOL.

It could merely be taking on MGO or water at Pocra, rather than mud, but that would appear illogical as it could have picked up those products during its visit to Waterloo Quay earlier, and from the looks of things they are not that busy at Waterloo Quay tonight that it needed to move to a lesser utilised Quay to take on either MGO or water so that it freed up Waterloo Quay for deck cargo ops on another vessel that required loading.

They wouldn’t normally utilise the below deck tanks on the GS to support the TOL unless there was a good reason to do so, as the vessels currently supporting the TOL (R.E.M. Trader as the dedicated vessel, with the Edda Fronde currently also providing ad hoc support assistance also) would have more than enough capacity between them.

So, to me that would indicate that there is either an unexpectedly high consumption (loss) rate being experienced, or, something may have gone awry with the current mud system properties (high LGS, or other specs gone out of whack that cannot readily be brought back into spec offshore by treatment, etc.) and they are requiring to change out the current mud system.

Personally, I would rather have seen the vessels visiting Peackocks on Point Law to take on brine, as that way that would be an indication that vast volumes of brine were being lost in the horizontal section in the reservoir due to a fantastic fracture matrix having been encountered.

All IMHO you understand, but for the moment insufficient validated information to give a clearer determination for the time being, but certainly enough going on to pique my interest and keep an eye on to see how it pans out over the next week or so.

With there having been only 4 trades so far today, for a total value of sub 10k, you cannot credibly state “The market likes the EGM results”.

I would be more interested in brine losses than mud losses, but hey, each to their own.

I don’t necessarily agree that it was a Petrofac error, as it is more likely to be a Kingfisher error given that it was due to an input into their system, and not directly through an input by Petrofac.

Looks like a copy and paste error that Kingfisher have made when updating their system.

IMHO, and equally I could be wrong, but either way it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, as it is merely a typographical error, and not anything of any significance or consequence.

“OMG. Someone posts a link to the Kingfisher Bulletin, misquotes it, and nobody follows up to spot the mistake.”

My 22:37 post regarding the subject was what, chopped liver ? lmao

Probably nothing more than an innocent cut & paste/typographical error on the permit application.

Petrofac are the Well Operator for both the ongoing Hurricane Warwick/Lincoln drilling campaign, and the i3 Energy Liberator drilling campaign.

So perhaps just a copy and paste error when completing the permit (not necessarily on Petrofac’s part, the error may have been by Kingfisher/SFF when they entered it into/onto their system/website), or an innocent error given that they are both WWII airplane types and there was some basis for confusion there.

IMHO.

“endothelial” ?

Bloody autocorrect ...... grrrrrrrrr

“endothelial” = “endeth”

wellwell is acting like a hypocritical tree hugging environmentalist NIMBY.

If “off to Florida first” is not being conducted by means of a sail powered longboat, and is in fact being performed by means of a Jet A-1 burning pressurised cigar tube with wings, then one could logically suggest that “he who is without blame should cast the first stone”.

And here endothelial the sermon for the evening.