Member Info for HeidHoncho

Any credible reason carosca that you felt the need to emphasise “WATER” on numerous instances in your post ?

No.

Thought not.

Just as well there has been no historical issues identified to date in either HUR’s exploration/appraisal wells, or in production to date from their producing wells, has there.

Factual information must be a major hurdle for those inadequately attempting to sow the seed of dilussional fear, son’t You find.

Sheeeeeeesh.

Siem Opal, not Siemens Opal.

Skandi Iceman, not Standing Iceman.

Horizon Arctic, not Horizon Artic.

Bloody autocorrect ...... grrrrrrr

Standing Iceman, Horizon Artic, and Siemens Opal, chartered from the 12th for the rig move.

hightower, you may be able to physically tow a rig with a singular anchor handler, but a second anchor handler requires to be attending in case power is lost on the tow vessel, and the shadow handler requires to take over the tow, it’s standard procedure.

Additionally, you may be forgetting that the rig must first be demobilised from its current location prior to going on tow, so the anchors require recovered at the current location first, so 2-3 anchor handlers will also be required prior to the rig being physically under tow.

No requirement as yet has been notified to the market this morning, but hopefully that may change either later today or tomorrow.

You are clearly blinkered son, a proceeding sell of 100,000 shares at 3.40, immediately after the 1,000,000 sell at 3.25 there was then a 250,000 sell at 3.21.

Yet you are trying to portray that a 1,000,000 trade was a buy not a sell, you should take a good look at yourself in the mirror and have a word with yourself.

To be in denial to yourself to make yourself feel better is one thing, but to try and dupe others into believing your falsehood is just plain wrong.

Remember, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

It was clearly a sell, it dropped 0.2 between the previous sell and the one after it.

i.e. it was 3.41 to sell, then the 1 million trade dropped it to 3.25 to sell, then the next trade was a sell yet lower still.

Stop being so disingenuous by trying to claim it was a buy, when the time and the large drop from the previous sell of 3.41 clearly marked it as a sell.

The rig will not move without 3 anchor handlers being chartered.

And given that there isn’t even an enquiry out on the market yet to seek offers for this charter then there is no way that the rig would be moving any prior to the weekend, at the very earliest.

If you need to know when the move is likely to be happening then the key indicator is the anchor handler market.

Yes, but on charter to Shell (not I3) for a cargo run, with the option for another cargo run in direct continuation.

Interesting that they are choosing to perform a pressure test of the 9-5/8” casing prior to sidetrack ops commencing.

When initially cemented in a pressure test would have been performed on the casing string (granted, perhaps not to 80% of burst pressure), so they should have already got a baseline for it.

I am wondering if they are now considering whether the pressure that they are now seeing isn’t merely coming up through a fractured plug (which after all was only an assumption, and not proven), but it is coming from the annulus behind the 9-5/8” casing, and they have now got a leak in the casing that is now allowing the reservoir to enter the wellbore.

If that were the case, and the tests indicate that there is indeed a leak in the 9-5/8” casing, what would be the remedial actions planned.
A casing patch application, or would they need to cut and pull the 9-5/8” casing and run it again,.

Interesting theory to ponder, IMHO.

With regards to the website, and I quote, “Presently, Frontera is selling MGC produced Natural gas through Georgia’s gas distribution grid.”.

Can anyone shine some light as to the volumes that can be realistically anticipated (as I cannot identify anywhere where the volumes are detailed on the website), and does anyone know what the GSA states regarding the revenue achievable.

Appreciate the insight.

Why do you need someone to tell you ?

Surely one should do their own research rather than trust the word of a random unknown individual on a bulletin board.

You know what they say ....... DYOR.

In any case, 5 minutes spent reviewing the past 12 months RNS’s would provide you with the information that you require.

Best of luck.

Yeah, a 46,700% increase in SP, but due to a 500 to 1 share consolidation.

So, in effect, a loss in shareholding value on the day.

That’s the sort of SP increase we can be done without.

5p, it was myself that posted it, but you may have forgotten a rider that I had in my post that would require to have happened if indeed a no notice AGM have indeed taken place.

If an AGM had taken place (no proof that it had, just that it is a potential option within the Articles) then there would have been resolutions that required voted upon.

Even as a private company the shareholders still have the right to vote by proxy, and given that no invitation to vote by proxy was given then the company are either in breach of their Articles through not offering their shareholders the opportunity to vote by proxy, or they are in breach through not holding an AGM.

Had an AGM been held then the meeting must have been minuted, so in either case there must be a documentable trace, so irrelevant of which option was ultimately utilised evidence exists to that extent.

And before anyone postulates that there may have been an AGM but there were no resolutions to vote on, that is both highly illogical and impossible.

Another part of my post that I felt was critical for us as shareholders to understand, is the fact that the resolutions can be passed by a vote of hands by those attending the meeting, so if there was only the cleaner (holding 10 shares for example), the janitor (holding 100 shares for example), and one of us attending holding the cumulative proxy vote for a number of us (holding potentially 1 billion votes for example), and the cleaner and janitor voted against us at the AGM then they would win the vote.

There is an option for the votes to be counted based on the number of shares held, and it is critical that we understand how that is achieved (it is detailed in the Articles, I just don’t have them in front of me just now), otherwise we as shareholders can get steam rolled in the voting process.

Even with we shareholders holding such a cumulatively large percentage of the shares in issue let us not forget the voting power of the billions that Zama and Steve hold, which might win them the vote on a majority vote resolution, but there are normally certain votes (take overs, certain corporate actions, etc.) that require the vote to be passed by a vote in excess of 75% of the shares in issue, so we as shareholders are far from powerless.

A question on this board today is why hopeless is taking Zama and Steve to court to collect the large shareholding that they pledged if the company has no future.
Think about that for a minute, it is less to do with the current worth of that shareholding, and more to do with significantly reducing the block voting power that Zama and Steve currently have over the other shareholders.
I cannot remember if the pledge was for a cumulative 500 million shares, or if it was for 1 billion shares (500 million shares from each of Zama and Steve), but either way it would significantly reduce the voting stranglehold that they may already hold.

By the way, the above is merely IMHO.

The only inference that I can assume from that RNS is as follows.

a) VAL have not checked the accuracy in the TR1 at issuance of the TR1 RNS

b) the equity issue RNS does state “expected” to be admitted on the 3rd of July ...... perhaps they have not been put forward for admission, and there is a background story regarding that ......... the apparent transfer of shares being performed through the numerous duplicated trades that we have witnessed over the past couple of weeks or so, for example.

Yup, just checked, a little under 903 million is confirmed.

903 million.

Unless there has been a raise that I haven’t accounted for.

Surely the TR1 should clarify the matter.

IMHO

“other than”, not “at her than”.

Oh FFS, I give up, where is your PA when you need her ?! lmao

Going to wrap it up for the night until such time as she is on shift again in the morning.

Night all.

Damn, my mind types faster than my fingers these days.

What I had intended to type was “whether you would want to be attempting much, if any, directional drilling” through a hard fractured basement, at her than that which I did type, which was “whether you would want to be attempting much, if any, drilling” through a hard fractured basement.

Obviously you do have to drill in the basement (otherwise there would be no point .... lol), but I would doubt that you would be wanting to do much directional work in it.

IMHO

yuyus, thank you for clarifying that.

As I said, given the benefits normally associated with doing a wiper trip prior to running casing I would be in the camp of giving due consideration to there potentially having been a benefit in not doing so (i.e. were the benefits to do so not exceeding any risks associated in doing so, given we are not aware of the conditions at the time), rather than forming a kangaroo court to try and pin it on the company man for merely forgetting to do so.

I meant to also say, I can see the point where it is felt that the well may not be horizontal at that point in time, but I would question if at TD they weren’t almost horizontal (at least in excess of 80-85 degrees).

Surely you would perform the vast majority (if not it all) of the build prior to entering the basement, as I would question whether you would want to be attempting much, if any, drilling through a hard (granite) fractured (potential, though clearly not in this instance, for massive fluid losses) basement.

Hence why by TD in the 12-1/4” section I thought the well would be as near as damn it horizontal.

IMHO only, you understand.

yuyus, did the company state that they did not perform a wiper trip, sorry I was not aware of that.

However, it is logical then to assume that this may not have been done for a particular reason I would presume.

Logic dictating that were a standard procedure not to have been performed then it is likely that it may have been felt that the benefit to be gained from doing so may have been out weighed by the risk to have done so at that point in time.

Or, a we intimating that they just plain f**ked up and forgot to do it, or worse so consciously and negligently chose not to do it ?

I may be missing something basic here, did the company put there hands up and went “Doh, we f**ked up, our bad, sorry for that”, as I wasn’t aware that such an admission was made

I think I will need to review the CMD and recent RNS’s again.