Member Info for HeidHoncho

I wonder what collateral that DS/JB pledged to AAOG for this loan.

Surely AAOG didn’t lend the money to them without some form of surety that they would be able to recover their money.

Did they ?

As predicted.

Hypothetically speaking you understand.

We’re a party to have already sold some shares, prior to having been issued them, would that make them happy to buy them, or needing to continue with the purchase of them.

Not that I’m insinuating that this has been the case in this instance, far from it.

Just a hypothetical random question to postulate over.

IMHO

“Unless I'm reading it wrong, we now have a situation where our two top men have acquired a company for themselves at our expense with no guarantee of us getting our money back and no sign that we will profit from if they make a success of it.‘

In a nutshell.

Obviously however, DS will be giving AAOG his undivided attention to ensure its success, and will not concern himself with the goings on at ATOG, or any other companies that he is associated with.

I mean to say, he may have significant control/skin tied up in ATOG, but that’s no reason to believe he will not be fully focussed on AAOG’s interests.

Or would it ?

Nah, he isn’t a “proper” deramper, he is just a tortured soul.

He professed on another BB on the 9th that he had dumped everything (only logical assumption being he meant his other stocks, I’m assuming he didn’t mean his bowels ... lol) else.

So having sold HUR on the 8th (if that is the inference) then he must be gutted today to see a 20+% percent rise.

That will teach him to chase rainbows.

IMHO

Thank you for that response.

But I would question if it would be so simple to avoid requiring to publish a TR1 merely by separating it into separate legal entities, as they would still be deemed to be related parties.

I was wondering if they, or at least the majority of them, had been lent out, and in lending them out that process in itself equates to no longer being the registered owner, equating to the ii no longer requiring to publish a TR1.

I would imagine that 10% of a companies share holding being lent out for shorting purposes would certainly be a sufficient quantity of shares to swiftly be able to demolish a companies share price.

Purely a hypothetical musing you understand.

In any case, I doubt we could postulate further on it given that no TR1 has been issued.

IMHO

Can no one point out to me where I’m going wrong, and cannot find either a TR1, or at least some press release from the company, as to who the institutional investor was that picked up circa 10+% of the shareholding in the company was at that placement.

Surely it must have been discussed at the time, so perhaps one of the LTH’s can point me in the direction of the information.

Or am I wrong, and there is no requirement for the institutional investor to release a TR1 when they hold 10+% of a company’s stock.

I appreciate that it is not the companies responsibility to lodge the TR1, as that is the holder’s responsibility, but they must at least know who the party was, as it was done through means of a placement.

IMHO

I see an RNS on the 6th June detailing that they placed circa 10% of their shares in issue with an institutional investor, yet when I look I cannot find a subsequent TR1 identifying who that institutional investor was.

What am I missing here ?

that every time the 2,500,000 trades go through that they are going through at exactly the same price.

Think large volume transfer at an agreed price between parties.

IMHO

And at $70 (we are currently sitting at circa $67ish) a barrel that would indicate a further $73,000,000 per annum or thereabouts.

So, by lifting the barrel price circa 16%, the increase from the modelled $60 to $70 (nearer where it currently is, and where a lot of pundits see it averaging) you get an overall gain of nearer 30-36%.

If my calculations (additional $10 per barrel, 20,000 barrels per day, 365 days a year) are accurate that is.

And that additional $73,000,000 is not merely revenue, it is increased profitability (prior to tax), as the production costs do not escalate in line with an increasing oil price.

But then again, accounting/economics isn’t my bag, so there is more than a reasonable chance I have misconstrued things, so I would suggest that someone with more aptitude in that particular sphere offers a position on it.

IMHO

Did HUR initially estimate 900 million barrels ?

Did HUR after having drilled WD now state that they now estimated that the 900 million barrels was no longer there ?

No?

Then, as things currently stand, you have answered your own question.

And you will not get a more definitive answer at this moment, no matter how many times you have asked, or are likely to continually ask in the future.

Until such time as HUR advise otherwise.

IMHO

Less, I would anticipate.

If not a spud RNS tomorrow, then deffo spudded over the weekend and an RNS at opening on Monday morning.

IMHO

we will get a spud RNS tomorrow morning, so as to keep the share highlighted going into the weekend, and thereby increasing the likelihood of column inches being allocated to HUR this weekend ?

Anchor Handlers were witnessed in the location just prior to this meeting remember.

Nothing quite like giving the journos a combination to whet their appetite.

IMHO

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we set out to deceive.

January, perhaps it is you who need to keep up, or at the very least do a better job of covering your tracks.

As I identified to you yesterday, on a thread which surprise surprise has now been deleted, you stated that neither you, or others, could not have attended the AGM to hear that which others who attended did, as people who did not hold shares could not attend.

I pointed out to you that this was contrary to your statement of buying prior to the AGM yet not selling until after the AGM.

As much as some have managed to now get that thread deleted now (I wonder who that could have been) that does not detract from the falsehood that unearthed, and the posting of which could be attested to by other regular posters on this BB.

Is that such a wise move January, as you made a right Horlick of it the last time that you did, and ended up with a loss.

Mind you, you then latterly stated that you weren’t holding any shares at the time of the AGM, so it’s kind of hard to identify which of your statements are true, and which are just Mittyesque.

IMHO

Let me get this right.

You are saying that not only have MM’s taken a position in VAL (strange on its own, as why would they expose themselves), but that this position is for up to 10% of VAL’s shares in issue ?

Or, are you saying that a number of MM’s have spread this exposure, and require to make a notification by means of a TR1, between a number of them in unison.

Which is equally strange, as they are competitors, and aside from that by working together they could be perceived to be operating as a concert party.

Or, is it just because you see potential in the share now, a share that you have been doing your utmost to steer investors away from.

Oh how the worm has turned, the next short period before you sell out will make for interesting reading.

IMHO

One would postulate ......... Ian Sharp, perhaps ? lmao

been keeping a running total of the volume involved in the million/multi-million share sells since they started prior to the AGM ?

I doubt that they are just a volume of shares being churned (i.e. being both sold, and bought again, by the same party) as there has been an insufficient change in the SP during the period, so my thoughts are heading towards a structured transfer of a large block of shares, being conducted piece meal so that the transfer has been arranged at an agreed price.

Thoughts anyone ?

Are you saying, that even if ultimately fail to achieve 100% efficacy, but have already stated that they HAVE demonstrated disease stabilisation, that achieving stabilisation, i.e. no further progression in the disease, is a negative ?

FFS, just how “half empty” is the glass you drain on a daily basis.