Member Info for HeidHoncho

Explain then why an allegedly experienced investor such as NS would buy a large shareholding to the over the next few days sell them down at a stinking, and unquestionable, loss ?

I will be interested in the response to that.

What I think is his block holding was utilised to assist in ensuring that the vote went through, he has been selling down over the past few days knowing that he is not naked selling the shares which he has been promised that he will be allocated at the next imminent placing, at a price between 0.15-0.165.

That way, he still keeps a chunk of the pie when one of the deals crosses the line causing an uplift in the SP, whilstat the same time being rewarded handsomly for assisting in ensuring that the vote went through having been able to profit by .05-.08 pence per share for the millions of shares that he held at the time of his recent TR1 initial notification.

Money makes money, and it pays to be in bed with the devil, as the sayings go.

A word of caution for those who think NS is a saviour ........ Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer still.

IMHO

Not fraud I think scooby, merely massive incompetence by the entire BoD.

And that includes the Neds.

Jesus, I don’t even get to finish typing a post and they have placed the first tranche.

I expect another placing soon, as that one just cleared their existing obligation.

As anticipated, and as previously known by the incessant seller over the past 24 hours no doubt.

Giving their continual selling at any price down to .17, I would not be surprised at an imminent placing at .15-.17 for circa 400-500 million shares.

I will be interested in seeing the number of votes polled both for and against each resolution.

“risk of non execution” ?

Do you honestly believe that it is not a foregone conclusion as to the way the vote is going to go ?

Especially so as the proxy votes will already have been counted.

Of course they can’t.

There has never been instances of naked selling, now has there.

What, with AIM being such a well policed bastion of virtue that it is .

mathsprof, if it is EHGO who are selling, and I’m not convinced that it has to be, as our two recent TR1 holders are far from Snow White, then they will be doing so safe in the knowledge that the vote will be passed.

Information passed to them courtesy of ............. well, I will let you work that out, but it wouldn’t take a genius to work out that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you ....... capiche ;-) lol

Surely people aren’t still buying into the utter drivel that the tool on the hill spouts are they ?

He is a complete dullard, who knows nothing, and compounds that by his posts.

A classic one from today “There is a big piling machine onsite which will prob be used to drill the first bit of the HH2 well tomorrow”

Jesus, if you have correctly identified equipment which you have seen then the clue is in the name.

It drives the conductor in, you do not drill with it, as surface casing on land wells (as opposed to offshore) is normally driven in with a pneumatic hammer.

Give me strength ............

Hate to say it, but there may be some reality in that.

Is it legal to purchase shares merely to get a vote in and then dump them before the count is even made, or do you require to hold them at the point in time that the count is done ?

If it is the former then that leaves the market open to all sorts of manipulation.

The way that a reasonable volume of shares has been dumped onto the market today at prices down to .17 stinks of a placement having already been agreed at circa .15.

Will be interesting to see who gets allocated shares in the next placement.

this morning has been a master class in obfuscation.

Don’t watch what the right hand is doing, as the left hand is the one picking your pocket.

You have all been distracted by discussing non issues, whilst all this time you should have been witnessing, and discussing, the train wreck of share destruction that has been going on.

Is it a) because they know that a large dilution is going to be voted through, or b) because it is becoming apparent that the vote has gone against them and it’s now a busted flush.

If anyone believes that the BoD are not already aware of the way the vote is likely to go then you are deluding yourselves.

wulbert, in relation to your question regarding the radius, and very rule of thumb general statement regarding deviated wells, although temporarily (it will be steered back to reduce it) it may be as high as 4-4.5 degrees, it would most likely be planned to be 3 degrees per 100 feet, as dogleg severity greater than that is decidedly sub optimal, and can become the cause for sticking issues and casing wear.

You might want to Google bent motor.

To get a better idea of profitability, rather than just the revenue that gets highlighted on here, other than the operating costs that are being here, what other costs/taxes/commitments should be considered when trying to get a guide as to the level of profit that is likely per barrel/month/year/etc.

Petroleum Tax ......... I assume that onshore production gets treated in the same way as offshore.
Corporation Tax ........ Is corporation tax payable over and above petroleum taxes that may get levied.
Capital Costs ......... I assume either capital costs, or their financing costs, require to be considered when calculating profitability.
Commitment to community causes ....... The 6% being discussed here (is this 6% of profit, or 6% of turnover ?)

Does anyone with greater knowledge than I on business costs/taxes give guidance on the levels of each of the above, as I’m sure the 40USD or so (being the differential between 60 dollar oil and the operating costs) is not reflective of the level of profitability that can be assumed from each barrel produced.

Or are all of the above potential costs/taxes/commitments already accounted for in the production cost per barrel being discussed here ?

there will have to be an RNS on Monday morning regarding those late trades.

The question would be, were they 3 separate trades, or just the one entered numerous times in error.

Is there any coincidence in them being of a volume just under reporting volumes for a TR1 for overseas investors ?

IF they were 3 separate purchases, are the owner of those shares working as a concert party with our two other TR1 investors and about to (will be mandatory if they are acting as a concert party) mount a low ball hostile takeover ?

What volume of headroom do the BoD have remaining, if any, prior to the AGM vote on additional headroom (i.e. could these trades have come from available headroom shares that the BoD had remaining in reserve) ?

Do I have any answers to the above, Hell no.

Would I like to hear viewpoints on the credibility/viability on the above, for sure.

The premises, which previously went by the name of the Star and Garter, is very much still open.

It is now called the Stag.

“the best they can say is it might work”

Another “truth” of yours ?

The RNS today stated, and I quote, “to determine the most effective approach, in terms of disease management, cost effectiveness and patient welfare”.

The utilisation of “most” when utilised in discussion of efficacy does NOT indicate “might” work, it is a clear indication that it DOES work, yet just how well it might ultimately work is yet to be concluded upon after further dosage trials are completed.

Additionally mention is made of disease management, and you cannot manage a disease if you have nothing available that is effective in aiding you manage the disease.

I was going to say that you should keep popping up these “truths” of yours, and I will keep volleying them back to you, but it is becoming irksome as you will obfuscate at every opportunity, and fail to accept the error of your way, and it is far from productive for me, so I will let you carry on spouting your self deluded “truths” and “facts” to anyone gullible enough to be taken in by your diatribe.

Have a nice day ya hear.

“I stick to facts”

What in any shape or form is your post this morning factual, as it is the polar opposite.

“So they don't know if it works or not yet !”

As pointed out to you previously, they have, on more than one occasion, in binding RNS’s, stated that it IS efficacious.

They reiterated that again this morning, just that until they have completed further dosage escalation they cannot categorically state just how efficacious it may ultimately be.

So, far from not knowing if it works, there is the potential that although it may not be a cure there is the possibility that it may yet achieve a total halt to further progression of the disease.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones springs to mind.

IMHO

“the work was on Val 101 only” ?

Strange, that’s not how I read it.

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=PYC&ArticleCode=xcdj1tqs&ArticleHeadline=Collaborative_Agreement

You state “what IF you’re (sic) not able to give the patient enough”

But there is no “IF” , as the statement in the RNS “evidence of the compound's positive effect in reducing the progress of prostate cancer has been witnessed” indicates that they have already documented that the trials have indicated progress reduction even at the dosages already permitted.

Surely any sufferer will be glad that at the very least disease progression can be slowed, and who knows, perhaps with further dosage changes perhaps even halted entirely.

“please tell me which bit of this news is great?”

As pointed out earlier, the part which indicated that it IS efficacious, and that the disease can now be managed.

What part of that is not positive ?