Member Info for HeidHoncho

Similar to another positively negative post that I highlighted this morning yet another surfaces.

“the most effective approach, in terms of disease management,”

“most effective” indicates that there is efficacy, they just require to define the optimum manner of deployment.

“disease management” is an interesting phrase, as this would indicate that this disease can now be managed, which I think all sufferers will be pleased to see, and give them hope when previously there was none.

As always, IMHO.

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

A little disingenuous don’t you think.

“how” effective indicates that there is efficacy, yet the level of efficacy has yet to be optimised.

“actually is” indicates that there “is” efficacy.

Glass half empty is one thing, but your post was positively negative and unbalanced.

IMHO.

“rock formation that is floating on a bed of oil and gas.”

Behave yourself, let’s keep it real can we.

You cannot be taking a Twitter poster seriously surely, one who is apparently intimating that it is beneficial that it is condensate that is in the reservoir rather than oil, especially so given that condensate is sold at a discount to Brent, and it is considerably more problematic to transport due to it being more volatile than crude oil.

Industry knowledge, or thorough research from those not in the industry, is key when looking to believe faceless posters on the web.

IMHO

“plug had fracture which allowed enough oil through to provide reservoir info but not viable to produce from. The seep through has been studied for weeks now and measurements taken daily which provided useful stats.”

Can anyone point me in the direction of information RNS’d about this failed plug ?

I can only logically assume that it failed latterly, as you require to pressure test a plug post placement so as to ensure that it is effective.

Additionally, how do they know that it is fractured, as to passing up the back side annulus through channeling having potentially formed during placement.

I would be surprised if they were permitted to perform any form of production from the reservoirs above it prior to rectifying the issue, and if the rig were still on site at the time that it was identified to be passing that they were permitted to suspend the well prior to rectifying the failure.

I appreciate that the well is in Africa rather than the North Sea, but never the less there are still global well control standards that require to be met.

“All you need to employ to begin with is about 5 competent managers with 5 years experience in the oil industry - after that they can train all the hundreds of other employees and temps that will play a role in this project.”

Seriously ?

One can only assume from a simplistic statement such as that that you have absolutely zero experience in the industry.

Re point 4.

You are not getting purity, and recovery factors mixed up are you ?

99.9% would be an unheard of recovery factor, and is more aligned with oft muted purity range.

The 95% that I assume you are referring to in the report is the recovery factor of the element from the ore, is it not ?

Michael Joseph ?

Significant holder of mining company shares, as attested to in MTR’s TR-1 of this morning.

Without a little more to work on than merely “Who’s MJ” that’s as good as stab in the dark as I could proffer I’m afraid to say.

“It’s for 42.8m shares”

But it’s not though, is it degsy, and you have been around long enough I’m sure that you knew that.

The 42.8 million shares is all of the allocation of the pre-emptive allocation that the BoD have left available to them for issuance.

There will require to be an EGM for the shareholders to vote on the issuance of further shares to allow them to raise the full £12 million.

If the shares in the book build can only be shifted at a discounted rate of say circa 10p, then it will take about 3 times your postulated 42 million shares, as it would take 120 million shares at 10p per share to raise the £12 million, or 100 million shares at 12p per share.

And let’s be realistic about one thing, book builds are never done at a premium to the current share price, so it’s all a matter of the level of the discount, and the generation of a significantly higher number of shares than your intimated 42 million.

600, “Ensco 72 appears abandoned off Hartlepool” ?

Hardly “abandoned”, it is on a 3 well charter with Tullow.

RR, you do understand the premise behind a “naked” short don’t you ?

The basis being that the shares that have been naked short sold, don’t actually exist, electronically or otherwise.

At least, that’s my understanding of the situation, but I could well be very wide of the mark with my understanding however.

“ordinary shares of one penny each in the capital of the Company (“Ordinary Shares”) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £1,712,455“

Given that they have requested to have the opportunity to raise up to an aggregate “nominal” amount of £1,712,455 is that note allied to the ordinary share having a “nominal” value of £0.01 ?

i.e. that gives them the right to issue up to an additional 171,245,500 shares.

But it should be noted, that is just an authority to issue up to that number of shares without calling an EGM to raise more, not that they will use all, or indeed any, of that authority.

Bit of a long shot, but could it be because .........

Through generating, and registering the number of shares being requested, that it became so clearly apparent that they could not disregard it any further, that there were more shares being requested to be certified than had been officially issued.
The resulting reason being that it was becoming apparent that it was becoming likely that more shares were potentially going to be claimed to be held than had been issued, due to a large number of shares having been nakedly shorted.

The realisation of such would have been reason enough to halt the generation of certified share certificates, at least until such time as an investigation could be concluded as to the scale of the naked shorting could be identified, and a solution sought as to how it would be required to contend with that issue/ownership imbalance.

Just a thought to muse over, even though it is no more, nor less, random than some of the other reasons being postulated about.

Strange admission to make.

Posts on a number of posts that he cannot sell a three figured sum of shares, quoting that in his opinion that this is indication that the share price is very weak.

Then posts to state that he made a purchase of circa 7 times more shares than he “allegedly” couldn’t manage to sell just a short term prior.

Then to top all that, he freely admits to there being nothing wrong in his actions of prior.

I think you may find that the authorities may indeed perceive that to be very wrong.

Making statements with a view to manipulate the share price downward so as to make beneficial gain (buying at an artificially reduced price) from an attempted manipulation of the share price through your own actions.

An exceedingly foolish admission to make on a public bulletin board, that you made an attempted manipulation of the share price to gain financially through that process.

Just goes to show that Forrest Gump was astute when he said “stupid is as stupid does”.

Having reviewed both the RNS on this site, and the RNS posted on investigate dot co dot uk, I cannot find anywhere that it is stated that there is a 6 month orderly market clause, can anyone point out where that is stated within those RNS postings.

I agree with jaykay however, that even if there is an orderly market clause that does not mean that they cannot sell within that period, just that they must do so within previously agreed parameters.

doubleheadedcoin, but the take over board code quite clearly states, a 30% shareholding group/entity/individual is required to make a cash offer to all other shareholders “at the highest price paid in the 12 months before the offer was announced” , and not “at the highest price paid by the offerer in the 12 months before the offer was announced”.

If you look at the statement regarding when the offerer is a carrier of 10%+ of the voting rights of a class then you will find that the price that requires to be paid to the other shareholders in that class is limited solely to the highest price paid by the offerer in the 12 months before the offer was announced.

“When interests in shares carrying 10% or more of the voting rights of a class have been acquired by an offeror (i.e. a bidder) in the offer period and the previous 12 months, the offer must include a cash alternative for all shareholders of that class at the highest price paid by the offeror in that period. Further, if an offeror acquires for cash any interest in shares during the offer period, a cash alternative must be made available at that price at least.”

doubleheadedcoin, thanks to pokerchips pointing me in the right direction yesterday (thanks again for that pokerchips), and leading me to the take over code, I would be very wary if I was MA about “creep over the 30%”, as my reading of it intimates that he would require to offer a significantly higher price than he is currently bailing at.

“When a person or group acquires interests in shares carrying 30% or more of the voting rights of a company, they must make a cash offer to all other shareholders at the highest price paid in the 12 months before the offer was announced (30% of the voting rights of a company is treated by the Code as the level at which effective control is obtained).‘

Hasn’t the price been in the region of 22 pence or higher within the last 12 months ?

Given the levels of financing MA is currently offering I don’t think MA would contemplate raising the offer to 22p per share, and let’s not also forget that the bond payment would then solely be his/SPD’s responsibility.

I welcome others considered opinions on the subject, but I just can’t see MA/SPD willing to place themselves in a position of being a 30%+ shareholder as that would appear to me to mean that he would require to significantly increase his offer due to the then mandatory requirement for him to offer at the highest price paid in the previous 12 months.

IMHO, but as is clear from my request for a steer yesterday I am FAR from being an authority on the matter.

sonofthebull, really ?!

You might want to check out some of the broker websites and tell me where all of these available vessels are then.

I will give you a starter for ten, the only anchor handlers that were currently available this morning we’re the Havila Jupiter and the Loke Viking.

All other vessels are either out on a job, or already have fixtures due to start over the next couple of days.

But hey, don’t just take my word for it. https://offshore.clarksons.com

One of the reasons that the West Phoenix may still be on location (no guarantees), other than the time that it takes to P&A (has there been confirmation as to whether the well is being suspended, or P&A’d ?) a well, and demobilise all of the equipment prior to handing on the rig to the next chartered, may equally well be a knock on effect of there only being two anchor handlers available in the market this weekend, and it being SOP to utilise 3 (sometimes 4) anchor handlers to conduct a rig move.

For balance, it is not mandatory to use 3 or more, but it is extremely unusual to rig move a semi with less than 3.

IMHO

poker, thank you for that.

I will review it in more detail this evening as I am just heading out, but at first glance the response to my questions were “yes” and “yes”, so all that leaves is .............. at what price ?

Surely if that made the price too high, and reduce the value available to MA/SPD, then they would be nuts in proposing to underwrite a rights issue, especially so as the reasonable likelihood that they would have to take up a proportion of the rights that hadn’t been taken up, and that would put them over 30%.

Will pick this up, and read deeper into it, this evening.

Thanks again for the link.