Member Info for HeidHoncho

Why would it half our share holding ?

Don’t we hold circa 40+ million zero cost options that we can convert, which was specifically negotiated to counter such a dilutive event of a large mine financing placing being performed by MOD.

These zero cost options can only be utilised were it to maintain our shareholding at 12.5% or less, or were an offer to be received to take over MOD.

That being the case, MOD can dilute through a placing as large as their current market cap (as per your post) and the dilutive effect on our current shareholding percentage in MOD would be zero, we could still hold 12.5% of MOD’s shares in issue at zero cost to MTR.

I’m currently sitting by the pool, quaffing a few cold ones, in Louisiana whilst visiting a very good long time friend of mine and their family.

During the trip I have been filling my rental gas guzzler at under 2 bucks a gallon, for which I have been thankful, given that it inhales fuel, especially when I have been heavy footed driving the interstate.

You are correct to identify, and it would be wise for all not to underestimate the effect, that a high oil price would have over here.

Given the dependence that there is on logistics that a country this size has, escelating fuel prices have an exponential knock on effect to the final cost of almost everything that they buy, and consequently the knock on effect to inflation is considerable.

Trump is currently luxuriating in the honeymoon period just now, where he can bask in the transitory positive glory that his actions have brought to bear, but it is a house of cards, surrounded by smoke and mirrors, that will rapidly come tumbling down were the fuel price to escalate uncontrollably, as inflation would grab a hold and sentiment will likely wane, in the blink of an eye.

Isolationism only works when you are holding all of the aces, but unfortunately for him the price of oil is not a card he holds in his hand, and he requires to bid on a strong bluff hand.

OPEC, and the other large non OPEC countries, are effectively the dealer, so let us see what the dealer draws on the river.

IMHO, and stated furtively, as I am surrounded by Trumpites down here just now :O lol

“I’m going to e-mail the FCA tomorrow when I have time”.

Just an observation, but given that you have posted at 09:16, 09:18, 09:25, 10:43, 15:51, 16:42, 18:34, and 19:38, today so far (8 out of circa all 29 posts so far today, equating to 28% of all posts made today).

And yesterday you posted at 09:46, 09:56, 09:59, 10:03, 10:07, 10:08, 10:17, 10:21, 10:27, 10:38, 10:50, 10:57, 11:06, 11:08, 11:13, 11:15, 11:17, 11:22, 11:39, 12:00, 12:19, 12:32, 13:06, 13:35, 13:54, 14:05, 14:08, 14:24, 14:29, 14:34, 15:50, 16:06, 16:14, 16:19, 16:27, 16:28, 16:31, 16:52, 19:13, and 19:24, (a truly prodigious volume of 40 posts in less than 10 hours).

It could logically be argued that available time is not your issue, but more likely to be that you consciously understand (but are to weak to admit it) that there is little if any credibility in any argument that you may wish to pin on VAL’s door in relation to anything that the FCA may be interested in or able to take VAL to task on, or perhaps it may be reflective of you being a procrastinator that is all Billy Big Balls when “talking the talk” but fail miserably when it comes to “walking the walk”.

But hey, I’m not judge and jury, your peers can make their own mind up about that, I’m merely making an observation based on fact.

The fact being that time is clearly not your enemy (given how prodigiously you have been witnessed to post), so what truly is deterring you from contacting the FCA ?

I turn the floor over to you, and I, and no doubt many other investors in this share (be they the vociferous minority, or the silent majority), look forward to receiving your reasoned rebuttal.

So, given that we appear to be in agreement that the “nominal” share price is £0.05, then if they are to be looking for authority to raise on aggregate a “nominal” circa £5.2 million, then that indicates that they are looking to obtain authority to generate up to 110 million shares.

That would be a significant dilution, unless that is that they can place the shares at a significant premium to the current share price.

How achievable do we feel this potential is ?

The indication that they only requested the authorisation for 6 months could be seen to be positive, as that may indicate that they anticipate a fiscally positive step to be achieved within that timeframe.

But then again, if they have utilised the entire authority within the 6 month period, and those shares aren’t being offered to their loyal pi’s in this potential fund raise, are we seeing some individuals in on the cheap prior to share price enhancing news being released within 6 months.

Personally I’m unsure how this one is going to play out, so I think I will sit this one out, but I will keep an eye on how things develop.

Damned autocorrect ........ “methodology of sentence deconstruction”, not “direction”.

The final sentence in the RNS you are quoting from states “These are in line with anticipated outcomes as far as cancer reduction is concerned”.

So, following on from your own methodology of sentence direction surely the key words in that sentence are “reduction” and “anticipation”.

“reduction” being indicative that the product is effective, in so far as it is reducing the cancer, which I think all must agree is a highly positive thing, as it indicates that the results are not purely palliative, they are also curative.

“anticipation” being indicative that the product is at least in some way meeting the end result for which it was designed.
So, it is logical to expect that a trial would not be conducted were there to be an anticipation that the end result would show no positive effect, therefore “in line with anticipated outcomes” indicates that the results were positive.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the results indicate that not only was the trial designed to have an outcome that witnessed a cancer reduction (curative, not merely palliative), but that it was at least in part successful (as it is illogical to start a trial where success was based on zero positive effect).

As can be witnessed in any sentence deconstruction it is clear that you can tweak it whichever way is aligned with your slant on it.
My portrayal is clearly positive (glass half full), yours portrays ...........

Given that we are all invested so as to make money from our investments, and I hope that I speak for all when I say that we all wish for a product to be designed that eradicates cancers, what is not to like about a sentence that indicates that at least in some small way that cancer reduction was a trial result goal, that they witnessed an impact upon that which was dose related (further increases in dose rates above that in the trial may increase the curative impact seen to date), and that the goal of the trial (cancer reduction) at least in part was witnessed.

IMHO

the Russian oil industry running scared ?

Looks like they have sent one of their top defenders over to block the advance of our world class attacker the AM, but class will out and I anticipate the AM slipping it a nutmeg prior to driving forward towards the goal.

Home win for the mighty Hurricane FC this weekend :)

http://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=25b7cf3a-ccaa-437b-a93e-c24e89e2f47e&appid=1206

Absolutely no connection with whether Exxon are one of the interested parties or not, but according to Maverick7 on the ECO BB, "Exxon CEO on Bloomberg tomorrow".

We can but hope he lets something slip ........ lol

For goodness sake, get things right.

You are not paid to think, merely to regurgitate a script.

Today’s actions have been so obvious, given the massive number of posts made across numerous boards, and a large number of the instigators being from posters that have either very limited numbers of previous posts or are sleeper log ins that have not been utilised for some time, and generally speaking the initial posts on the subject were made by posters who have never or very limited posts on the board previously.

I’m afraid to say, anyone thick enough, greedy enough, blinkered enough, or desperate enough, to have been suckered in deserve everything that will soon be heading their way.

starbright, surely there is a contradiction between parts of your 23:18 post and your 23:26 post.

In your 23:18 post you state “... and up to 2 pressure support wells”, yet in your 23:26 post you state “... shows no depletion”.

Logically speaking, if there was no depletion there would not be a requirement to support the pressure, would there ?

And with almost as many pressure support wells being planned as there are producers being planned (up to 2 pressure support wells, as against up to 3 producers) would that not only indicate that not only was there a plan to deal with depletion, it shows that there are concerns that the depletion may be significant ?

What was the source of your, in inverted comma (quotation) statements, were they from RNS’s ?

A more conceited post I have rarely witnessed.

The BoD are answerable to ALL their investors, not merely to the non amateurs.

amnesic, (apologies for the earlier typo, it was an autocorrect, not intentional), so that I am not leading the witness so to speak, I would rather everyone did their own research, that way no false allegations of bias can be made.

But as a stater for 10 (as dear old Bamber would say), I will give you a lead such that you can start your own research.

The following is a link to BEIS, which should be a useful tool for all to utilise when researching what applications have been either made or approved. https://itportal.beis.gov.uk/eng/fox

What is pertinent through viewing this source is that Colter has only very recently had its submissions made (24th October if memory serves), and is still therefore far from being approved, but it is an omission that is even more worthy of note.

Unless I have overlooked it, I can find no submission having been made by Fraser’s (or any other party for that matter) for the drilling of Wick, which is further indication that the priority may well be to drill Colter prior to Wick.

At the very least, even if Wick was to be drilled prior to Colter this indicates that the spud on Wick couldn’t occur prior to December, due to the application processing time that BEIS work to, as anyone in the industry associated with BEIS applications will testify to.

I always advise expectations to be managed, for failure to do so has I have found cost investors money, IMHO.

amnesia, it is common rig contract practice that when the rig is not handing over on tight tow 500m from its current client’s location in direct continuation to the next client, then the port from which it first mobilised from is the designated port that the rig is demobilised to.

Given that the port it mobilised from was Hartlepool there it is logical that it will be demobilising back to Hartlepool.

As much as you might like to assume inference that Wick is the next location by intimating that the rig is heading north rather than south from its current location, is IMHO confirmation bias, as Hartlepool being north of the current location is irrelevant due to it having been the original mobilisation, and consequently contractual demobilisation port most likely.

As balance, by returning to its mobilisation port of Hartlepool, the rig is no more, nor no less, likely to be transitting to Colter than it would be transitting to Wick, as it is equally likely to be next going to either, or neither.

What has recently come to light that may infer on location over another is the document released on the 24th October, which was based on information received as recently as September, that the target spud date for Colter is the 1st November.

Given that target has been given to a governmental body so recently it could be argued that were this just to be a bluff, and the company have always planned for Wick to be drilled in November in preference to Colter, then this disingenuoity would be taken as a slight by the relevant governmental body, perhaps sufficiently so that they may then proceed to revoke the approval.

Additionally, given that it is clear in the application that due to environmental reasons that Colter is only approved for drilling in the autumn period, and not approved at any other time of the year, do you think the company would want to risk the opportunity of drilling Colter this year, and have to then wait till autumn 2019 to drill it, by trying to show preference to drill Wick first in preference to Colter ?

It ultimately may be Wick that gets drilled first, all I am suggesting is that this is not any more likely because the rig is heading north to Hartlepool, and recent application evidence indicates that there is a stronger indication that Colter will take preference to Wick due to the tight restrictions on the time of year that Colter is only approved to be drilled in.

All IMHO you understand, but the answers are out there to base a balanced view on, if indeed a balanced view is what is sought.

A number of interesting points in those documents, but the major one that stands out like a sore thumb nobody seems to have passed comment on.

It is clearly stated that the target spud date for Colter is the 1st November 2018, which means that all talk of going to Wick first must be now a thing of the past, as there is absolutely no chance of achieving the Wick well prior to then.

And given that this approval was based on responses that the company gave as recently as September there hasn’t been any plan by the company for Wick to be drilled first for a while, but they haven’t communicated this change of plan to the shareholders.

It is also clear that they will not meet their targeted spud date of the 1st November on two fronts.
The first being that the rig is still on its existing location in the SNS, and the current weather precluding it from even starting to move from there prior to the 1st November, never mind having arrived at the Colter location, far less spudding the well.
The second being that a commitment was made to advise Kingfisher two weeks prior to ops starting, and I cannot find on Kingfisher that notification having been made (though I might have missed it, so no assurances given)

Due to environmental conditions (spawning concerns, flight paths of birds, social use of the area, etc.) it appears that autumn is the only period of the year that the Colter well has been approved to be drilled in.

That being the case, if the well doesn’t get spudded this autumn then they would have to wait until next autumn to have a crack at drilling Colter, so another indicator of the importance of drilling Colter prior to Wick.

There are a number of other details given in those documents that give insight into the well that weren’t previously known, so I suggest that people spend time properly reading it and not just skim reading it.

All of the above is merely from my reading of the documents, and not stated as fact, but I’m sure that most people reading it will come to the same conclusion, so as always I cannot underline enough everyone’s need to DYOR.

I would suggest that the Tweeter is wrong on a couple of points.

1. The destination once the rig starts moving, as there is no indication on AIS that the destination is Wick.
2. I doubt that any rig move will have started given the weather conditions and sea states that exist offshore at the moment.

I’m sure that he is just overly enthuisiastic, and not purposefully attempting to deceive.

Is that how you read it ?

My reading of the issue was that the main reason for washing out was the duration that the unconsolidated whales were left open for (that is without casing/liner being ran) that was the cause, not the relatively benign and simplistic coring process.

That happened when the hole was left open for single digit days, just how long do you think the hole section would be open for to drill a 30’000’ horizontal section through chalk/shale ?

We have formations that we drill through in the North Sea where we know that if we have the hole open for more than 5-7 days then the likelihood is we will lose the hole section, such is reaction from the formation were the hole to be left open for longer.

But if you are not open to accepting that chalk/shale formations are more tortuous than sandstone formations, especially so when attempting to drill a 30,000’ horizontal section with a water based system, then I am wasting my time.

I will bid the board adieu, and wish it well.

GLA

So, the problems encountered at Broadford Bridge, where they failed to land the liner the first time round (requiring a sidetrack to then be drilled), when trying to land the liner at less than only 6,000’, and the well not even being horizontal (logically easier to land out in), is indicative of technology’s advances making this a non issue ?

I would suggest that believing that trying to land 30,000’ of liner in a horizontal section through an interbedded shale/chalk formation will be a breeze is confirmation bias of the highest order IMHO.

Have I alluded to future wells not being necessarily successful .......... No

All I have purported is to manage expectations, and be wary of prophets giving unrealistic expectations.

That’s in a sandstone reservoir, not an interbedded limestone/shale reservoir.

I would respectfully suggest that you would find that more tortuous to land out a 30,000’ liner in.

IMHO

DL is part of the problem.

When he posts about 5 x 30,000’ horizontal wells he loses all credibility, and consequently some of that rubs off on the companies reputations that he is mindlessly ramping.

I want to be on the drill floor with him by my side when he tries to get the liner to bottom in a 30,000’ horizontal section.

Pure lunacy, and fantasy.

Was there any information given as to when they expect the Ensco 72 to mobilise to Wick or Coulter ?

Many thanks.