Member Info for HeidHoncho

Fully funded for 2019 ?

Was that RNS’d and I missed it.

“Trust me on that 1”

Trust, as is respect, is gained not demanded/requested.

You my friend, have neither.

A strange admission to make on a public bulletin board don’t you think Gregorio ?

“You should be happy that I am trying to push the share down.......”

Surely that is admission of attempting to manipulate the share price.

I do hope that you do not get investigated, and found to guilty of profiteering from your actions.

Mind you, the way that the law of the land changes so frequently these days it would not surprise me if it were now no longer to profit from share price manipulation.

I’m sure I must not be up to speed on such legislature, as no one would be silly enough to admit they were breaking the law on a public bulletin board that records of individuals posts are retained.

Would they ?

that is seeing the positive in the results seen at UD-2 ?

As I read it proof of concept has been proven in the test results.

I am not surprised that a poor cement job exists in a Soviet era well, and this is predominantly the reason that we cannot produce out of the section perforated in the existing well bore.

Perform a sidetrack from higher up, hitting the same formation, only this time the cement job will be performed correctly, thereby making production achievable.

A sidetrack being a significantly cheaper, and quicker, solution than to drill a new well to achieve the goal.

Even with the issues in the well as it currently exists "Maximum flow rate of 150,000 scf/d of dry gas has been recorded during the testing period."

Therefore, although the existing well bore is not conducive for production, the production capabilities of the reservoir have been proven to produce dry gas at a rate of 150,000 scuffs a day.

I think some would do well to research what the monetisation of 150,000 scuffs per day of dry gas from a singular well would likely be reflected into in the way of a market capitialisation/sp.

Just IMHO, obviously.

That alleged institutional shareholding appears to be significantly different to that according to the FT.

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=VAL:LSE

Which one to believe ?

Fredd1eboy, to be fair to tozerk in this instance your counter argument to his position indicates that it is you who has lost the plot.

The company is owned by the shareholders, and that is unequivocal.

The assets of the company, can if put up as surety of a loan for example, may not be owned by the shareholders at the time that a loan is outstanding.
But even that is questionable, as neither is that asset owned by the lender at that point in time, as they would only become the rightful owner of that asset upon failure to meet the conditions of the loan.

So to postulate that the company is owned by anyone other than the shareholders is bordering on lunacy.

As a “shareholder” (the clue is in the name), what do you believe that you legally own a share of ?

All of the above is IMHO obviously, as I am neither a chartered accountant nor a qualified practitioner of company law.

From most of the opinions expressed on this BB it would appear that the camp is split, not necessarily between whether a fund raise would be supported, but more so in the only manner that such a fund raise would be supported by the majority.

It is clear that there is a reasonable groundswell of opinion indicating that the voters may well vote No if there are no concrete plans to raise funds in a manner different to that conducted on all previous occasions.

If there continues to be a lack of a plan, with target dates, or/and a lack of attention being paid by the BoD with regards to the support maybe only being available if the funds are raised through the likes of a rights issue (or other method that precludes the usual snout filling at the trough of discounted placings), then I think the BoD may require to have a plan B in their back pocket as there is a realistic potential that they do not receive the vote that they are hoping for.

With respect, au contraire.

In truly simplistic terms you first need to identify whether there is a desire from the majority of shareholders to vote for funds to be raised, then look at how to secure that vote of confidence to achieve the raising of those funds.

I think there is a general desire to support the raising of funds, but not necessarily if it will only be proposed to be achieved in the same disrespectful (to the shareholders, especially so the long term ones who have supported the company through the hard times over numerous years, and previous fundraisers) manner as has been conducted previously.

To date the only parties to have been rewarded are the sharks and shysters who have fed voraciously at the trough of deeply discounted placings, with the further bonus of warrant issues at low SP incrementals to the placing price.

Without having significant skin in the game, be that through performance (SP accretive) based remuneration, or through risking their own monies through having bought (not merely through awarding themselves millions of ludicrously low priced options with excessively long validity periods) shares in the company themselves, then there is no disensentive for them to do anything other than continuously make future placements.

In my opinion, this is not so much a question as to whether it is felt that we should support the raising of funds to further the product development, but more about the manner in which those funds are to be raised.

Additionally, it may gain them some additional leverage as to how those raised funds are to be deployed, as currently the company is seriously lacking in giving the shareholders guidance on where the company is heading, and setting themselves any goals as to the timeline they anticipate achieving those targets in.

Without that we have nothing to measure their performance against.

And if you, or the BoD, have not given credence to any of the metrics I indicated about how the feelings can be amongst long standing shareholders that are risking only 10% of their original investment that is left, whereby the desire to choose a path of sh*t or bust rather than see their meagre remaining value be diluted yet further still, then I think that they may be underestimating the players on the field of play.

IMHO, as always.

I don’t think it is so black and white as No or Yes, it is potentially Yes but with caveats.

You also need to consider the vastly differing metrics between the long term holders (and by “long term” I am talking about those of us who have been shareholders from pre consolidation days), and those who have only held within the last 12-18 months or so.

Those long term holders who have not had the capability to continually keep averaging down through the numerous dilutions are likely to be 90% down on their initial stake, or more.
I have been in the fortunate position to be able to significantly average down over the years such that I have a seven figure shareholding (number, not value, unfortunately), but not all have been that fortunate.
On the other hand, recent investors may be currently showing a profit, and most have less than currently up to a 50% loss.

The point I am making is that the previously hard core long term holder has a differing risk/reward metric to base their decision making process on when deciding whether they will vote through yet another dilution.
For them the difference between the future success or failure of the company only potentially has them losing the remaining 10% of their original stake, whereas recent shareholders may be risking current profits or 80-90% of their original stake.
I think people should be cognisant of the potential difference in voting metric between those who have everything/majority of their money to lose, versus the voting metric of those who have already lost the vast majority of their money, as the latter conceivably see it as only losing their last meagre 10% or so, consequently they have less to lose by taking a stance, and more likely to vote No.

As mentioned, I sit in the middle ground, that being a long term holder but still have a significant sum riding on this horse.
Hence my stance, is as I professed earlier this weekend.
I will consider voting Yes only if the fund raise is conducted by means of a rights issue, as the years of financial pain that the long term holders have suffered should be recognised by the BoD, allowing these holders to gain from the usual discounted placing, or the sweetener of warrants, that the usual sharks/shysters have benefited from previously.
Additionally, it is time that the BoD either rewarded themselves through a predominantly performance based remuneration package, or put a significant portion of their own wealth on the line to show confidence, rather than just award themselves another 35,000,000 options at the derisory price of 4 pence per share.

IMHO, obviously.

“If you double the amount of shares available, then the amount of shares held by PI’s is halved”.

Not necessarily, hence me promoting that I will only vote yes if it is purely for a fund raise by means of a rights issue.

That way, we long suffering PI’s have the opportunity to maintain our current percentage shareholding in our company, and not be giving significantly discounted placing to the usual bunch of shysters.

That way, we long suffering PI’s benefit, the company benefits through raising the funds they appear to require, and the usual sharks don’t get to fill their faces at the trough of discounted placings.

A win-win scenario I would say if funds truly do require to be raised, and potentially the only way that the BoD will get the fund raise voted through, as I know that I for one will not vote yes to a placing though I would consider voting yes to a rights issue.

That being the case I would consider voting yes to 1, yes to 2.1, and no to 2.2.

If 2 had to be voted for in its entirety then I would consider voting against.

Time that the long term holders who have been diluted on numerous occasions benefited from further fund raising, and not flippers of the shares.

Punk, I don’t read it as an authority to do a placing, I read it as authority to conduct rights issues.

Unless I’m reading it wrong.

It’s a nominal value, so at today’s share price that would allow them to raise up to circa £12,000,000 were there to be no discount.

Though I doubt that they would do that in one hit, but in tranches as they felt the need to do so.

If I am reading it right.

That reads as if it is being proposed as a rights issue to me.

Or am I reading it wrong ?

If I’m not reading it wrong then I may consider doubling down, subject to the BoD making some sacrifices, such as putting some realistic skin of their own in the frame, or significantly reducing their salary such that their bonus is based on value creation.

"Beware the flood of new names ....." Oh the irony of it. Posted by a poster who signed up (under this log in) only yesterday, with 3 existing posts to their name. Comedy gold such as that is priceless, and no amount of money can buy you such classic statements.

"but it has no relevance" .............. really ?!?! It may have no relevance to the potential success, or otherwise, of the existing CASP assets, but it IS relevant to the ultimate gain that PI's will see if these existing assets are ultimately a success. The SP is a reflection of the market cap attributable to the company, and the market cap is a reflection of how the market perceive the worth of the company. So, if the assets ultimately do become a great success, and the market recognises that through valuing the company at a far higher level, then that increase in market capitalisation will now be distributed across a larger number of shares in issue. Culminating in the existing share holders prior to the purchase of this new company now achieving a lower percentage increase in the price per share than they would have done had the directors/ex directors not chosen to increase their holding by off loading a company that they previously held a majority interest in onto the shareholders of CASP. Can any sensible, logically thinking, individual care to explain to me how that is NOT relevant ? It beggars belief some of the head in the sand delusional ramping you see on BB's such as this.

That a current director of this company, and a former director of this company, who cumulatively hold two thirds of the shareholding of a non listed company, have had the investors in this company purchase the same directors shareholding in the non listed company for 18 million dollars ?

Individuals who forward sell generally speaking do so being knowledgeable of receiving the shares they are to receive. To that end, I do not anticipate them forward selling their entitlement in the open offer, and would not have been foolish to have forward sold the number they had anticipated receiving in the excess application, as there were no guarantees that any excess application would receive their applied for quantities in full if at all. Granted, they may have also forward sold the warrants that were anticipated to be awarded against their open offer entitlement, but that would only indicate that they would be short a maximum of 15 million shares. However, through the previously unannounced placing these potentially short 15 million is readily covered by the unexpected 25 million placing shares being issued. Not only that, but the placing shares are traceable as of Monday, whereas the open offer entitlement shares will not be traceable until early June. Isn�t there the potential for those involved in the placing to flip their shares into the market prior to the PI�s who applied for their entitlement through the OO as they will not be able to now obtain their applied for shares sometime in June ? I am not certain if there is a conspiracy theory story here, but for me the numbers aren�t stacking up for there to be a short squeeze on, those involved in the previously unannounced placing being able to flip their 1.1p shares into a market on Monday that currently has the SP at 1.75p post consolidation. And like I said in a previous post I have my doubts whether there will be any TR1s announced prior to the end of the week, and that would indicate whether those involved in the placing were investors or flippers. I hope for the best, but fear for the worst. Which is a reasonable philosophy to take when seeking to protect your capital.

seem to be banging on about there being a short squeeze ? There will be an additional 25 million shares added to the register on Monday due to the placing, and a further circa 42 million added in early June through the open offer. So circa 67 million shares being issued against an existing circa 75 million share base. With authority already in place for the shares in existence almost doubling in the very near future why do posters believe there is a short squeeze on ?

With an additional 30%+ of the current shares in issue hitting the market on Monday, at a price that is circa 37% lower than the current SP, why does anyone believe that the SP will rocket on Monday ? Surely the logic is that the holders of these placing shares will sell them into the market for an easy 59% return on their investment. Generally speaking (just look at any low market cap AIM companies), those who put their money into placements are not investors in a companies future, they are faceless money machines that flip the money they have invested as soon as they can, that way reducing any exposure that they have to unexpected results. Hell, if I had a bankroll large enough, and the contacts available to me to be included in such placing, I would churn my capital as frequently as I could, as has been proved on the vast majority (if not all) of instances that it is money for old rope for those involved in the placement. Was it mentioned in the RNS the individuals who bought into this unexpected and unscheduled placement, or will they remain nameless and faceless ? Given that the placing was for in excess of 30% of the current share holding, and there being a requirement for any single party holding in excess of 3 million shares, do we think there will be any new TR1�s notified by the end of the week ? Or will a lack of new TR1�s being notified prior to the end of the week be a reflection of whether those involved in the placing being investors, or flippers ?