Member Info for HeidHoncho

ref your post of the 14th August, how did baring your a55 work out for you ?

“ I’m now the company’s biggest shareholder”.

You hold more than 6.5% of the shares in issue do you ?

And you haven’t submitted a TR1.

You do realise the obligation to do so, and the penalties that can be imposed on you if you fail to, don’t you ?

Do you mind if I call you Walter going forward ?

Or should I just call you Mr Mitty ?

red = red, blue = green, green = blue, red = red ........... oh yeah, then there is black lmao

for the experienced techies to respond to.

These are just wildly speculative questions, but never the less it may form the basis for discussions to begin on potential remedial actions on how to get over these current issues.

1) Can you runner a stinger/lengths of production tubing below the ESP, or is there no potential for that.

2) Given that the wellbore may be getting on for being gun barrelesque (a presumption given that it was drilled through granite, and not prone to swelling or wash outs), if you were able to run a stinger/completion tubing below the ESP could you the run this tubing with water activated swellable packers on it, thereby being able to isolate off the perched water (if indeed it is perched) or the fracture in the heel if it is indeed the sole water producing fracture that is preventing production from the hydrocarbon bearing fractures further down the wellbore.

With the apparently now known BHP, and BHFP, has anyone calculated whether a column of seawater (I am assuming it is seawater we are producing and not freshwater) above the currently non producing fractures would be preventing production from those zones, and just how short a column of that water being produced near the heel would be sufficient to kill the production from the as yet non contributing fractures further down the wellbore.

I accept that this would require the current completion to be pulled, and that there may be insufficient information currently known to be able to answer the last question, but never the less I thought I would toss them out there.

If nothing else, it may get us discussing progressive issues, rather than the apparent continual regressive issues.
Hurdles are there to be cleared, not seen as blockers to prevent progress.

IMHO

Pity tomorrow is a non trading day then :-)

“News leak?”

IMHO, no, just played out the way that was anticipated.

SP “promoted” to a price in excess of 15p for a couple of days ........ check
Company to RNS the block listing for the warrants, in doing so adding grist to the mill ...... check
Warrant holders selling down circa 50% of their placement allocation, purchased at 6p, and sold at circa 17p ......... check
SP being “managed” to ensure that the warrants do not vest ........ check
Momentum then lost, the SP then drifting lower, permitting any sold placement shares to be replaced at a price of 13p or lower ........ TBC
Exposure to any risk associated with having to take up the allocation of warrant shares until after announcement of results .......... check

IMHO, a well orchestrated plan, without risk to the participants, played out faultlessly.

If I was a warrant holder I wouldn’t want the warrants to vest this week.

If the 15p closing sp mid price does not hold till close of business on Friday the likelihood is that momentum will be lost and the sp will drift lower.

Then I would look to buy my 50% holding that I sold at 17p (ish) back at 13p or lower, thereby pocketing a minimum of 4p plus per share, and returning to my previous share holding, whilst still holding my non vested 13p warrants to benefit from when the anticipated results increase the sp down the road a bit.

Don’t forget, until the warrants vest they do not have an exposure to any unforeseen risk.

Now, if I was a warrant holder and have a sufficient volume of shares that I could feed in as sells to “manage” the closing sp to be below 15p either today or tomorrow, then I know what I would be doing.

IMHO

It also requires to close above 15p mid price tomorrow, as the warrants do not vest until the closing sp mid price has closed at 15p or higher fOr 5 consecutive days.

Monday was the first, and Friday would be the 5th consecutive day.

If the closing sp mid price does not close at 15p or better both today and tomorrow then the clock gets reset to zero, and a further period of 5 consecutive days at 15p or higher would be required for the warrants to vest.

Surely, even in the Cayman Islands, a company is legally required to operate within the terms and conditions laid down in their Articles of Association.

Failure to do so likely to be due cause for the company to be struck off.

Think about it logically, if there was no requirement to have Articles of Association, and for there to be a requirement for compliance with the same, then there would be no requirements for company’s to have Articles of Association in the Cayman Islands.

We do have Articles of Association, ergo .............

IMHO

Warrant holders performing a risk free monetisation of their placing shares ?

For example, 400,000 placing shares at 6p per share is equal to an investment of £24,000.

SP is let to rise above 17p, at which point the warrant holder sells 200,000 shares at 17p, netting £34,000, whilst at the same time retaining 200,000 shares.
Essentially this equates to them having 200,000 shares for free, and £10,000 profit in their pocket.

Why do I perceive this to be risk free ?
Well, if the share price remains above 15p for 5 consecutive days, and the warrants vest, then they can utilise £26,000 of their £34,000 to replace the 200,000 shares that they sold at 17p at a guaranteed price of 13p, the end result being still the holder of their original 400,000 shares with the added bonus of them now having £8,000 in their hip pocket.

However, if the share price doesn’t remain above 15p for 5 consecutive days, and the warrants don’t vest, then the current share price will drop to an indeterminate lower price.
This matters not to them, as they now can replace the 200,000 shares they sold at 17p at this now lower price.
At an SP of 14p that would mean that they still had their original 400,000 shares plus a bonus of £6,000, at 13p with a bonus of £8,000, at 12p with a bonus of £10,000, etc. etc.

Selling 50% of their original placement holding, whilst the sp has been above 15p, has been a no risk transaction for them, and they have been guaranteed to make money on it.

They would have been fools not to have availed themselves of that guaranteed money making option.

IMHO

The warrants would not vest tomorrow if the closing SP is above 15.0p, as they do not vest until the closing SP has been over 15.0p for 5 consecutive days.

Tomorrow would only be the fourth consecutive day, so the SP would require to close above 15.0p on Friday for it to have been five consecutive days.

I have a feeling that either tomorrow, or at latest Friday, the closing SP will be “managed” to be below 15.0p, as I think there will be parties wishing to ensure that the warrants do not require to vest.

Especially so given the block listing RNS being conveniently announced today.

IMHO

boogie, plus the circa 17 million warrants associated with the May placing.

That should have read, the closing sp, and a minimum of 15p.

Warrants do not vest until the sp has been 15p for 5 consecutive days.

Why have the tolling principles not been made “publicly available” ?

I would have thought that was obvious.

They are commercially sensitive information.

That’s why.

IMHO

Can someone answer me this.

If the mining license was applied for in GGP’s name (and I have no reason to anticipate otherwise) then why should anyone be overly concerned about a fear that only NCM will call the shots.

If, even after NCM have met the requirements to obtain up to 70% of the JV, any outstanding (tolling costs, capital costs, mining plan, etc.) terms between both the parties cannot be amicably resolved, and NCM begin to try playing hard ball, then they may find out that the wheels start to grind exceedingly slowly, as the license holder is the one who will be putting mining plans/environmental cases/safety cases/permit requirements/etc. in front of the authorities for approval.

And given the Telfer facility’s urgent need to process higher grade ore to keep that operation commercially viable, then time is not something that NCM have on their side, and any delays caused by having to resolve disputes with their JV partner, especially so we’re the disputes to require to go through the courts as we all know how long that could take to resolve.

Just a thought.

How can it both be “understand they have all the time in the world” and “understand it’s get in now or never”, as that is an oxymoron isn’t it ?

No more so than when we were in lock down previously.

I note that the address is prefixed by “c/o”.

Strange for them to utilise a care of address title if a physical office presence is housed there.

Or have we always had an address that hasn’t had a physical presence in the office ?