Member Info for LONGWAIT

I've read your posted comments in their entirety.

I can't find anything in them that reflects reality.
The idea that the new BOD would be telling Edison that they think the project will ultimately fail is far-fetched.
You say we have one well; we don't - we have two wells.
'We can be picked up for peanuts' is nonsense.
To call RT a 'snake oil salesman' is not only defamatory, but a ludicrous way to describe a respected geologist.
You're really dragging down the quality of this BB.
If people like you take it over, we may as well close it down.

"As a consequence of the issues experienced at 205/21a-7z and its subsequent shut-in, we decrease our chance of success for Lancaster Full Field Development (FFD) from 81% to 30% with a geological chance of success of 60% and a commercial chance of success of 50%."

Because of interference between two closely-positioned wells - hardly a typical situation - Edison now doubts whether a FFD could succeed?

That's not logical.

In reply to SouthSeaBreeze's post of 07:53 Saturday:

In relation to the reports of 15,600 bopd average, it could come from here:

'Production has averaged 15,500 bopd year to date.'

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/HUR/operational-update-7qwz94ut4qa3e2l.html

I suspect that the figure of 15,600 is a spooner-like inversion of 16,500.

I don't recall APEC's investing £1 in PVR, JS.

'what if vaccine doesn't work? or the virus mutates like flu. could be here to stay.'

You mean, the first epidemic in history to become permanent?

You're expecting the rules of nature to be broken?

The Black Death killed a third of Europe's population, including about two-thirds of the population of Florence, but somehow managed to come to an end.

'that is still 100% plus undervalued'

Nothing can be a hundred percent undervalued, unless it is valued at zero, and more than a hundred percent is mathematically impossible.

I don't know.

If HUR's BOD think that 15,000 bopd is too risky, they can reduce production to 14,000 or even 12,000, with a water cut of eight percent.

They did say that the purpose of increasing the production rate is to ascertain the optimal rate.

I assume you are addressing me, WWN.

IMO, the SP is way undervalued now and, as I've noted, it was 8p when production was 20 kbopd.

I'd like to answer your question with a question, WWN: If HUR reported production of 15 kbopd and a water cut of 12 percent, are you suggesting that the SP shouldn't go up?

You couldn't live with a cut that high?

'ukog moving quickly not to late'

You didn't finish the sentence, Tymers.
Not too late to ramp it?
UKOG shares made a new seven-year low today, but finished .15p off that low, and you call that 'moving quickly.'
You posted a comment here yesterday at 21:36:
'as ukog has bottomed with lots of news to come?'
The only part of that 'sentence' (since you appear unable to write sentences) with which I agree is the punctuation at the end of it.
The very day after you posted that comment, UKOG made another seven-year low, but you have been claiming that UKOG has bottomed for years, and predicting 2p, 5p, 10p per share and that the price would double in a week or two.

RE: Large Buys
11 Sep 2018 13:08
Price: 2.225
'this will more than double in the next week or two imo'

RE: Repeat of Last year
03 Aug 2018 10:09
Price: 1.75
' ... we are heading to 11p guys ...'

RE: #ukog the real deal
29 Aug 2018 19:33
Price: 2.425
' ... 5p plus rising to 10p plus ... have seen it all before and the pattern repeats this time ...'

Kimmeridge 10p plus
12 Sep 2018 10:43
Price: 2.125
' ...you will not see 2p 5p or even 10p again imo ...'

RE: WHY
14 Sep 2018 19:51
Price: 2.10
' ... Its staring you smack in the face and as you have all said its about making money so at 2p you know it makes sense but can you get in early enough Monday?'

RE: Share Price
13 Sep 2018 19:53
2.075
'Say news lands at 7am you think 2p? Treble at least 6 - 7p in a blink ,you have gone short oh dear that a very costly mistake'

Yesterday, at 21:24, your UKOG comrade Brighteye wrote this about me:
'Come on here deramping just so you can try to talk the price down and invest what little left from you massive losses in HUR in to UKOG . Disgusting. Lol sling your hook.'
(offensive language removed)

At 22:39, you called his words 'best post of the day and so true'

You have been shamelessly ramping UKOG shares for years and promoting them as certain multi-baggers, even when they were 12 times their current price.
You come over here, although not invested in HUR, to advise HUR shareholders to buy UKOG, which you claim has bottomed, and then next day, with it having made a new seven-year low, you address a post to me, 21 hours after you agreed with a UKOG poster that I'm a 'jerk,' and that I am trying to talk down UKOG shares so I can buy them to offset my losses with HUR - a pack of lies.

As I noted before, you should have been banned years ago.

P.S. UKOG shares are 0.195p (that's less than one-fifth of one pence), or £0.00195.

Maybe Jamie Ashcroft helped create that web address.

It is true that there has been a resurgence of the epidemic in some countries.
It seems a second wave has started in South Korea, China and Thailand - possibly due to the lifting of the lock down in China and Thailand, but in South Korea they haven't had a lockdown!
Even so, hardy any deaths have yet been reported since the number of cases began rising sharply.

As for Latin America ( Brazil and Mexico in particular): I haven't been following them so closely, but it looks as though Brazil may have lifted restrictions too early.

'Problems in oil reservoirs happen due to the very nature of the work. Dealing with work so far under water/ground just cannot be as predictable as it would be on the surface. Some posters seem to expect things to go without a hitch and problems that arise are mistakes.'

(Ronok)

That's similar to what I was saying the other day.
It isn't realistic to expect everything to go smoothly, yet every time something doesn't go smoothly, the share price collapses.

I wouldn't be surprised if, after reporting a production rate of 15 kbopd, with a water cut of 12 percent, the SP collapsed, with the Lemon Fool gloating and saying, 'I told you so!'

As I pointed out before, the SP was 8p when production was still 20 kbopd and no interference had been reported.

What does that tell you?

I think that's a dishonest comment.

It may be that RT's resignation would not have happened had it not been for the SP collapse, but there is no evidence that it happened because of any dishonesty on his part.

'Dr Trice's seeming inability to engage openly and honestly with third parties about water cut is the main reason in my opinion why he has gone.'

(Fred_Bloggs)

Well, now we have a new, open and honest BOD, and they have reported a water cut of eight percent from the 6 well, a whopping rise of two percentage points.

If that exposes RT's alleged dishonesty, then its a very conservative kind of dishonesty.

That's remarkable timing on your part, Tymers - 12 minutes after one of your colleagues on the UKOG BB accused me of deramping UKOG shares in order to manipulate their price lower and buy them more cheaply, in order to recover my losses in HUR.

I fear that your own grip on reality is little better than his, as you have been claiming that you have made profits by buying and occasionally top slicing UKOG shares.

Anyone looking at UKOG's chart would be hard-pressed to find an opportunity during the past two years to top slice a gradually-collapsing share.

My response to the UKOG accuser is timed at 21:56.

That's a pack of lies, Brighteye.
Apart from your use of offensive language, only an extremely warped individual would believe that an investor in HUR, which has been producing between 9,000 bopd and 20,000 bopd for more than a year, would want to manipulate the share price of UKOG, which according to its own RNSs has been producing about 300 bopd, downwards, in order to buy its shares cheaply.

I'm an investor and your accusation might be defamatory were it not for the fact that UKOG shares have been falling so steadily, being at a seven-year low, and being issued in such large quantities at lower and lower prices, that no sensible investor would ever believe that anyone looking to buy its shares more cheaply would consider that there be any need to manipulate the price.
Your allegation is typical of the paranoia of some of the UKOG 'rampers' here.

'You must be mad holding a large amount of stock in this company!'

(Krakenoil to Oilybloke)

He has invested £544,000 in UKOG.
I have invested £1,000 in UKOG.
That's £1,000 more than I wish I had invested - and I won't average down unless and until the claims made about huge production increases (which Tymers claimed were happening two years ago) are confirmed by RNS.

The company will take a more prudent approach, including the possibility of a shallower oil water contact, even though this is seen as low probability.

(Hannam & Partners, quoted by Sailplane)

I am furious that Trice has got away with his claims. He was the competent person for signing off the RNS s but it now seems that the he was incompetent as the last RNS mentions the owc will be looked at as it may not be as good as Trice claimed.

(Jacdaniels)

Some prudence on Jacdaniels' part, before posting comments, would be a good idea.
No-one, not even a CEO, should be damned, based on speculation.

Thanks Battle and Delboi for your replies.

Do you agree, Battle, with Delboi, that the changes will not affect Barryroe, bearing in mind that the unconfirmed reports referred to oil infrastructure as well as gas infrastructure?

Agreed, DelBoi, but what about the reports on a ban on infrastructure?

If they are true, then presumably Barryroe could not go ahead, but then how about Europa, who were awarded a licence two days ago?

It would mean that all the existing licences are valid, but the oil or gas could never be used.

I think 'further' refers to the awarding of new licences, Battle.

What do you think of the reported agreement on halting the construction of fossil fuel infrastructure (including the planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant earmarked for the Shannon estuary area)?