Member Info for LONGWAIT

Corrections:

'Of course, I'm regretting that I didn't top slice ...'

'However, I didn't - because this share is worth many multiples of its current price ...'

'... the fact is that the SP at £1.60 tells us all the market doesn't believe JOG can get the oil out of the ground.'

LOL.

The last time I bought was for 68.5p.
I did consider buying more for 57p, but hesitated.

The reason no-one would touch the shares (apart from Richard Griffiths) was that they were saying similar things to the above statement - and that was BEFORE the good news that sent the price to about 240p.

Now that RG has been offloading and taking his profits, we hear the same rationalizations.
When there were 200 + posts here every day, with predictions of '300p tomorrow' and '400p next week,' I cautioned that a reversal was likely.
How did I know?
Because I've been following AIM oil stocks almost every day for five years.
It's almost predictable that when the masses get excited following a hike in the price, a big seller will appear - and in this case, the big seller turns out to be the big buyer who bought when the masses weren't interested and there were about five posts per day.

Of course, I'm regretting that you didn't top slice as I started buying at 215p - when people thought it was a bargain - and bought all the way down to 170p before the price collapsed.

However, I didn't - because this share is worth many multiples 9f its current price and no-one knows when it will take off.
The strange thing is that people were sure it would imminently hit 300p and 400p for the same reason that I am holding, even though I admit I haven't the slightest idea when it will happen.

In fairness to SG2, Double, even if he turns out to be wrong about HUR paying a dividend, the profits will be increasing - which he thinks will lead to annual earnings of about 43p per share.

That's what he meant by a simple sum and although he may have overestimated it, the cash is going to pile up if it isn't used.

As for how to finance future development, that's a nice problem to have when you're earning 30+p per share per year.

If HUR dither over it for three years, they'll have a cash pile of double their current SP.

If that doesn't have the shorters running for cover, that's their funeral.

P.S. where are the two posters who predicted share prices of 16p and 17p?

'... if WW comes in following LC, there's no reason we shouldnt get back to 60p ..'

Since when has Reason reigned on AIM?

Thanks once again, Miss Dosh, but isn't the report on HUR out-of-date, as it refers to Warwick Deep?

I agree, Johnnie, and if the shares fall to 30p, they will be an even bigger bargain, on a ludicrously low prospective P/E ratio.

Point taken, Dark Night.
I would prefer not to discuss my financial situation, as I have lost heavily elsewhere during the past five years and if I gave the details, it might shock you.
My main point is that I don't have a trading strategy: I invested in HUR, with the intention of holding the shares while the company proved what it has always meant to prove.

"There is something fishery going on here I’m out"
Those words remind me of the late Carnegie's final post on LSE HUR, which ended with the immortal line:
"Anyway, I'm out".
It seems Empty Vessel is out, too.
I've been here for five years and it hasn't been easy, but it's remarkable how many have jumped ship.
I have never sold a single share.

'Waiting 'til the SP starts with a 5 instead of a 4 ...'

I too, Double.

I'm waiting for 500p plus.

I think the only thing that held up the deal with APEC was the fact that HSBC were not satisfied the funds came from legitimate sources.

If APEC have been withholding the requested information until now, merely because of concerns about the Irish Government's attitude, that would be extraordinary.

If you're right, the transfer will clear shortly, but it seems far-fetched.

I agree with your comments, Dr Bruce.

A typical LSE poster is inclined to believe that when a share price keeps falling, there must be something wrong with the company - in HUR's case, the oil having dried up - rather than something wrong with the market.

Sorry - I have just realised that it was about another company.
It was posted at 13:03 and it did indeed receive 13 votes.
If things go well, maybe something similar will happen here.

Maybe I was in a different time dimension some time between 11:26 and 15:34.

The post was very detailed and mentioned a range of bopd and excellent prospects.

Unless I'm dreaming, I saw a long post this afternoon with a an unusually large number of votes - thirteen - , but it has disappeared

'for me the alarm bells started ringing when (HUR) were out with the begging bowl 10 days ago'

I agree.
HUR desperately need cash as they have no income.

People who think it's possible to acquire something for nothing may believe ranger.

A court is likely to take a different view.

I had a feeling you would reply to my comment, Double, because you had previously mentioned the issue of mortality and investing in HUR.

On SOU, where I no longer comment, many investors (or suckers - depending upon your point of view) are reported to have arrived already on the other side - a sobering thought.

I'm working on the time travel option.

'the problem for me is do I want to be cremated or buried...'

Why not do what I'm doing?
Have yourself frozen; then you can have yourself de-frozen some time next century when HUR shares finally take off.

(I've been waiting more than five years so far, so it's 'early days'.)

The wording - 'the licence reversion process' - suggests that PVR are confident that there is a process to ensure that the allocation of shares is reversed.

As I said before, in the event - unlikely in my view - that APEC were to argue in court that they should retain their share allocation, they will then be asked whether there is any reason to expect their contractual obligation to pay the $9m initial amount to be fulfilled.

They would be hard-pressed to come up with a satisfactory answer.

Dr Bruce: you've got completely the wrong end of the stick!

To be sure, that 'Amy' was after my money, and I came to the conclusion she was a sociopath (yes, my choice of partners has been about as smart as my choice of shares) but she definitely wasn't on THE game.

She was on a much more insidious game.