Member Info for moneyhawk

Wouldn’t have said it’s clutching at straws either. The idea of the farmout partner taking an equity interest in us has some merit as being possible, and maybe positive as well if it were to happen.

As for why the sp isn’t moving, I think that can be summarised as none of us really know for certain, which leads to speculation.

A bit of weekend reading, stock market rules covering market makers. And a further thought, if we did have our share price being manipulated, then surely all the MMs would have to be complicit not just our broker. On the whole, they're all quoting pretty similar prices. Just seems like a big risk for all these people to take for little benefit, especially when you consider the biggest part of the FO is likely to involve future exploration expenditure.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/rules-regulations/rules-lse.pdf

"A member firm shall not, in respect of its on Exchange business:
do any act or engage in any course of conduct which creates or is likely to create a false or
misleading impression as to the market in, or the price or value of, any security; cause a fictitious trade or a false price to be input into the trading system;
effect a trade at any price which differs to an unreasonable extent from any firm price displayed on the trading system in that security;
do, or attempt, any act or engage in any course of conduct, which constitutes or is likely to constitute market abuse under Regulation 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on market abuse (MAR);
do any act or engage in any course of conduct which is likely to damage the fairness or integrity of the Exchange’s markets; or
do any act or engage in any course of conduct which causes, or contributes to, a breach of the Exchange’s rules by another member firm"

I think it's more a case of the FCA caring when they find out and have evidence, rather than when someone takes it too far.

By the way, Beaufort weren't just fined, they were shut down by UK regulators following intervention by the US DoJ.

Well share price manipulation is of course illegal, so as AIM4 (19.28) points out it would be a big risk to the parties involved for not much gain.

I do think that MMs are often looked to as the reason for SP movements when it's not moving in the direction investors expect and they're looking to find a reason. But really investors themselves are probably the most likely explanation. Everyone wants to buy at the lowest price they can get and sell at the highest price they can get.

Over the past few weeks here MMs have appeared to be trying to move the price up, but every time they take it to above 1.05 the buys dry up and sells increase, so they drop the price again and the cycle repeats.

Given my thoughts on it before, basically little demand from new buyers and few want to sell at this level. So no pressure from either direction and we have a fairly static price.

But the idea is an interesting one. If correct, then a major oil company taking a large stake could be very positive. If we do have to raise funds from issuing shares, that would be much more preferable to a normal placing.

But not sure just how much control MMs really have in SP manipulation though, as the risk is that an artificial market is created which could then see much higher demand for either buy or sell than they could accommodate.

Nice first post, very constructive, lol

Agree, early august may not mean what most people would view as early august. But taking it to the last week would be a bit of a stretch to anyone's definition.

Re CP and nuna, they said what the purchase price was during their quarterly results Q&As, $100m:
"At Nuna, I'll just provide a little bit of color on that. It's a discovered resource on 21,000 acres that's in our backyard. It's immediately adjacent to Kuparuk. It's a very low cost of supply, in the low $30s. It's $100 million for 100 million barrels. It's something we're very pleased about. "
https://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/cop-usq-transcript-2019-07-30.pdf

"that is the nature of AIM" - Not just aim, all stocks can be affected by news. Just on AIM we typically have small companies whose future can hinge on how well or badly one event goes, hence a view that AIM SP movements are heavily news driven.

What we saw with WInx could be described as a Black Swan event, which is a theory where an event has the following 3 attributes -
"First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme 'impact'. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable."

Black Swan events can be positive or negative. We had a negative one with Winx, will we have a positive one with the Farm Out?

Did the SP reach 1.1p?

SP when posting about a short spreadbet - 1.025p, SP now - 1p. Not sure how that equates to being 50% up on a shorting bet?

As for actual short positions, this new look LSE site has a tab for that:
https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareShortPositions.asp?shareprice=88E&share=88-Energy

Jeez, anyone reading this could be forgiven for thinking that nothing is happening here, there is no major news expected at any point during 'early august', and the only thing to discuss is the number of recommendations irrelevant posts have received during the past month.

Yes, couldn't find anything to give an indication for what those costs are. And not really possible to work out from the accounts whats been spent on Icewine Conventional as its all grouped together as Exploration and evaluation expenditure.

But if back costs are to be included in the deal, I think its safe to say it will be a lot more than $1m. $100m+ is perhaps optimistic, so my best guess is somewhere in between :)

All depends on the deal of course, but if we're talking about back costs for the conventional then items we can add in would include the 3D costs and lease costs (perhaps a proportional since we're just farming out conventional in this deal), and then other costs associated with data analysis, permitting of well locations etc. Some of those costs estimated below based on info available (my estimates, just a rough figure and may not be correct):

3D = $8m (April 2018 presentation)
Lease costs (net to us) @ $10 per acre per year = Approx $11.5m (2019, $3.5m 2018 $3m, 2017 $2m, 2016 $2m, 2015 $1m)

And along with back costs, its still unknown if we are actually transferring WI to the farmee immediately rather than after the farmout work program. If we are, then this suggests a sale of some WI is also part of the deal, which would be additional cash on top of back costs.

Well, we know for sure after the QR that the acreage figure on the website is out of date. But no point changing it now when the WI figure will probably need changing as well after details are announced.

Good point, but the June update didn't say full details will be given either, only that additional details will be provided post signing.

The QR didn't mention the early august update being post signing. Might mean that it has now been signed?

Q&As from Conoco's quarterly results this week, quite a bit on Alaska and future plans:

https://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/cop-usq-transcript-2019-07-30.pdf

Nothing specific that can be linked to us as any kind of hint. If it is them, they're doing a good job at hiding it.

The most recent north slope deal that's been announced, Conocos purchase of the Nuna discovery contains the statement:
"The transaction is subject to state regulatory approval and has an effective date of June 14, 2019"
https://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/nr-copa-announces-purchase-of-nuna-final.pdf

So I don't think that's what we're waiting for. If Conoco are happy to announce deals that are subject to Alaskan approval, no reason why others wouldn't be.

Why do they have to wait for authorities to approve? It is very common for deals to be announced that are subject to regulatory approval of some sort.

10.36 - In all probability, it appears to mean the deal is done.

If DW knows he can give an update in the coming days, he knows if he's announcing deal or no deal.

I really doubt that if DW knows there was a chance of no deal, he would not have removed the caveat and continued to give statements about an update.

There's always one impatient investor! lol :)

DW obviously has confirmation that the news can be issued very soon, otherwise he'd have just said August, or even during Q3. Looking at the calendar, perhaps anything up to Friday 16th August could reasonably be counted as 'early August'. But hopefully will be sooner than that.

Previously we were told the details would be given post signing. It could already have been signed, or a fixed date for everyone involved has been scheduled in the coming days.

Not long now!

Hi Guzz, I think this is a case of waiting to find out what DW actually means for the HRZ farmout.

My view is that he doesn't mean what that article covers. He's using the terms 'soft farmout' and 'informal farmout' interchangeably, but always with a line to suggest that the intention is for a 'formal' farmout process. So I think its 'informal farmout' that is perhaps a more accurate description of the current position for the HRZ. (whatever that means!)

e.g. QR yesterday said:
"Formal farm-out process deferred to 2H 2019 – soft farm-out underway with continued third party interest. "
And
"The Joint Venture continues to field unsolicited third party interest in the HRZ shale play and an informal farm-out process is underway"