Member Info for ocelot

I had assumed it refers to HH-1, Penguins, because they have previously referred to asset level opex at current production rates and only HH-1 is in production.

Fail to see the link between what you have written, Penguins, and your question: "... so is the $13 just an accounting sleight of hand?".

Never mind, TrollHunter2, I think most of us familiar with the figures understood what you were saying.

The doomers were doubtless saying exactly the same before the price bounced to 0.55p (agreed, it didn't hold there for long).

If you're going to criticise SS, don't forget to suggest the name of the person you propose to replace him, preferably someone with knowledge of the Kimmeridge.

That sounds like a very NICE position - best wishes

That sounds like a very position - best wishes

It's curious, one would expect a certain humility from those who openly admit to having got ANGS wrong in the past.

Instead of which, the fact they got it wrong in the past seems to have convinced them they will get it right in the future.

The past, for some of the derampers, is one of having got ANGS wrong.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana).

There is a structural pattern,where the past can indeed be used to judge the future.
---------------------------------
So, presumably, from about 35p, this structural pattern was indicating "sell".

As you can see, haven't filtered gkb47, have no objection to hearing alternative views, but don't want to hear them repeated all day long.

Signing off now. Have a good weekend, too.

And on that note, I'll wish you a good weekend!

You're an independent, gkb47, who often finds himself in agreement with the derampers.

Having said that, Brockham's Kimmeridge must surely have been exploration.

If that's the case, then I withdraw my comments suggesting ANGS's oil assets were exploration assets: it's true that I know little about Lidsey and what I know about Brockham is, essentially, the RNS of 28/06/19.

There is a structural pattern,where the past can indeed be used to judge the future.
-------------------------------------
Not so easy to apply in ANGS's case:
1/ new management team;
2/ Saltfleetby is gas not oil;
3/ Saltfleetby is production not exploration;
4/ Saltfleetby is in Lincolnshire and not in the Weald basin.

Gilead Sciences Inc. advanced after reporting its Remdesivir treatment cut Covid-19 mortality risk by 62%. (Bloomberg)

We should not forget that outside of the Wytch Farm Field, HH-1 is currently the UK onshore's most productive well. (RNS of 30/06)

'It is, therefore, the future trajectory of the share price which will be the judge.'

The future always becomes the past; and the past has judged this as a bad investment to date.
--------------
And previously the market judged it to be a good investment, when it rose to 35p.

The market is capable of changing its opinion about a stock.

It's Saltfleetby, RealAnalyst.

You are your acquaintances are welcome to draw your conclusions, others are welcome to draw their own, that's what a market is all about.