Member Info for OofyProsser

Ocelot: you PR types are pretty smooth but you’re not pulling the wool over the eyes of many people on here, I think. UKOG are paying you, are they not, directly or indirectly, for all this disingenuous stuff you put out on its behalf, just as Anguish does for the similar job you do over there? And it now seems that Ozzy sits at the next desk, or at your feet, learning the tricks of your murky trade from you. Dear oh dear. It’s a game to you, quite an amusing one, though finally quite unfulfilling, I should imagine. It’s been part of their life savings at stake for some of the people on here reading your guff. It’s not very nice really, is it?

Ocelot: I could give you an argument on this too.

Ocelot: “For those of a contrarian disposition, one of the major factors in UKOG's favour is the sheer quantity of negative opinion against it.”

So it’s good, is it, for the company and its shareholders, for non-shareholders with negative views to express these views freely on the company’s LSE chat site? LSE admin please note and act accordingly in future.

Ocelot: that’s certainly one interpretation. Another is that it’s clear to anyone with the accounts, a pencil and paper and the RNS’s since the accounts that UKOG needs a lot of money quite soon and that this is likely to result in another huge dilution. And that the money raised in this way will be spent on an exploration (yes, exploration) well in Turkey with currently unquantifiable prospects of finding oil. And that if the well is unsuccessful, the company’s prospects of continuing in business will depend on the continued forbearance and generosity of their very long suffering shareholders. Meanwhile, a disproportionate amount of the shareholders’ investment in the company is being removed every month to pay the salaries of the Directors who have brought the company to this situation.

Ocelot: I haven’t seen any evidence that those with negative opinions are far more active than those with positive or neutral opinions but would be interested to see some. In fact the shills sometimes combine together to get people with negative opinions on a company banned from posting on the company’s LSE site. LSE should be ashamed of conniving at this. Their doing so will probably form part of any future investigation into the failings of the AIM and the unwillingness of the FCA to do anything about them. Quite right too.

If I disappear shortly from this site you’ll know that I’ve been duly banned from the UKOG site. In which case allow me to take this opportunity to wish holders of this good luck and to express the view that you’re going to need it.

If the only people who are to be allowed to post a view on companies on these bulletin boards are existing shareholders, the boards will turn into echo chambers - nothing but ramp and uninformed speculation. If that’s what people want, they’re welcome to it. I’d rather see both sides of the argument: there’s already too much company spin, PR puff, misinformation and paid shills... Ocelot. AIM as it currently operates is in effect a crooked casino with no regulation at all to protect private investors. Boiler room operators and their practices need pointing out to inexperienced investors. It seems to me it’s as fair for what’s posted on these boards to make potential investors think again as it is to attract new investors and keep existing shareholders invested. It also seems to me that there are financial incentives for many of the shills on these sites to push the shares, which certainly do not apply to the people on the other side of the argument.

Ozzy: my iPad must be playing up, it says on here that you “had the honour of working with a chap who was educated at Eton”. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If, however, this is correct, you are a pre-eminent forelock tugger with the serf mentality ideally suited to a mug punter.

Ozzy: I didn’t think you were very smart but I hadn’t got you down as a forelock-tugger. Sweet that you know your place, though. Floreat Etona. As they say over at Angus Energy.

Wizard: in the absence of better information, it’s the best guide you’ve got. Why would Mr. Sanderson and his Board reduce their meagre earnings? How could they reduce their other costs significantly? No, I think Cynderlad’s analysis is probably on the money. UKOG desperately needs more cash. The moving finger is writing here. On the wall.

This is frankly ridiculous. Cynderlad has taken the trouble to do the required work on earlier years’ profit and loss account data and has been good enough to share it here, and the response is merely to rubbish it, with no justification in the form of alternative data. Is this really the kind of thing that people come onto these sites to read?

Why are people not more concerned about the lack of any recent information on Turkey? This and the company’s patently obvious need for more cash imminently are clear red flags as far as short term price performance is concerned. Can people really not see it?

Excellent RNS. Clear as mud.

ZYX098: many thanks. And thanks also to cyan2, for reminding me of this. The similarities with Anguish are remarkable in terms of financial condition and the need for prompt action to raise more equity capital. I can’t understand why neither has done it already. I know Mr. Sanderson as had a small setback at the recent EGM but it’s hardly insuperable, surely?

If UKOG can’t finance the first well by 27th, does Aladdin lose the concession? If so, it doesn’t seem to be causing them much lost sleep, does it? What should we read into this?

cyan2: I’d forgotten this. They’ve got ten days to start drilling, then. What does the “must” refer to? Is it a regulatory thing? Or weather-related? Or part of the terms of their agreement with Aladdin? If the last of these, are there penalties involved, and if so, what are they?

gkb47: sadly, the Earl of Lucan failed to get the potatoes in last month, after the frosts. You’d think an Irish peer would know better. So no cash crop, and no cash, this year. Certainly no gravy. He’ll have to take Mr. Sanderson’s hand and begging bowl and crawl off to the market for a placing together, methinks. So much for cunning plans. More like cunning stunts, what?

Ocelot: your final paragraph “But do use some of their posts as triggers to make the points I want to post.” reads like a shill’s confession.

Penguins: for any or all of UKOG’s prospects to get to production, the shareholders/other placees are going to have to reach into their pockets again - a number of times. At what point do investors decide to stop suspending disbelief in bad and overpaid management, dud assets and jam tomorrow? It’s pretty clear that the principal motivation of the management of this and other AIM-listed companies is keeping the ball rolling and the inflated Board salaries paid. When is enough enough?

We’ll, I’m sorry, these are mere insults. It’s a question of simple arithmetic. They need a lot more money before they can drill an oil well. Being rude to me won’t change this.

Ozzy52: your reading of CynderLad’s post is very different from mine. It looks like a simple extrapolation of cash vs. expenses. I’m at a loss as to how it can be characterised as lies. UKOG needs much more money or it can’t finance its commitment to drill for oil in Turkey. How can you possibly argue with this analysis and why do you attempt in this way to discredit the author?

Wrong panto, Wishee Washee.

Yes, and first up it’s....... Aladdin! Oh no they won’t.