Member Info for OofyProsser

Ozzy52: yes, exploration is always a gamble, I agree (though hasn't this been presented as an appraisal well?). But the Turkey prospect is a highly speculative single well, which is such a financial burden to the company that, unless investors are willing to chuck yet more money into this bottomless pit of failure, it will break the company if it fails to find a decent amount of oil. To represent it as anything other than this seems wrong to me.

This Turkish video is not very enlightening. I see it’s had 400,000+ views. I’d rather be invested in a Turkish TV company, there must be a lot of upside in broadcasting entertaining programmes.

Ozzy52: I’ve got nothing against this company. I just think it’s got shocking, or very unlucky, overpaid management and that it needs quite a lot of money quite soon. Turkey looks like a final throw of the dice and involves a high degree of risk. It’s not one for any but the most speculative investor. However, I’d be delighted if the Turkey well gushes and shareholders here get a big reward for sticking with it. I wish you good luck with it.

Mirasol: I have a little experience of India. Most of the investment writing I’ve seen has been in very correct, rather Victorian English. They pride themselves on it. More likely someone from a populous W. African State not known for its strict financial conduct regime?

This is what I mean. The only way this will get to 7p is if the Turkish well is a gusher on an impressive scale. There’s no way of knowing if this will be the case currently. What circumstantial evidence there is suggests it’s quite unlikely. So this prediction is mere guesswork with no foundation whatever and raises questions about the poster’s motivation.

Ozzy52: I’ve been watching this for far longer than I’ve been commenting here. I’ve watched AAOG too and one or two others in this sector. When I started commenting UKOG was about 0.30p. It wasn’t difficult to identify the issues here.

What I was saying in that post was that people on here who are pessimistic about UKOG seem generally to have done a fair bit of research. The people who attack them as “de-rampers” generally haven’t. They merely make personal attacks. It’s unpleasant and tends to mislead inexperienced investors looking on these sites for guidance and information. If you recognise yourself as one of these people, kindly desist..

HITS: you can recognise them easily on all these bbs: they never offer any research-based or rational analysis, they merely insult others and try to denigrate them. It must work or they wouldn’t do it but people who give them any credence must be pretty dim.

TollesburyStu: I’m sorry, too, didn’t intend to be so pompous. A few of these boards have quite good conversations but most don’t, it’s just people having a very personal go at each other. This is among the better ones, I think.

TollesburyStu: if you have to resort to nosey-parker questions about people's motivation, rather than about the opinions and research which they’re offering on here, I’m afraid you reveal yourself as a troll. “Why are you posting here?” is a sadly typical troll’s mantra and is of no value to anyone. An informed argument on the research-based opinions of people with whom you disagree would be much more persuasive.

Ocelot is far more smooth. if you’ve got to do it, imitate her.,

**** = male hen.

..but don’t you feel a kind of morbid fascination, watching the slow motion end game here? Like being in the Titanic (oops, sorry, Mr. Po****). It’s not too late to take to the lifeboats.

I think that if these AIM companies’ managements would only keep shareholders regularly updated with accurate and honest information, their shares prices might be less volatile from week to week, month to month. Instead, investors are left to guess at what's really going on (look at the debate on here) until there’s a sudden RNS, more often than not with an unpleasant surprise. There’s little incentive for managements to change their strategy on this, since short term volatility encourages insiders and professional traders to support placings and enables them to profit. Mug punters are the losers. It’s a flawed system, isn’t it?

One of the freeview TV channels has accepted programme sponsorship advertisements from the action group seeking compensation for losses suffered in Neil Woodford’s funds. They're quite punchy. A couple of similar TV spots might attract a few more votes to the cause.

He’s a card, that David Lenigas, isn’t he? There was a nice picture of him as a boy on one of the Angus bbs the other day, eating chocolate cake.

Chairman of the meeting, surely? Why would anyone do this? It’s too late to change anything much, but it will go on this lot’s respective CV’s. Vote to bin them, I say.

Denny: thanks for this reply. The thing is, if this required approval through a vote in favour by the existing shareholders, and the shareholders voted against, Prism wiould merely buy it for a nominal consideration from the liquidators. There must be lots of lenders queueing for repayment anyway, some of whom at least will be disappointed. It’s bust, I’m not sure the shareholders have a say in it any more, do they?

Surely not..?

dbno: re the prospective interviews of candidates for CEO, Chaiman etc, the interim MD of Angus Energy, the 8th Earl of Lucan, and his Chairman, the 8th Earl of Clanwilliam, may soon be available to attend.. They were both educated at Eton. You don’t want any more of these oiks, what? If you’re going to be fleeced, let it be by people who are entitled to do so,

Exploration: every society in modern times that has achieved a certain standard of living in which they don’t need the support of children in their old age and can afford to enjoy themselves has stopped having so many children. It’s particularly noticeable in Japan and S. Korea, where the population is falling quite rapidly. It’s true of the indigenous populations of W. Europe too. The growth in these is due entirely to immigration. India, Brazil, Africa haven't reached the required level of prosperity yet. In 40 or 50 years time people will be worrying frantically about a precipitous decline in human populations. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, by the way, the talk was all of an imminent ice age.

Nomlungu: merely an increase in the number of shares they can issue then. Why does she wrap it up in this jargon?

Can AIM companies do share buy-backs?

Nomlungu: thanks. I don’t understand what “an increase in the nominal value of allotted capital ” means though. How do you increase the nominal value and why would you need to do it, and what is allotted capital? The nominal value of the shares in this is 0.01p. They’ve still got a bit of headroom, surely?