Member Info for OofyProsser

seadoc: Thanks for this. In fact, est is the third person singular of the present indicative tense of the verb sum, esse - to be. Erat is the third person singular of the imperfect indicative of the same verb. While erat is more commonly used in this phrase, est is equally correct. Neither is subjunctive. Demonstrandum is a gerund. Your phrase means, literally, “which was for demonstrating”. Mine means “which is for demonstrating”. Basically a proof statement, which this person was kind enough to supply.

Quod est demonstrandum. This person should stop abusing others and go back to abusing himself.

Mirasol: there’s too many of these people on the company bb’s. “I don’t know anything about investment research but I think the share price is going up. You non-holders who’ve spent hours analysing its accounts, announcements etc. have no right to post your comments on it. These boards are for holders of the shares, no matter how incoherent they are. New investors should not be exposed to the views of people who know what they’re talking about. It’s not good for the rest of us.”

Penguins: well said. Your post is right on the money.

Ocelot: I doubt anyone will argue with that.

Ocelot: presumably if they’d added the hydrocarbon revenues you detail below to the P&L, the impairment charge would merely have been increased by the corresponding amount?

GingerHippo: yes, I agree with you. The acceptance of constant share placings by inexperienced investors as a sort of “free money” misses the importance of the impact of share dilution. The ability of a company to pay dividends one day is the justification for investment in its equity and the more shares in issue, the smaller the dividend per share. Investment in this is a pure gamble on a big oil find with the first up Turkey well, in my view. Presumably people contributing here understand this.

Isn’t it cash flow that matters? Impairment is only important as a measure of the quality of past management decisions and in the impact it may have on the ability of a company to borrow against the value of its assets. Cash flow is what they earned/raised, against what they spent. Penguins’s figures taking account of placing receipts is surely the relevant one? If market opinion turns against UKOG, its ability to keep chucking shareholders’ money about is going to be curtailed. It’s all about Turkey for now though, isn't it? They need more cash soon too.

Ocelot: I think the interest payment reduction was largely due to the replacement of interest-bearing loans with a Riverfort convertible in August 2019, wasn’t it? Not necessarily good for shareholders, as the company admitted in 2020 when they repaid the outstanding balance.

Incidentally, the Riverfort loan agreement included the following (does it still apply, does anyone know?):

“This Loan agreement also provides for further funding on the same terms of between £3.6 million and £4.5 million dependent on the operational performance of the Horse Hill asset.”

Ocelot: I think the interest payment reduction was due tomthe replacement of inter

Ocelot: your post re the imminent placing seems to suggest that it’s a victory on the management’s part that no one has been able to predict accurately its timing. I think most investors would actually prefer some clarity on its timing, rather than be reduced to guessing games. I suppose that anything that distracts investors’ attention from the fundamentals here is welcome to the management. It’s a pity for them that the need for money is so pressing that they can’t keep this distraction going much longer.

Do you have to pay for a monthly subscription here in order to be able to report other posters and get them banned? If so, what does it cost? I don’t like the practice but what seems to be happening here is a bit one-sided, isn’t it? Personally I don’t find the designation “snivelling little rat” any more or less insulting than “troll”. The world would be a much better place if people grew thicker skins.

Cynderlad: where’s he gone? It seemed like a decent enough post to me. I’ve clearly got a lot to learn.

Thanks, PinkGrapefruit.

gkb47: yes, I see. That would make more sense. Presumably the water tankers are easy to differentiate from the oil tankers?

...sorry, I meant the cost must be less than the financial gain that would result from the effects a 10% or so share price rise would have on the money raised in the subsequent placing.

If you were CEO of an oil company that needed a placing, you’d want the share price as high as possible, presumably? The cost of hiring four empty tankers to go in and out of a site in the Weald must be less than the 10% or so share price rise that reports of their activities might engender?

CloudyMountain: you may well have been taken for a ride. The deferred bankable feasibility study hasn’t been published, has it? Who knows what that’s got in it? There’s gold in them thar hills. I don’t suppose that will see the light of day now. These chaps are not philanthropists, they’re plutocrats unafflicted with scruples. . Always have been.

I hope that Mr. Southam, having been allowed by the shareholders and the FCA to occupy a seat on the “Independent Committee”, will enjoy the perquisites of his office in the newly private company.

Penguins: last year’s AGM was deferred to mid-June. UKOG issued 2.1bn. shares in a placing on 2 June, between the notice of the AGM and the AGM itself. Were these shares left over from their authority to issue shares, granted at the 2019 AGM? If not, taken together with the placings later in the year, they have already issued very close to the full 3bn. for which they were given authority in the 2020 AGM, haven't they? Please excuse me if I’m missing something, I’m new to this.

Skwizz :thanks for this. Filtering people is a different thing though. If people on one side of the argument are succeeding in getting their interlocutors banned, then inexperienced investors are reading only the optmisitic/fantasy views, most of which are expressed as facts. It’s not fantasists so much that I object to, it’s their ability to monopolise the bulletin board, with the board’s administrator’s connivance. It seems just wrong.