Member Info for pijoe1212

lots of reaction / comment to todays figures (4.1m ) but little reaction to distalate stock levels (if you recall i have mentioned this before..gives an idea on future refinery runs)..that was draw of 2M on already low stock level.. https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/crude-oil-prices-settle-higher-on-massive-draw-in-us-crude-supplies-1491873

trust you continue to improve wassatt..

whats the correlation to brent & exchange?

once again i find myself looking back at alba statements.. (and i am not invested in them). what contemplation by me and others what the issue is with HH test and ukog...clearly i have a view that ukog just has to raise cash ..no choice under the companies act..but that is only a view. when alba appointed two clearly very experienced oilers as advisers i posted on here there must have been a reason...now i muse on a little. so have we two issues in play now? HH testing being questioned by alba (who are clearly important given they hold c. half the ukog scale interest in HHDL and hence some 27% of the paying interest if i recall matters correctly (allowing for the carry). 25% block is normal on oily expo contracts. and ukog have / will run out of cash. now i do not know - but sure as eggs are eggs, alba are not paying good money to quality advisers for no input ot action..

i have been questioning matters for far longer..most of the time i have been called a deramper / swampy / far worse... still after the placing a new wonch of bankers (ops sorry rampers) will get back in the "past the keyboard" office....

rosewell / wizard. i think you need to read those accounts very carefully and also understand the auditors roll and timeline. are you sure the BB over-run costs and the injunction costs were in the forward plan and sit well with the following statement in the accounts: "The cost structure of the Group comprises a high proportion of discretionary spend and therefore in the event that cash flows become constrained, costs can be quickly reduced to enable the Group to operate within its available funding." lots of other statements - worth reading in a dispassionate manner in my view. anyway in the absence of hard fact we are all guessing what the cash is for.

am i correct to think the last timescale advised is by end of Q2 (RNS 23rd march)?

Already posts on here....perhaps he will post imminently...

um no- i am not miloh

yep..and your point is what? read my earlier post about why they have a legal duty to consider / raise now...we all know BB burnt all the cash and some..

argus1 no you are wrong.. the £10M was raised in nov 17 and that RNS statement was made in Dec 2017....try again?

aduk the EV / bl 2C (forget the 2P!!) of sou to hur makes for a interesting comparison (without even discounting the 2C value of gas v oil - lets call it 50% between mates)....

of course that statement was made prior to the BB cash bleed....

in the HH update last dec.. "Alba announces that it has been advised by Horse Hill Developments Ltd ("HHDL"), the operator of the Horse Hill-1 ("HH-1") oil discovery, in which entity the Company holds a 18.1% interest, that key contracts and the requisite funding commitments from all participants are in place to undertake the production flow-testing and drilling campaign which was approved by Surrey County Council ("SCC") in October 2017"

an alternative explanation is that all available cash is committed to the HH ewt. if this does not go well the co would be highly likely to have to raise cash (issue shares) at a far low price just to keep the lights on and hence the BOD owe a duty of care to investors to raise now.

sometimes in life you take a view and action..i hope you realise you take action based on full accountability and others hold you to that action.

i used to read ii rkh bb with much interest... welcome all "lse newbies" ...i assume master shanus will be here soon..or is he / has been for ages... as posted before.wheres borgo..! now wheres the Mmonkey....!

ijwt i agree with all you say..now will the CB's convert on next move up or the one after that...at some point they will and it will cap the sp..that is a forward risk factor to take account of (all in my opinion).

of course you know and i do edison owe you (or me !) any duty of care against which to action....but i know you are joking! so my point stands- it is only by undertaking a sum of the parts assessment and then comparing with other investment options can one make an informed investment decision. now you know i have been in and out of hur and made a good return. the only rise i have missed is the recent one from 36 to 48p..disappointing not to get a slice of this rise but not the end of the world to me as the shares i put my floating cash into at the start of the year up 100% and 64% respectively. the decision was made on fundamental assessment then risking the potential forward outcomes. what i do find interesting is the CB's have not held back the sp here.

IJWT much of what you have just posted i agree with. hur is a growth stock (not income like say rds is) so the fundamental to investment is to recognise what the market is valuing each part of the asset base at and if that is "cheap" relative to its (risked) worth at the time of investment. so i would suggest a simple test -the MCap (plus convertiables) less the EPS NAV (as published by CPR / hur / edison - take your pick as each will have their own opinion on which is correct) plus net cash gives you the current market value of the 2C. now what can move the 2C? simple a change in base asset value (oil price) or a change in risk factor. i would suggest many commentators would agree on $1 to $1.5 / bl of 2C moving to $5 to $10 as 2P..so where is hur on 2C value and what will move the 2C value and when?