Member Info for RNSTranslator

TAC: " flarestack on site at Wressle, that's not to cope with diminishing oil lol!"
Well the reality is that even if the oil was decreasing, there would still be associated gas to flare.
So your statement is actually misleading...its to cope with the associated gas at what ever level its producing..

"They always come across as very professional an informative in their interviews and my understanding is that they have a good working relationship with David."
They have a lot to talk about...
"Hey lads, Where did the gas go?"
David: "I've misplaced £16mm of all the money I've raised, any ideas guys, you're so much better at it than me, after all you've raised £50mm and now its only worth £12mm so you've misplaced £38mm"

"I would not describe Stephen or Sachin as amateur."
Quite right, they actually get paid to do this to shareholders...

"As are there some that should be very nervous of a letter through the door."

oooooh should I be scared? - I do not fall into this criteria...
Is posting the company's own data on a BB now a crime ?
Is it a crime to point out what has happened to the share price? (less than 25% of the float price 8 years ago.)
Is it a crime to point out that they have raised over £30mm and that its now worth £13.5mm? (Where has the £16.5mm gone?)
Yes I've been negative about the prospects here for a long time, and that seems to have been more accurate prediction than your own hype... does that make YOU feel uncomfortable?

"That will push the oil price up too."
seems to me Heid people should be investing in oil futures or oil companies that actually produce meaningful amounts of oil,
rather than a company whose share price has sunk to a historic low DESPITE the increase in oil price..
why is it Heid, that the share price has sunk to 11.5p, when you were previously forecasting £6...do you think that undermines your credibility?, do you understand what the word credibility actually means?

"And by the way... How are your gas bills ? "
It'll be what it'll be, if you want to hedge your bills against rising gas prices, then perhaps investing in companies that are actually producing gas, rather than might produce some associated gas, or produce irrelevant amounts that can't get into the grid...or want to produce gas if ever it could be got out of the ground, and where the "Transformational" gas they claimed they had has shrunk by 75%...
Remember Foot-Mouth-Foot-Mouth... keep practising you'll get the hang of it...

Heid, do you need help here..?
All the figures are out there, Recoverable reserves, Contingent Resources, indicative flow rates, etc etc,
You can take a stab at the cost of the PStone well...
Whats holding you back?

$60 is approx the current revenue after opex pre tax lifting cost.
Sensible investors use the forward curve as guide, not a wishful finger in the air, "I think it's $150", that's called guessing.
Current futures curve out to 26 suggest an oil price around $65 (which would be less than $60 post opex.
So again, Heid, what's you prediction for UJO cashflow from Wressle for the next 10 years?

"...very, very good income indeed for Union Jack oil an David over the next decade."
Would you care to quantify that Heid? Lets just assume for simplicity $60/bbl after opex.
What will Wressle produce each year in £ for the next decade?

"Does no one get it apart from me ?"
You mistyped:
Does everyone get it apart from me?

Heid
The problem is you don't understand how reserves and resources are classified by the independent competent person, (just like Gwywyn).
Only the Ashover (and winfield - not developed) are classified as Reserves (justified for Development). and these are 260k bbls proven and 560k bbls proven plus probable. These are gross numbers.
The PStone is classified as Contingent Resources: of 680k 1C and 1.57mm bbls 2C. and 860 mscf 1C and 2BCF 2C Resources. Again Gross.
and are defined under the SPE guidelines as:
"Contingent Resources are those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known accumulations by application of development projects, but which are not currently considered to be commercially recoverable due to one or more contingencies"
This is all published in the current CPR, if you could actually be @rsed to read it, rather than spouting off about how wonderful its all going to be based on zero understanding. As I said previously these may be increased in the next CPR but until that is confirmed these are the official company numbers....like it or not.

Heid, I'm just quoting the companies own figures, are you saying they are wrong?

Thats 24th Aug ..oops.

Mirasol
Here are some calculations based on Wressle produced volumes.
A new Wressle CPR is urgently needed to stop the rot:
Started producing on 1st Feb no figures given but seems to have been around 120bbls/day
Increased production from 24th Feb following PS, no average numbers given, but lets assume 650 bbls/day average.
Upto 31/12 that'll be a total of about 108,000 barrels.
The CPR gave a proven Ashover volume recoverable of 260k bbls (Proven) and 560,000 bbls (Proven plus probable).
So according to the current CPR by the end of this month they will have already produced 40% of the proven oil, or 19% of the P+P from the current reservoir.
The Pstone also needs to be developed but that will require a separate well to be drilled...
I would expect the new CPR to increase the recovery factor, but until then folks who actually look at the facts will see the significant proportion of the Ashover P or P+P has already been produced.

some might see an incongruity between the "message" and the reality.

How many folks remember the last Dave interview with Scott?
He didn't plead poverty, but he had to buy his car on HP.
9m 25s in .. Dave: " belongs to me in my drive it's my car on HP, I use it to go to site."
Good old Google maps shows that car in his drive, its turquoise... any ideas?

Anyone any idea what this might be?
“ As previously stated, we are looking to add a third leg to the business which may include late stage appraisal and development ventures. To this end, we are currently evaluating a number of potential opportunities and I look forward to updating the market on developments.”

Whilst Wressle delivers cash they only had £600k at 31/7 so the coffers are perhaps not quite overflowing yet, after costs of the PS and overheads can’t be more than £1mm in cash I suspect, and presume any opportunity probably won’t involve much cash.

No were saying that no II holds 3% or more, its irrelevant whether this is in a nominee account or directly held. UJO can request a breakdown of shareholders from the registrar, but this is not obligatory but is often done ahead of an annual report..
The investors approached in the placing are likely to have been high net worth individual investors, brokers who punt them on to clients (often at a premium) and small "hot money" institutional investors who usually buy for a quick flip... there is no serious institutional interest in micro cap oilers.

Yes an II can use a nominee account, but must still declare if they own more than 3%, just like any retail holder who holds theirs in a nominee account. The declaration is from the owner not the nominee account. All the nominee accounts listed are from providers of share dealing services, an institution would not use these nominees, as most have their own nominee accounts....

If the simply wall street site is reliable why does it show that Bramhill owns 3.7% of the company and O'Farrell 1.68%
Thats simply incorrect according to UJO's own published information, as of 28/9/21, Bramhill owns less than 0 .4% and O'farrell less than 1.5%
Thats simply incorrect, UJO have an obligation under AIM Rule 26 to list significant shareholders, which they list as

Barclays Direct Investing Nominees Limited 9.21%
Hargreaves Lansdown (Nominees) Limited 8.52%
Interactive Investor Services Nominees Limited 8.25%
HSDL Nominees Limited 7.6%
Interactive Investor Services Nominees Limited (SMKTISAS) 6.25%

Notic e that they are all NOMINEES, the Wallstreet site is simply wrong... and demonstrably so.