RE: The anticipated RNS and the possible short term reaction.05 May 2021 20:03
16.33 was in the middle of the closing auction with 2 PMEs , so how was it executed at that time? I think we are just seeing a poor LSE data feed as is often seen. 18.33 is long after stock exchange data feed closes. The London Stock Exchange shows it as a delayed publication reported at 16.33.
Fractured basement - broken dreams04 May 2021 20:36
Initially I thought that the idea of fractured basement reservoirs was fantasy, but having read what Trice was saying it sounded plausible, and opened up a new oil province from WoS to Northern Ireland.
I have no position here but I am immensely disappointed that such a vision has evaporated.
I can only think that Trice was obsessed with his vision and would heed no counsel. Water is the deadly enemy of highly permeable fractures.
RE: Ruth Hayhurst, let's see if she answers me...03 May 2021 21:00
Part 2 The historical low recovery factor from KA reservoirs had been early water breakthrough because of high permeablity in the fractures. Water overtakes hydrocarbons and causes water coning and early abandonment.
The world has moved on and there are mitigation technologies. I thought that the original A2 EWT was designed to see how quickly the water arrived so that engineering solutions could be designed, so I think it was a big mistake to "pause" it.
RE: Ruth Hayhurst, let's see if she answers me...03 May 2021 20:26
According to the operator at West Newton, the recovery factor for gas is expected to be 72% and for the oil is expected to be 25%. This information is in the public domain, and must be based on geophysical data. These numbers are percentages of gas in place and oil in place, which in turm depend upon factors such as water saturation and reservoir pressures.
The 13 % number is the average fracture porosity in KA, which is about measuring the volume of oil and gas in place, not about the recoverability of that volume.
I think there has been some confusion here, surely?
It is an urban myth, for sure. It's a self perpetuting one because the folks who profess to believe it are the ones doing it. Market makers have no need of such crude analogue communication in a digital world of WhatsAp and SMS.
I confess to doing it myself for fun occasionaly. There was a big pi investor on Eland, a Nigerian oilco, who called himself "Jumbo". I would buy 747 shares and say it proved Jumbo was buying!
However there is no doubt that the process of lodging an announcement into the RNS system with an embargo for publication the next day, rather than immediately, has scope to leak. Nomads, PR people, brokers etc are all prone to pillow talk.
The tax losses were the big attraction of this RTO, just as they are with Premier/Harbour. The failed attempt to find an energy co to reverse into have lost a lot of value for it. It looks like the money men who provoked it have walked away and lost their loans, licking wounds, and leaving Gary Smith with the problem of his adventurous investment. Right now, I fail to see the logic of refusing to relist on AIM. This is now a piddler company trying to grow and AIM is where it ought to stay, until it proves its worth
....is suing AZ for breach of contract, when the published contract specifically disallows such an action. It will go down like her previous disaster as Defence Minister in Germany when she sent troops into a NATO exercise armed with broom sticks.
It's this UT effect. There were two PMEs during closing auction, as RNSd, and an eventual UT of 6p at 16.45, so that is the price that Halifax uses as the closing price. LSE seems to have a different logic to display closing price above. As I understand it , the closing auction UT is the closing price by definition, because that is the purpose of the closing auction, unless someone with direct market access puts in an after hours trade, after the auction.
It's all too messy, and beyond mortal comprehension, just to comply with "rools"
RE: LOL at this site and it's price info. :020 Apr 2021 20:20
I think the problem with LSE bid/ask/price is not to do with website algorithms, but the MIFID rules.
Even though the opening spread was 4.70: 4.90, there was an auction at the open and the uncrossing trade (UT) was 4.58, and that automatically becomes the SP until trading proves it different. The same thing happened after the close. The UT was 5.70 but late reported trades reset it to 5.60, even though they took place hours earlier.
It's a nonsense invented in Brussels to make things more transparent for investors. In that sense it is a total failure.
Just to be clear, as Tony Benn once said, "if the facts change. I will change my opinion". I have followed his advice and I have changed my opinion and I have been accumulating over the last week or so.
How can a government give any assurance beyond the lifetime of a parliament? If Corbyn had won the last election he would have handed FI over to Argentina; perhaps Starmer will if he wins the next one. This is the real political risk, not the antics in the Casa Rosa
The defendants, simple. Whether its a car crash or a libel action or a ECT case, the defendants pay and on average they pay more than they insurance premium or litigation funding. That is how it works.
I think you are missing the point Spacehopper. Insurance companies never lose money. They have actuaries to make sure the premium exceeds the loss, and they are experts in the statistics of winning and losing. If the historical rate of success in no fee no win is is more than 50% then a 50% fee will mean drinks all round. You cannot do due diligence of a court case, surely?