Member Info for Skwizz

Exactly ibug.
Correct me if I'm wonrg, but I believe that is the application for one of the complainants, who used UKOG's use of HGV's as one of their objections.
:)

A year ago, you would've been aiming for something with six zeros.
As I did, and have.
:)

"a constraint on his ability to finance the company's ambitions"

That'll be the day.
:(

The officers commented on that in the report before the meeting and during the meeting itself.

The road is not suitable for HGV and signs indicate that at the entrance.
HOWEVER, it is suitable to the point UKOG wish to use it.
It becomes unsuitable further along.
The signs were put up at the entrance so drivers didn't have to find out when they reached the problem stretch.
The road is being used further along by one of the complainants who had his planning application granted for that purpose.
The Highways Dept reviewed specifically this stretch of the road and approved it for UKOG's intentions.

Aside and apart from this, UKOG also offered, off their own back, to widen the road and improve it.
They proposed redoing this every six months if/as required, at their cost.

I've traded this share for around three years.
But I just can't afford to risk more in it now, except in extreme circumstances.
When I do I'm only looking at 5% profits, which is barely worth the risk.
I used to be able to target 10% several times a day and sometimes that would turn into even more.
I'm all in favour of anyone making a profit however they can.
Just don't see opportunity at the moment.
I couldn't invest any more thinking the price will drop further.
:)

Funky, if you feel the price might descend to 0.15p, why might it not then keep going down to 0.1p?
Or 0.05p?

Will, I wish you luck and hope you can recover your money with a profit.

:)

Don't mention "internal" to Turkish security....

Lol Brillo!
I saw what you did there.
;)

Northfork, suspensions like that happen when the market is particularly volatile and prices are changing too quickly for deals to be completed.
Usually you won't be able to trade on the lead up to one either and you'll see the spread widen dramatically so buyers and sellers can be covered for the variation.
If gives folks a few minutes to settle and think.
;)

At least even these kinds of movement are something, rather than the steady decline Trousers has put in place over the last eighteen months.

0.16p yesterday, 0.20p today.
That's 20% profit for those traders lucky enough to buy into it and be ready to sell (of which I wasn't one this time, DEMMIT!).
Minus the spread and fees of course.

"you'll see in a rising oil price"

Yep, rising from it's earlier position this morning and still down -1.13% atm.
As TH says, do you own research.
This board has been infected by an epidemic of Ramper-19 for years, but we see a clear second spike at the moment.

It may be generated by the impending activity from SCC on Monday.
Personally I don't think that'll get them the result they may be gambling upon.
If there is to be a turnabout on the rejection, it's unlikely that it'll come from that.
:)

Nothing in the pipeline.
Must be speculators.
And jolly good luck to them.
That's what this share needs a lot more of.
:)

Penguins has his head screwed on.
You're the one with a screw loose.

The newcomers over the last couple of weeks have been able to buy in at prices not seen for years.
The newcomers of two months ago have seen their investments shrink.
Three months, shrink further.

If the value increases, everyone profits.
If it keeps dwindling, nobody profits.
New or old.
Trolls and rampers won't be able to bring it back up.

BS!

As they did in Surrey....

"UKOG will fund the first well on this license, expected to commence in Q4-2020, as well as a 2D seismic program."
No mention of the funding cap UKOG announced....

"Nobody ever made losses by making profits."

:)

I think yer right K3VMC,

The legal was only advising the chair on the likelihood of an appeal and the potential outcome/cost to the council.
The chair said (rightly in my view) that he thought the reasons had been covered and would not be supported in a claim, resulting in a loss with a potential cost to SCC of £250k in costs.

But yeah, I sat through the whole five hours and there was only one guy who had his head screwed on with no hidden agenda. He must have been spitting feathers and I remember him being similarly frustrated with his fellow committee members in last September's vote, although that went in his favour (for the same reasons this should have).

Last September I thought the Chair was too wishy-washy and, while I understand he has to oversee and mediate, he definitely proved it this time around.
:)

I watched and listened to the whole thing (five boring hours of it) and it was black and white to me. Not because I have shares in UKOG, but trying to review things without bias. Time after time, queries were raised and dismissed by the council's own experts.

This is Black.
That is Black.
This is grey, but UKOG are going to make it Black.

Council's statement; I'm concerned about that white bit.

Expert's response; It's not white, it's black, we tested it and showed that in our earlier written report but I'm happy to explain and go over it again now. This bit's Black, which makes that bit Black, so the bit over there can only be Black.

Council; I'm concerned about that White bit though.

Expert rolls eyes.

Council votes White.