Member Info for Spikeyj

? what makes you think financing from trafigura will be “non-dilutive”?

looking back at the MOU, it says that trafigura may take up to
$20million in convertible loan notes as a financing provider...

you must be joking about those ‘admin’ expenses? - they are huge!
this company has been milked as a lifestyle company for years.

... must be some news due fairly soon, surely?
some questions of interest (i dunno the answers!)

what are the current total “administrative expenses” (which
includes, of course, the BoD salaries, expenses, bonuses)?

how many more lifts do they have remaining
from the existing two wells before those deplete?

how much will it cost them to
drill one new deep water well?

how much do adme still have to pay, to
clear the remaining project level debt?

what kind of money will adme have
to pay for the signature bonus?

if they can manage to interest trafigura in providing some
funds to support the development of a marginal field, then
what kind of return will trafigura be asking for that money?

gregorio, the liquidation of WRN has still not been completed, presumably
because of the many tangled legal issues. administrators remain in charge.
none of the ordinary shareholders will get anything at all back from it.

imv, just looks like some pi wanting to sell a wodge through an on-line dealing platform, but
unable to get a quote for their size and so they have to make multiple sells in small size, since
that's all they can get dealing prices for. liquidity in this share is not v. good at times like this.

"Normally, oil producers would ramp up production as prices increase, but a move by environmentally focused investors from fossil fuels to renewables and caution by lenders leaves them hard-pressed to respond, hedge funds and other investors say."

yes, potentially very positive for the oil price, but part of the logic is
that the hedgies think it is becoming increasingly difficult to persuade
investors and lenders to fund new development of O&G assets, on top
of the dismal state of the oil services sector. so that could be good for
the pricing of the remaining lifts that adme can squeeze out of the two
aje wells that it already has, but not so promising when it comes to
persuading people to pour loads of money into further development of
aje, or come to that any marginal fields that adme might get awarded.

someone will have to pay that signature money for new marginals, &
someone will need deep pockets to fund new deep water drilling at aje.
hedgies think oil prices will rise as such funding will be harder to source.

meanwhile, those huge BoD costs ("administrative expenses")
continue to burn this company month after tedious month.
osa is doing very well for himself, with or without any deals.

related to fatprofit's post re quantities traded, the significant
fall in the share price of a mega-cap like GSK share price is not
just about retail investors. pis are a tiny share of the trade here.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-boatload-of-covid-vaccine-for-the-amazon-lpqcjqdb3?shareToken=2809f9e6565145b8f2864bd94016fe42

TR64: “There as [sic] been no AZN trails [sic] in the countries where the variants appear...”

i have been commenting on your false, unevidenced claim that the AZN
vaccine failed against the ‘british’ / ‘kent’, i.e. variant 117. ... are you
seriously trying to claim that AZN did not trial their vaccine in britain??

TR64, yes, i do understand the difference fairly
well between a mutation vs a variant. & yes, i do
understand that over time any particular variant
may show changes in the mutations involved. &
for sure, E484K is one mutation that is concerning
re possible reduction of various vaccines' efficacy.

but efficacy of a vaccine being *partially* affected
does not mean that a vaccine has 'failed', does it?

& fortunately the evidence is very encouraging that at present
the AZN vaccine *DOES* have v. good positive effect against 117.

happy to accept that *might* change in future as the variant
evolves, hence new /tweaked vaccines will be needed. so i
am glad the pharmas are already working on just that....

you have still failed to produce any evidence to support your
false claim that AZN vaccine has 'failed' against 117, and you
appear to be unwilling to even read anything to the contrary.
? what do you claim are the factual errors in that lancet pre-print?

TR64, you posted that yesterday, and i answered that yesterday.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oxford-trial-keeps-kent-variant-at-bay-and-cuts-covid-19-transmission-f70wm7ftd?shareToken=d0138984b639130647bb6c4f635ac8b4

Oxford-AZ vaccine 'effective against dominant UK variant' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55951920

TR64 23:50: “on the date todate, the vaccines can not [sic] combat all the mutations and variants. Now if you insist they do, thats [sic] ...”

you are making stuff up again, TR64. i have said nothing of
the sort. i called you out about your false claim that the AZN
vaccine has failed to provide any immunity against variant 117.

a current evolutionary pressure for covid is to get better at infecting
children & teenagers, since those are the people who (a) will be allowed
to mix the most, (b) with the least restrictions & (c) with least focus on
vaccinations. if a mutation arises that is particularly adept at infecting
kids, that will generate a fair few tabloid headlines. let’s hope it doesn’t.

as to what GSK has been doing with its “mRNA SAM platform”
over the last few years, i have no idea whatsoever. perhaps
someone who is a long-standing fan of GSK could answer that?

TR64, problems arise, imv, when someone like you posts a claim that
a particular vaccine has “failed”against a certain variant, when a more
truthful statement could be that percentage efficacy seems a bit lower.

you’ve done that today about AZN vaccine vs 117, and you did that 2-3
weeks ago when you claimed that AZN vaccine failed against the brazil
variant. from a practical point perspective, being offered a vaccine that
can give some immunity is *way* different from being offered a vaccine
that simply won’t work. the risk is, if people were daft enough to take your
unevidenced posts at face value, they might be misled into turning down
vaccines that could offer partial immune protection, even if that is not 100%.

a more sensible position, surely, is to recognise that (a) all the existing
successful vaccines provide partial immunity rather than total immunity,
(b) and that degree of partial immunity varies between vaccines and
varies between variants, and (c) there will be change over time both in
terms of new variants arising, & also some change within variants, such
that it will be necessary for all the vaccine makers to keep on their toes
adjusting their vaccines (& hopefully coming up with better new ones!)

mRNA techologies look very promising for the speed at which they
can be tweaked, sure, but other vaccines can also be tweaked too.
the world is likely to benefit from a vaccine ‘ecosystem’ containing
multiple vaccines, some of which are much cheaper than others;
some of which can be adjusted quicker; some of which can be stored
and transported easier; and some of which have better side-effect
profiles or fewer counter-indications ... so the more the better, please!

TR64 20:32: “My point is simple, at this time we do not have any vaccine that protects against all variats [sic] and mutations, its [sic] that simple.”

i haven’t seen anybody at all on this chat board who has made that claim,
& i‘m pretty sure none of the pharma companies has claimed that either.

... but that’s not what you were claiming at 12:00, when you posted
false information about current vaccine efficacy against variant 117:

TR64 12:00: “So far no vaccine in use as [sic] been able to give immunization against the Covid 19 mutant variant of 117.”

... it looks likely that the E484K mutation (whether occurring in variant 117
or others such as 1351) may reduce vaccine efficacy or possible reduce the
longevity of a vaccine response. but that is rather different from falsely
claiming, as you do, that no vaccine can generate some immunity to 117
variant. ... is your point simply that no vaccine provides 100% immunity??

another couple of relevant pieces, for
anyone who wants to read factual evidence.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n359

http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/moderna_says_its_covid-19_vaccine_works_effectively_against_variants_1361941

as can be seen, neither is saying that all current vaccines
have failed against variant 117, although folks are sensibly
wary about what effect E484K mutation *might* be having
on reducing efficacy &/or longevity of antibody response.