Member Info for StarBright

Sorry, Aberdeen = Standard Life Aberdeen.

You are very much correct that not all II's are the same Pianista.

However Aberforth's discretionary clients in this instance will likely be it's 2 UK Small Companies funds - one investment trust and one UCITS. Both of these showed Flybe among their holdings in recent disclosures. I suspect these are the positions being reduced.

The purchases by Aberdeen are most likely also for its "discretionary clients" eg funds. We'll only know which funds if the holdings are disclosed in the normal course of business eg on fact sheets or in annual reports. We may not see any such disclosure for some time.

So I am afraid that your tentative conclusion regarding the significance of the two names is not really supportable.

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=FLYB&ArticleCode=xur1vcyp&ArticleHeadline=Rule_8_OPD__Flybe_Group_Plc

This was RNS'd on Friday last week.

Why is it being commented upon here as though it is new news?

rxdav - you are correct, I don't think that "buy and hold" is a feature of Bergen's philosophy...

Whatever happened to the "All for 1 and 1 for all" message you were parroting endlessly just a few weeks back DHC..?

Whilst you may have sold your Angus holding, your post above is just tawdry low-rent trolling.

Sageman - I do not think the question is whether SS is telling the truth or not. I am sure he is telling us what he believes. However, only testing will tell us whether the oil under the Weald is commercially extractable.

SS is quite professional in caveating what he says. I know that some here view this as a lack of conviction, but I would see it as professionalism. If there isn't enough oil, or it can't be extracted quickly/cheaply enough, that will not simply be SS's fault.

Discussion boards are surely intended for discussion. Participants should be free to discuss hopes and concerns. I have both for UKOG, but am frequently tagged as a de-ramper because I don’t simply express mindless blind optimism.

Those who approach these boards with the principal intent of impacting the behaviours of others are the true trolls. I don’t distinguish here between the rampers with their promises of Rolexes and the de-rampers with their endless attempts to sow doubt around placings etc. Neither group are here to discuss, only to try to exert influence. I find their intent and their conduct distasteful. There are many inexperienced and (frankly) over-allocated investors here; the trolls posting with the main intent of influencing them for personal gain should be ashamed.

Scully12345's interpretation of "...at the moment..." is obviously wishful, but I think it was a strange answer for Lundgren to give. When a question of this nature is asked by press or analysts, it is normal practice just to say that you can't comment. Everyone understands that this is true, because to provide more of answer runs two risks. The first that you breach MAR disclosure requirements, the second that you set a precedent that may be awkward the next time when you ARE engaged in a bid/whatever.

On balance it seems more likely to me that he wanted (perhaps naively) to pour cold water on the idea, perhaps in order to protect EZJ's sp on their results day. If they are involved in a bid, he'll have winged his own credibility.

SNAP!

Or FISH!

Whatever it is you're supposed to say...!

Ok - looks like that's based on 1000bopd:

1000 * 360 * $70 / 1.28 = roughly £20m

Thank you.

[yes, I'm aware that $70 is a little high today...]

I am out today, but following discussion here with interest.

A question if I may. When "£20m a well" was mentioned, what exactly was meant?

1. £20m of total oil production over the life of the well?
2. £20m of oil production per well per year?
3. £20m of operating profit (ie revenue minus production costs) over the life of a well?
4. £20m of operating profit (ie revenue minus production costs) per well per year?
5. £20m NPV10/Mcap from each well?
6. Something else entirely

If one of you who listened could clarify for me, I would be very grateful.

Thank you mayfield. I am not (yet..!) well enough versed to comment constructively - or critically - but I appreciate your thoughtful contribution.

mayfield - thank you for an interesting post. If Easyjet or others could have realised £50m of annualised savings (£500m of value at PE10) why hasn’t this happened?

“at least 100%” is quite a big call. The most distressed of sellers are rarely able to command such significant premiums. That said, it’s not impossible, and I will be pleased if you are proved right!

There are many funds that won’t hold shares in companies this small as they have self-imposed limits. But there are no formal/legal/regulatory limits, only the “investment restrictions” that funds set for themselves. It is likely that this will have been a factor in institutional selling, but the profit warning will have been even more important.

Whilst your questions are good, there’s no way he’ll be able to answer them on ShareTalk whilst remaining MAR compliant. In simple terms, he can’t provide:
• information of a precise nature;
• which has not been made public;
• which, if it were made public, would be likely to have a significant effect on the share price

Everyone should understand that he (like any CEO) is operating under these constraints. If he’s not answering the questions you would like to hear addressed, it may be simply an outcome of regulation. At times this is very convenient for companies, at other times quite the opposite.

What is the evidence for this algorithm?

Ok. Two suggestions from me:

- has what you have discovered so far in the HH EWT changed your thinking or plans for the future?
- what more will you need in terms of local authority / OGA approvals to implement your plans?

Rodders74 - I know you have invested significant time in following the UKOG narrative in detail, so why don't you email ShareTalk with some suggested questions? Remember that he won't be able to reveal anything new that may have a material impact on the share price. There's a fair amount of scope for what analysts like to call "colour" though, especially if questions are carefully targeted.