Member Info for StarBright

Just for perspective...

The existing UKOP system transports 7.5million tonnes annually. 1.4bn barrels would be an additional 200million tonnes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_oil_pipeline_network

Esso has recently started work on a Southampton-London (read Fawley to Hounslow) pipeline project, intended to replace 100 tanker movements per day. I guess that could be upgraded and accessed with a Gatwick branch. Take a look here for some information on the scale and complexity of the current project. https://www.slpproject.co.uk

Fawley has a capacity of 270,000bopd. To refine the additional 560,000bopd contemplated here would require another two Fawleys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawley_Refinery

Seriously argus1? 1.4bn barrels is 560,000 barrels every working day. That’s not coming from one site regardless of the production technology employed. Rather than “a pipeline”, a network of connected pipelines would be required. Every landowner would want their share of the spoils. Even with compulsory purchase orders driven national interest in a post-Brexit Britain (ha ha!) the practical challenges around this would be absolutely immense.

Scully - the change to "production company" status was a technicality because UKOG didn't fit the relevant AIM criteria for "investment company" any longer, so could no longer enjoy the few minor relaxations of the listing rules available to "investment companies". Losing these was no big deal.

But the hot air on here from posters with no market knowledge but a handbrake-free desire to interpret anything as a major positive was extraordinary. Seriously there were posters expecting the share price to spike up not just after the announcement of the status change, but also on the day the resolution was adopted...!

Speculation of 75p is irresponsible in my view.

EBITDA not OIP will be used to value this company, because of the many challenges associated with the geographic (not geological) location of the oil. Just think about the logistical challenges of extracting and delivering 1.4bn barrels. Even over 10 years that is 1.4bn/10/250/214 that's 2600 tankers / day. Or a massive system of pipelines crossing some of the most heavily protected real-estate in the country. Look at the challenges around land for HS2! It's just nonsense.

The market will attribute value to production, or very-near-production assets with a high degree of certainty around cashflows. This will happen incrementally, as the legal and logistical hurdles around each potential site are unlocked.

Anyone dreaming of the idea that there will be a block-buster CPR quickly followed by a re-rate and a premium priced buyout based on OIP is just that. A dreamer!

Nevertheless, if the oil is there in the manner hoped for, it is perfectly possible that UKOG can "multi-bag" from here over a period of time with careful operational management in terms of the choice of drilling sites etc.

It's a small volume of gas. Perhaps enough to fuel an onsite electricity generating facility but no more.

Not sure if serious.

I think these guys have provided some interesting output. They have perhaps imposed a level of transparency on the company that might not otherwise have been there. For this they are due thanks from us all.

At some point though they'll spot that the info they can provide is very hard to monetise. Perhaps this is the case already, so the volume of their output is diminishing..?

RSI is normally considered oversold (and therefore indicative of a rise) when it’s below 30 - as it was in mid June. Isn’t it 48 on your chart so not there yet..?

News - particularly new or surprising positive news - is the key here though.

I don’t object to RSI in the right hands, and the marked up chart linked above is one of the better TA analyses I’ve seen here.

RSI at 48 isn’t showing as oversold on the chart though. Interesting that it was back in June before the “Production Test Operations Commence” RNS.

Depressing isn't it!? Is it ok if I repost my earlier (similar) list of drivel indicators...?

- 1-codes
- the absolute number of shares in issue
- Brexit
- National significance
- Viewing platforms
- Brass bands
- Pipelines
- UKOG petrol stations
- FTSE100 inclusion
- Mudskippers
- Shorters
- Tree shakes
- Tankers
- MM's "holding" the price
- Mates rates
- Buybacks
- Buys showing as sells
- Algos
- Iceberg orders
- Hunting stops
- Lambos, £1 parties etc
- The French
- Big boys
- Earthquakes
- Strokes per minute
- MACD/RSI/Fibonacci
- The price today will be closed at...
- LIFT OFF/BOOM/RRROOOOCCCCKKKETTTTTTTTT/
- The Kraken
- The $Aussie conspiracy
- Tom Winnifrith / BMD
- Surprise RNS timed to "burn the shorts"
- 10% per day
- Walked-up / down
- Weak hands
- imo
- Three sleeps
- Production company status
- Golden tickets
- wouldn't want to be out over the weekend
- ...

Boyzee ...cu.d u try agn... in eng.lsh plz m8...

MrPlumper what do you mean by trading barrier? Take a look at the 6 month chart on the "UKOG Share Charts" link above. UKOG was valued at 1.4p +/- 0.3p for about 6 months before the HH EWT was announced on June 27th. Since then, the price has risen to 2.1p +/- 0.4p. If the EWT shows better-than-expected test results I'm sure the price will rise further.

It wouldn’t make any difference.

The trading activity is a result of the volatility in price and engaging narrative, not the number of shares in issue.

Consolidation wouldn’t change free float. The outcome is limited to a reduced number of shares each trading at a proportionately higher price. It wouldn’t have any impact on attractiveness to the city I’m afraid.

How would that help?

I think that is a wish not a given.

Not that I am against wishing ;)

Your question affords us all a crystal clear insight into your knowledge of corporate finance...

If the company implemented a 1000:1 consolidation there would be 5.221m shares in existence. Each of those shares would be priced at £21; Mcap would be unchanged.

Would it then be easier to "make any money"?

Not all are ignorant Vernony.

Excerpt from an earlier post I made on market makers and short positions...

For sure MM's are permitted to hold short positions. In practice they tend not to hold material positions - either long or short - because of onerous capital adequacy rules. Also because, contrary to the fevered imaginations of many here, their business isn't one dependent on playing the share price. These are flow businesses - they make their money from the spread. They are picking up nickels in front of the market's steamroller, and it doesn't really matter to them whether the price is 2p or 6p. They need to avoid getting caught holding material positions (short or long) when there are price changes, as these can wipe out many weeks worth of nickel collecting. Hence they tend to avoid principal positions in volatile instruments. Their commercial interests lie in finding the price which encourages both buyers and sellers to transact, without them having to expose their own capital.

kenny100 - sorry, but your post is a prime example of how experience, understanding and knowledge is required to interpret data. The site you have linked is driven by an automated data scrape from somewhere or other. It is wrongly interpreting the likes of Halifax, HSBC, Fidelity, HL, Lloyds etc as institutional holders. These are in fact just the brokers / trading platforms that private investors have used to buy and hold their UKOG shares. As institutions they have no decision rights over those shares - they can't decide to sell them or to buy more. They hold the shares only as nominees for underlying private investors.

How do I know this? Because I am familiar with the full names of the listed companies - HSDL nominees is Halifax's share dealing service, HL Nominees is the nominee company of Hargreaves Lansdown etc.

As someone posted earlier, there are no discretionary institutional holders of any size in UKOG. We know this because holdings above 3% have to be declared through something called a TR1. At this point, the many Walts here typically pop up and say "Well, they could own 2.99% in one company, and another 2.99% in another etc". This would be a breach of something call DTR, and tends not to happen because it is easily provable after the fact, with quite severe penalties for even inadvertent breaches as many can testify. Ask Ken Morrison!

JayKay is correct when he says that UKOG is more or less exclusively owned by PIs.

The basic issue and common factor is that posters lack both technical understanding and awareness of the perimeters of their knowledge. We have posters trying to dissect the minutiae of L2 trading data whilst asking why ANGS share price is higher at 8p. Posters dismissing explanations as to why retail investors can't short whilst suggesting that share buybacks are on the way. Our most prominent pillock this week tried to argue that UKOG is “gearing up for a main market move” but definitely has “no plans to raise money” etc etc etc.

We see many authoritative posts from people who clearly have no real experience. Their statements betray their lack of knowledge time and time again. But they are so unaware (I guess this is classic Dunning Kruger!) that they just batter on repeating the same nonsensical drivel time and time again. They get lots of "recommends" for their posts - because they appeal to the tin foil hatters and the dreamers. But internet likes/recommends are not indicators of insight. Look at the Kardashians...!

I think this is just the way of the internet....