Member Info for StarBright

Thank you Captain. As you were...

MaxHSpringer - how are market makers “...letting some mates at a discount”? Aren’t the prices they post available to all? What prevents you from acquiring shares at the same price as “their mates”?

I’m interested to understand how the chicanery you propose so confidently works in practice.

The irony is strong in this one.....

...for a worthwhile and sustainable upward move in the SP will be when some new posters appear on this board. Granted they’ll be asking old questions, but their appearance will confirm the proximity of new money.

New buyers are needed for this share price to re-rate. It’ll take some properly good news to attract them, not just additional “tanker sightings” or marginal improvements in tested flow rates. There’s plenty of scope for this.

Look out for new posters following a small (say 10%) uptick.

OrsonCart - you are not locked in to anything.

You are free to sell and walk away from both the share and this bulletin board. Click on your name and take a look at your posting history. This isn’t making you happy, and your posts offer nothing of value to others on this board.

Perhaps it is time to move on.

Crocq’s original post about AIM restrictions etc is accurate. These of course apply to investment funds (more typically called Institutional Investors) and not to corporations like BP, Total etc. I don’t think that BP, Total etc would be classified as Institutional Investors by any definition. “Trade” or “Strategic” Investors more like.

II’s won’t worry about carefully staying below TR1 level though. There’s no particular advantage to them doing this, and they would in any case need more size than the £3m you mention Dhc for the effort to be worthwhile.

I’m not saying there are none. Only that they are not today a material component of the register.

There aren’t any material II holders at present, for pretty much the reasons you propose. There are a few others - notably that the minimum position sizes typical in a fund might be incompatible with concentration and other regulatory constraints.

In any case, there’s no formal definition of the phrase Institutional Investors. I think that when UKOG has in RNS’s used the phrase to describe placees, they have perhaps not been referring to the kind of informed, stable long term holder we might like...

If broad commerciality of the Weald can be demonstrated then it is likely that capital will be raised to fund the implementation of production capabilities. It is at such a juncture that it would be possible - and beneficial - for UKOG to try again to attract “proper” institutional investors. I think this will be a good development for LTH’s as the company is a bit of a schizophrenic PI feeding frenzy at present.

Before anyone jumps all over my mention of capital raising (!) let me point out that the company has said that it is fully funded through to the end of 2019 for “current projects”. I don’t think that current projects includes full commercialisation in the manner discussed frequently here eg with multiple wells, Octopus pads, pipelines etc. The raising of equity funding for this (perhaps alongside bank borrowing or other debt finance) might with skill and care be achieved without meaningful dilution, and can be a positive for all holders.

DaveWin - your post contradicts itself within a few sentences. First “i am invested in UKOG” then “ive(sic) taken my investment out of UKOG this morning.

The real problem with councils is the calibre of the people who serve as councillors!

Would it be better if Penguins stuck to posting “BOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM ITS GONNNA RROCCKKKETTTT”?

Or if he didn’t post at all?

The limited number of knowledgeable posters here make this bulletin board worthwhile, whether they are sceptical or supportive of the investment case.

Dhc - I like your 1 post per day mode. Your opening contribution to this board today was the best I’ve seen you make. Quality beats quantity every time.

Perhaps because much of the good news we have seen was already baked into the share price.

Good news does not cause share prices to rise unless it is good enough to strengthen demand. The price level and price action we see in UKOG reflect the diverse views of interested parties - as we see every day here on this board.

Existing PI holders have had many opportunities to scale their positions, so no longer buying dips. Some of those with small gains to protect have lost confidence and sold some or all. Similarly placing participants. Rainbow chasers looking for life-changing gainz through limited risk with non-life-changing sums have been disappointed (again...!). II’s not interested for a variety of reasons (perhaps a subject for another post). Drivel posted here about MM manipulation, price being held back etc can be safely disregarded,

Until new money is attracted by major news, the price will likely continue to fluctuate between 1.5p and 2.5p. There are plenty of potential sources of good news for holders, so sitting tight and waiting is a constructive and valid strategy for the moment.

I don’t think that is a very good effort. Too long, overly reactionary and a little “my dad (scientist) is bigger than your dad”. I think it is a mistake to have descended to the level of questioning overtly the motivations of the original letter writers.

It may have been a better strategy simply to state that “No evidence linking oil exploration and seismic activity in the Weald has been presented; either in this instance or previously.”. Thus limiting the debate to the scientific evidence - and leaving personalities, opinions and motivations out of it.

Not enough net new money. Price level and price action both reflect the diverse views of interested parties.

Existing PI holders have had many opportunities to scale their positions, so no longer buying dips. Some of those with small gains to protect have lost confidence and sold some or all. Similarly placing participants. Rainbow chasers looking for life-changing gainz through limited risk with non-life-changing sums have been disappointed (again...!). II’s not interested for a variety of reasons (perhaps a subject for another post). Drivel posted here about MM manipulation, price being held back etc can be safely disregarded,

Until new money is attracted by major news, the price will likely continue to fluctuate between 1.5p and 2.5p. There are plenty of potential sources of good news for holders, so sitting tight and waiting is a constructive and valid strategy for the moment.

The Times today has an article too: “Call for oil drilling ban to investigate Surrey earthquake links“

Mentions fracking by para 4.....

RNS extract: “Solo has reviewed the recent encouraging drilling and testing by other operators in the Weald Basin and as a consequence has taken the opportunity to increase its investment in Horse Hill from 6.5% to 9.75% ahead of the longer-term testing activities.”

Interesting. I wonder who the seller was, and whether this was the exercise of previously negotiated option?

Soupy - I think you are being too kind. That said, it’s the school holidays so I expect he’ll continue to spam the board with clueless tripe for a few weeks yet. It’ll make for good comedy if nothing else.

I’ve just read his 17:49 contribution and am (once again) having to hold my sides with laughter. Someone else can point out the idiocy of his post....

There are plenty of shares that have delivered larger returns over similar timescales. Fevertree is up by something like 20x in a shorter period.

There are plenty of funds (not sure why you would mention/compare funds with a single share...) which will have beaten 700% over 5 years too.

Why post such nonsense when you clearly have neither knowledge or insight?

JayKay1: a hat-tip from me for your post earlier describing yourself as an anti-ramper not a deramper. I suspect the distinction will be too subtle for many though ;>

Newtoallthis2015 - that’s a concise and authoritative answer. Can you explain in a little more detail please? Who is “they”? What is the process through which shorters close? What exactly is it that “they” are “allowing”? Are they “allowing” this for some not others? And why?

I’m interested,

Parrot anyone?