Member Info for StarBright

Do you perhaps mean “Hear, hear”?

Are you waiting with baited breath for more slight of hand from those who arent’t towing the line? Perhaps it’s time for a change of tact from pouring over the numbers? I expect you’ll be back to tell us it’s a mute point anyway....

UKOG shares are not lendable. Too volatile, and no II’s with enough to make it worthwhile. Major brokers will not lend shares from nominee accounts - check the t&c’s of yours if you need reassurance.

I think just two. Those who contribute to debate (whether their views are preferred or not) with some degree of knowledge/analysis/thought and those who bring nothing.

It’s an interesting theory, but the placing was effected at just a 5% discount on a small % of mcap so there was no real transfer of wealth. Yes there might have been a short squeeze if the mm’s concerned had been forced to scrabble for stock in the market but this would only have had a transient impact on the share price.

The scheme outlined requires a larger placing at a significant discount to be successful for its perpetrators. I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen. Only that in this case it hasn’t had a major impact.

Perhaps Mr008 is a bot.

Unfortunately cockernhoe, what you need doesn’t matter.

No it wouldn’t. HHDL has no public disclosure requirements. However, if it discloses information to its shareholders (eg UIKOG) that is material to them, they will have an obligation to disclose.

..what.s with... the persistently ..stupid.... mispunctuation...?

Here’s a good explanation of how voting works for nominee holders.

https://www.sharesoc.org/investor-academy/advanced-topics/nominee-accounts/

Posters hinting at conspiracies and sharp practice on this topic can be safely ignored.

Sorry but that is just total nonsense. Why post on a subject about which you know nothing?

The companies you list (HL, Barclays, II etc) hold those shares as nominees for PI’s and not as discretionary investors. They are not able to use the shares in the way you propose.

Holders can safely ignore your posts.

Definition of “not in public hands” to help you with your guessing....

“LR 6.14.3R01/01/2018

For the purposes of LR 6.14.1R and LR 6.14.2R, shares are not held in public hands if they are:

(1) held, directly or indirectly by:
(a) a director of the applicant or of any of its subsidiary undertakings; or
(b) a person connected with a director of the applicant or of any of its subsidiary undertakings; or
(c) the trustees of any employees’ share scheme or pension fund established for the benefit of any directors and employees of the applicant and its subsidiary undertakings; or
(d) any person who under any agreement has a right to nominate a person to the board of directors of the applicant; or
(e) any person or persons in the same group or persons acting in concert who have an interest in 5% or more of the shares of the relevant class;
(2) subject to a lock-up period of more than 180 calendar days.”

Good question.

I posted a simple fact: “UKOG has always been a plc.” in response to some nonsense earlier, and the post has disappeared.

Argus1 - sadly, I suspect you are right!

The first tanker was important (factually and psychologically!) because it provided definitive confirmation that the well was still working. But tanker spotting is pretty much irrelevant now given that UKOG is conducting a 150 day EWT. No-one will learn (or earn) anything worthwhile from spotting them, picturing them or tweeting them...

Yesterday’s game I’m afraid.

Good call Free-Money...!

Don’t be troubled by the fact that you also called it for last Friday: “Maybe next tanker will be Friday...”, Tuesday: “...should mean more tankers lining up tomorrow.” and Wednesday: “Expecting a tanker today...”

Lol!

I think the buys/sells data on sites like LSE has a dangerous false precision, like interpolated hourly temperature data in weather forecasts 14 days ahead, or the g-force readout as you corner in your Nissan GTR. I think it is right to look at this data as indicative only, and not to choose one’s clothing or accelerator pressure on the back of it.

At one level, regulation and technology could improve transparency, but perhaps not to the degree that where definitive conclusions could be drawn. Even if mm’s were obligated to provide directional trade reporting, I don’t think the information would be useful in the manner that is popularly supposed. There are deeper layers (for example crossing trades within a fund management business where one fund is selling and another is buying) that would remain unseen.

PBRS? I typed & meant PRB769, but was auto-corrected.

Mind you, it’s better than cock-in-hand (for cockernhoe) that nearly got posted yesterday....

brotherant - PBRS is correct. Who are “they” in your question? The mm’s are not involved in the identification of trades as buys or sells.

This whole topic attracts way too much attention here, and is a constant source of heat rather than light. In the long run, buys will equal sells, with mm’s only taking short-term exposure where liquidity is required. The mm’s make their money from the spread, not from changes in the price. Theirs is a flow-business, and they don’t like being exposed as exposure requires reg capital and can easily wipe out the pennies they pick up in fron of the markets steamroller. They are happiest when there is strong two-way volume at a stable price. Most of what you read here regarding mm’s conspiring to “rob” PI’s, to “steal their shares”, to “hold the door open for their mates” etc is whimsical conspiracy theory nonsense from the uninformed, and can be safely ignored..!

The language they have used to describe their financial position has been constructed with professional care:

2nd July £5m RNS: "Together with the funds raised in June, the Company has now secured £10.5 million of investment during the last month, which given UKOG's current plans, mean that it has sufficient working capital for the next 18 months. UKOG is now in a robust financial position to confidently pursue its projects' ambitious exploration and appraisal programme in the Weald Basin."

If you look closely you can see that they are saying they have adequate funding to pursue their “...exploration and appraisal programme...”. This is not the same as saying that they are fully funded through to real production. They have (prudently) left a lacuna, perhaps with the possibility of raises for production capex in mind.

The topic of placings always seems to provoke frothing at the mouth here, with few understanding that what really matters is the effective dilution for LTH’s (the product of the placing volume and discount). UKOG has already demonstrated its ability to get minimally dilutive placings away: the 5% discount on 250m shares at 2p “cost” existing holders just 0.05%.

Placings are a necessary fact of life for cash hungry resources companies. Without the cash from placings, how would the expensive drilling and testing activities be funded? It is likely that any move into scale production - I have read with interest the posts on Octopus Pads etc - would require significant capital that UKOG does not perhaps have today. Some component of debt funding may be possible, but holders shouldn’t be alarmed to see capital raises for production capex providing the effective dilution is managed.

I think they’ve done a good job, and deserve the warm appreciation they’ve enjoyed for ensuring (both directly and indirectly...) that there has been good and timely transparency. However I think their relevance is diminished now that the first tanker has left. No-one really cares about the second and third swallows of summer.