HeadInTheSand, you post "...for some to look to pump an SP with an eye solely towards their own gain and thus with knowing intent to do harm to more naive investors..".
The insinuations in your post will be clear to all on here and, I hope, to the moderators. If you have a serious point to make, I invite you to quote any poster who has attempted to 'pump' this company in recent weeks. You on the other hand have posted a handful of vague, poorly disguised attempts to cast doubt on factual information posted here by genuine shareholders.
LLTM, agreed. As I said before, as a shareholder these questions are not in my name.
I hope that Angus will take a very dim view of a set of questions cooked up by an orchestrated group of non-holders on here.
GreyPanther there was a thread on this a few days back, including posts from Heid and myself. Heid provided a view that 'profit' could be a bit over £1m, including allowance for fixed company admin costs. Those admin costs are surely bound to increase this year though with all the planned activity.
"costs awarded against the council". Are you sure?
The Egdon RNS says "The Inspector also allowed the application for an award of costs against North Lincolnshire Council", not that costs are awarded.
The decision says: "Application for costs 1. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Egdon Resources UK Limited against North Lincolnshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision."
Is there another document which confirms the award of costs?
"Is he (SS) playing the long game to buy out the smaller players".
I don't think so.
I'm sure that, having become 86% holder in HH (maybe higher once contractual penalties kick in), he's happy on many levels, but I don't think UKOG have done this out of choice. Acquiring that share, and then being pretty much solely responsible for all development costs, has taken a heavy toll on the SP over the past 12 months - I'm sure one that will repay us handsomely over the next 12 months but that's little comfort to anyone that's looking at a large paper loss as of today.
The bottom line is that the smaller players were stumped for cash and the Weald doesn't fit Tellurian's business model. UKOG had little choice but to buy them out if they wanted to progress the project.
Now though, that's all in the past. We now have 86%, or more, of the rewards coming our way. Hopefully very soon.
It looks like the post mentioning the class action has gone?
Regardless it clearly is never, and was never, going to happen. What it did do was provide a convenient distraction for some of those who didn't want their posting histories to come under too much scrutiny on here.
Thorpedo I usually appreciate your posts which, without meaning to patronise, I find balanced and sensible.
I don't understand where you're going with this 'old photo' story though. It was clearly labelled as old, but of course that doesn't stop anyone thinking. or expressing a view, that it was unwise. For the record, I disagree. I saw nothing misleading at all - just adding visualisation to Adrian's report as he obviously didn't have a current picture.
OK, so you expressed a different view. Fine. But now you seem intent on discrediting pboo by quoting other posters whose disruptive deramping intent is clear: "Others since have said that you have done it before and misled.", "Others since have said that you have traded UKOG". We can all see who those "others" are and what are their motives.
We have enough problems in this chat room with chaff and disruption from people who clearly have a downer on UKOG, one which the moderators seem unable or unwilling or unable to address - so it's up to holders themselves to try to keep things sensible here, and certainly not to give encouragement to posters who clearly only mean UKOG harm. I respectively ask you to consider your recent posts in this light.
None of this is to say that we all have to agree on everything. Of course not, and sensible debate is healthy, as is constructive criticism of UKOG and SS - for example in the comms department (which is poorer by the week).
But the bashers do not want a sensible debate. Surely you see that? 'Accusing' pboo of trading for example (someone also levelled that one at me when I said I'd top-sliced and topped up in the past). Of course, any sensible PI is going to take profit, or snap up a bargain, when they can. This doesn't make them 'traders' but, even if someone is a trader, that is absolutely their right. I don't recall pboo ever baselessly trashing UKOG, calling it UDOG, for example, in order to benefit from depressing the SP?
Please don't everyone start replying to this post. Let's put this daft issue to bed and discuss something more relevant.
1. Is ANGS investable?
Yes - high risk, high reward
2. Will ANGs rebound soon ? "Soon" is a bit vague. If Balcombe EWT is successful then yes, very much so. Maybe double SP in the Spring
3. Where is the PR from ANGs ? Only on this BB.
4. Why is it only on this BB? See answer #1
I said "We can forget the rest of the 100-125 billion barrels OIP for the time being as they're in the Kimmeridge shales (no fracking!) and other layers."
This is not strictly true, because the shales have natural cracks and hollows which probably contain some recoverable oil, but it's unlikely to be much compared to what we can get from the limestones. Where the natural fractures in the shales do help us is in connecting up the limestones ("single connected oil pool"), making it easier to get at some of those 3-4 billion barrels.
The EWT due to be conducted by Angus Energy at Balcombe, on a 1700ft horizontal well in the Kimmeridge Limestones, could materially affect the UKOG SP, as it will corroborate or otherwise the 'Weald Concept' for exploiting the 20 billion barrels or so of oil in place that may reside in the limestones across the basin. We can forget the rest of the 100-125 billion barrels OIP for the time being as they're in the Kimmeridge shales (no fracking!) and other layers.
If successful, we can only expect to recover a small % of the 20 billion barrels which, of course is not all in our license share: UKOG have maybe 3-4 billion barrels of KL OIP; doesn't need a very high recovery rate with those kinds of numbers? Try it yourself with 5% at £16.50 NPV / barrel.
There's now a question on the Angus web site (http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/media/investor-questions/), which will hopefully be answered by 31st Jan, which should give us a better idea of possible timeframes for the critical Balcombe test. (planning is currently scheduled for late Feb):
"Assuming that permission for the Balcombe EWT is granted by the end of February, when would you envisage being able to commence work on site? Are you currently aware of any wildlife protection issues which would restrict operations by Season, especially during the coming Summer?"
Bridgedogg1, spot on. Successful routine intervention with HH2z and the first step of the SP re-rate will happen. Further issues and the SP will continue to be depressed.
Simple as that. This is an oil company wanting to move into production. Obviously, we need oil in increasing quantities. I'm expecting we'll get it even if, for example (randomly), we need to plug HH2Z at the half way point to get it.
I'm then expecting anything between 2p and up to 5p in 6 months time, depending on progress.