Member Info for Thorpedo

MattCarter
I have just reread the RNSs Tellurian held 331,125,828 on 31 December 2019 and 514,050,129 on 31 March 2020 a gain of nearly 183m where are you getting your sale of 184m from?

MattCarter
Why do you keep stopping on the 31 March when discussing Tellurian. If you go just one day further then they increased their shareholding between 31 December 2019 and 1 April 2020 by over 50million shares.

Just because they are overseas doesnt mean that the 1% increments dont apply. They do get an extra 2 days to notify though. Although I do agree they havent been following the correct procedures and that is why UKOG have been issuing them on their behalf.

MattCarter
"Thorpedo, I have done a couple of hours research over a few days, but I can see that I already know more than you about Tellurian and they are selling."

How do you know that they ARE selling? There is evidence that they are actually buying (although I dont believe that they are) The TR1 on 8 April states that they had 6.61% on 3 June the same shareholding would be 5.88% and no TR1 was issued to say that they went through the 6% barrier so evidently they must have bought shares to keep above it - I personally doubt it but that is the evidence.

"Tellurian sold 184,500,000 shares between 31st Dec and the 31st March. And based on the SP history and the number issued from the first tranche, Tellurian have been selling at a loss." Now this depends on your definition of a loss. The third tranche was cash or shares at UKOGs discretion, obviously UKOG didnt have any cash. I think that in March Telluran forward sold the final tranche (borrowing from itself) It probably sold the £1m and gained 50m shares in the process.

I dont think Telluran are selling at the moment.

Which has very little if anything to do with how much oil is coming out.

MattCarter
Tellurian received their last shares at 0.39p and the ones before that at a considerable higher amount. Whilst every investors circumstances are different, I dont think that they will be selling at a loss. Especially as per previous TR1 they kept hold of the first tranche.

I would have thought that the sales are WHI and that a TR1 or two will be forthcoming.

inrhubarb
Multiply by £0.002 per share everything is relative - there are so many shares as the cost of each is a fraction of a penny.

Yes great post by Matt Carter.

So Canaccord must have bought about £180K of shares to stay above 5% and if they bought more than about £400K then they will have passed the 6% threshold.

I think that WHIreland will have had the buyers lined up otherwise they would have let UKOG stay with YA. I would have thought Canaccord would take at least 25% of them. Looking forward to the TR1 or TR1s coming over the next week. I think foreign entities get three days to report.

HH1AN2
It doesnt matter how old it is, if that is what the contract says then it will still be valid.

Bladehater
Thanks

Penguins
I presume that UKOG (137/246) Ltd share is net of extraction costs but I cannot find it anywhere. I also presume that it has to pay from now on for exploration. However, I have looked many times and cannot find that it is liable for any costs. I could use your theory in that as it hasnt been mentioned in a RNS then they do not have to pay, but I wont.

Before today UKOG was receiving 77.9% of net as of today they are receiving at least 85.635%

Before todays Production Licence oil sales could only be offset against costs. HHDL has the costs so UKOG would have only been entitled to 77.9% of the oil sales.

Now that we have a production Licence then the oil sales are just that sales and UKOG (137/246) Ltd are entitled to 35% of them. The remaining 65% goes to HHDL fo which UKOG have 77.9%.

I have never been able to find out but does the former Telluran 35% come before costs of production or after?

YA are still holding plenty of shares at 0.5055p so I cant see them selling until they can get at least that, they will probably want more. I cant see them converting many in this volatile market at present either - to risky for them.

Telluran, will they really want a dollop of new shares on 31 March? If RBL is possible in the near term I would have thought they would be happy to defer the payment.

If and I agree that it is a big if. UKOG have someone who knows what they are doing re finance then RBL negotiations will be ongoing now with the amount dependent on the CPR. I can see RBL and a CPR being released in the same RNS.

Pboo
Do you admit selling some shares in the past and buying again at a later date. If so that is trading.

You have always been ramping this share never once deramping. Thus you have been dumping whilst pumping.

Ohmetoe
He actually said "#ukog swampy looney lse says he will buy at 1p. Im in at 0.6p Fek paying more soon."

I personally dont have any problems with him pboo et al trading with their knowledge. I dont however like them pumping whilst they are dumping.

HH1AN2
FOTH hill is only tweeting negative today so I doubt they have seen something. Trying to drive the price down so they can get back in once they have the early knowledge.

Mirasol
Look at the HHDL accounts note 7 showing that the oil sales from the EWT as negative costs.

Seadoc
I do see the irony of me asking someone to look at a document I give no worth to.

Wizard125
The significance of the RNS statement you quoted is that, unfortunately the oil sales is not Revenue but a negative cost. If it was Revenue then UKOG would be entitled to the Telluran 35% bit. As it is set off against costs we are not. The costs are also historic costs not just current. The whole purpose of the restriction is to stop Companies having a production licence via the back door (EWT)

Revenue also aids lending again t

Respected posters of this thread
I think that there are possible ways to be punitive to Alba if wanted. Issue more shares, if Alba don't take them up then they are diluted. I have seen this done successfully and also seen it done and got messy. Solicitors saying it was only done to dilute when company doesn't need the money. This could easily be argued when HHDL is getting a significant income. Perhaps not enough to progress at the speed that UKOG want but still enough to progress.

Also why the presumption that UKOG want to get rid of Alba. They are providing the services of George Frangeskides for free.

Seadoc
I think that you are looking for skeletons that dont exist. You previously suggested that there would be something in the HHDL accounts (which you expected) that would be unpleasant to UKOG. By you not coming out and showing us this red flag, are you saying it isnt there.

I also think that these accounts are over 16 months old and have no relevance to where we are now. To me annual accounts are of little relevance because they are historic (16 to 28 months in this case) and I make investment decisions based on current and future not past.

The skeletons arent there so I will quickly answer your points.

Loans to subsidiaries 23m v loan to parent 12m, there are other subsidiaries you know ie re BB

24. Commitments & Contingent Liabilities - it is a legal requirement to put this note in there arent any, the auditor agreed and signed these accounts off.

12 & 3 Not sure what you are after here but UKOG gets money by selling shares and lending it to to its subsidiaries.

Enjoy the rest of your day, I would stop looking at the accounts for something that isnt there but if you actually enjoy that sort of thing then crack on.

Seadoc
You were constantly deramping about HHDL accounts suggesting that they would prove something nasty. The accounts are now published and in a lot more detailed than you could have thought they would be. Can you tell us what you think they show. Or was it an error on your account (again) like the £10m error you made on UKOGs full accounts.