The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
The flow testing program has been designed to utilize nitrogen lift to assist the removal of up to an additional 4,000 barrels of fluid from the HRZ reservoir. It is anticipated that this will enable the hydrocarbons in the reservoir to flow naturally to surface at a representative rate. Based on modelling of the reservoir pressure and fracture conductivity, this is estimated to take 10-14 days. The well will then continue to be flowed back to ascertain drawdown pressure and decline rate.
This is what the Drill or Drop website report said: "Councillors in West Sussex have given consent for another 10 years of oil production at Angus Energy’s oil site at Lidsey, near Bognor Regis. Members of the county council’s planning committee voted unanimously in support of the extension of permission. The approval had been recommended by council officials, who said Angus was not seeking to enlarge the site, intensify activity or carry out any physical work. Angus Energy has two boreholes at Lidsey. The first well, Lidsey-1, was drilled in 1997. Angus drilled a horizontal well, Lidsey-X2, in autumn 2017. Last month, a statement from the company said the site was producing 191 barrels of oil a day from the site." Then they continue with the usual whinges about trucks turning the wrong way!
An article in The Times on Saturday (copy below) brought Shield to my attention and, after some research and monitoring of the SP in the days since, I tipped an initial small toe in earlier today. Interestingly, my purchase was showing as the lowest price of the day - and as a sell! I will certainly continue to monitor this over coming weeks. If indeed there is a prospect of entering the US market without the need for further clinical trial then things would certainly look up - and possibly quite sharply. So ... my first excursion onto the board for this share - and I have to say I'm a tad puzzled by the contributions of jk69, who is doing nowt but naysay the prospects here. Oh well each to his own if you have the time to spare? I appreciate that the 'news' in this article might be old hat if you've been following Shield for ages but, as I said, I'm a newbie here: "The drugs may work after all for Shield An Aim-listed company whose market value was wiped out after disappointing trial results in February has been given a surprise regulatory boost, triggering a rebound in its shares. Shield Therapeutics had suffered an 86 per cent slump in its share price since announcing latestage trial results for a key iron deficiency anaemia drug that it had hoped to launch in the United States. The regulatory setback led Shield to launch a review and it moved to slash costs to give it enough cash to last at least until the end of the year. Shield is among a cluster of promising small British pharmaceuticals whose fortunes rely on a particular medicine. It had revenues of �142,000 from sales of Feraccru, its first prescription medicine, and a net loss of �9.6 million in the six months to the end of June. Investors feared that it would need anqther trial, which it would stniggje to afford without a dilutive equity fundraising. Shield said that it would submit a new drug application for Feraccru as soon as possible after it received feedback from a meeting with the US Food and Drug Administration and conducted its review of the clinical data, which accounted for the initial negative results. Shield will not have to do more trials. Shares in Shield closed up 23.4 per cent at 19p."
Totally O/T but never mind - and in a similar vein ... You are approaching a Y junction and do not know which is the correct fork to take. Two old men are seated by the junction. You know that one of them always tells the truth and the other always lies - but you do not know who is the truthful one and who is the constant liar. You may ask just one question of one of the two old men, after which you will know for sure what action to take. Exactly what question do you put and what action do you take when you receive your answer? Back on topic .. A newish comer on here. Bought in at 4.4 on the expectation that the scoping study recommendations will show a more profitable way forward.
Sorry if I'm missing summat here but .... When it's being said that if one has £1k worth of Glenwick shares one will finish up with £1.8k of i3 shares .... How are you determining the current value of the Glenwick holding? Are you taking the SP as being .06? And, just to make sure as to where that decimal point is - that's a shade over half a penny, or a shade over one twentieth of a penny? Ie 1m shares are worth £6,000 or £600. Sorry, but these have been suspended so long and my holding is being shown as having nil value by my broker!
The flaw in your argument is that, be they a transfer or a rollover, that would have entailed a sale and repurchase. The fact that both these trades were at the identical price would suggest therefore that it wasn't the case. No broker would walk away from a %age on a rollover/transfer of that size.
Nope .... Just watching the paint dry and the melons ripen?
OK so here's an issue I've not seen discussed on here since suspension on Friday .... Given that there is more than one asset target for the team in Indonesia - in 'normal' (ie trading as usual) times, if a deal were finalised with one of the targets then an immediate RNS would be obligatory since the deal was price sensitive. There would be no expectation to wait for final outcomes from all of the individual negotiations - in fact it would be against market rules to do so. But, whilst trading is suspended, strictly speaking price sensitivity becomes irrelevant as there is no 'price' to be affected. So here's the conundrum..... Does suspension mean that the BoD is free to carry on negotiating a second or third deal after the first has been concluded, so that we have, as it were, one bumper RNS confirming all of the deals that have been reached at the point where suspension is about to be lifted. Or will we hear via RNS about the conclusion of each as it is finalised, whilst still remaining suspended if there are still outstanding issues (such as a RTO prospectus) to be resolved. Anyone know for sure, or are there relevant precedents? My main reason for asking is whether the absence of news during suspension necessarily means that no otherwise notifiable events have occurred.
I was at the presentation too and can fully corroborate what Jam has posted. A couple more snippets - although only minor: Zafar apologised right at the start that Glen couldn't be there: "because he's in advanced discussions". He didn't say whether that was with PrimePoint or a different customer. As I understood it - and I think this tallies with what Jam is saying - AMED's share of any nett cash outgoings related to the JV partnership just gets taken off their initial investment into the JV. SO AMED don't have to put in more cash in the meanwhile. I also calculated at the time from what Zafar was saying that AMED have enough cash-in-hand for two years of operation at the current burn rate. They had won the existing rig contract in competition with nine other yards - which is brilliant news in terms of their potential ability to convert existing discussions into firm orders. They are in discussion with potential clients from Europe, Far East and Asia. Prospective clients are 'crawling all over' their existing build - ie on site inspections of the WIP and, given the very positive response from the existing client WRT quality and the fact that they are on schedule etc can again only be good news. Yes - can confirm that Zafar indicated 10% profit on existing order but they would be looking at 20% on future orders now they are establishing their bona fides. Zafar did quickly run over the capacity of the new yard once it is completed - details are probably on the website but I haven't rechecked lately - but I didn't have time to write it all down. Anyway it was massive in terms of the number of semi-subs, jack-ups etc etc that could all be built at the same time. This is where the point Jam made WRT materials costs becomes hugely relevant: Zafar specifically said that the steel suppliers (clearly the most significant raw material cost) supply on credit and do not get paid until the rig builder gets paid. Nice! I did ask the question as to what %age of MGR AMED would own if they were to convert all of their convertible loan. As far as I understood it Zafar said that the %age they owned would be unlikely to increase because the majority shareholder in MGR, as a private company, would just increase the shares in issue to compensate. And, yes, the PrimePoint orders are NOT dead. Detailed discussions still progressing and could be 'months' yet before final confirmation - or cancellation of course. I think it's perhaps mentioning in closing that Zafar came across as a very genuine, fairly unassuming, open and totally credible guy. A couple of the other guys presenting were maybe just a touch too slick and script-driven, but not so our man from AMED. I hope this helps put just a bit more flesh on the bones of Jam's post but basically it's ...'Yes, wot he said!'
No idea what Philski was on about last week! Do the maths ... three minus one is still two, not zero? OK those Italian pistol-shooters might be looking a little tepid, but the other 'interested party' is still sitting at the table - otherwise the RNS wouldn't have read as it did. Bearing in mind the BoD option rates I'd be very surprised if an offer were to be accepted at less than £1.15. But then ... what do I know?
Not sure how long that will delay things. But 'better than prognosis' all round seems like a good reason to celebrate?