Most significant on-shore oil find in the UK for 30 years

princeofpounds

It could possibly count as market manipulation, which is also an offence.


Obviously I can't say that it was market manipulation, I have no evidence for that.

antrobus

More clarification.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11569092/Gatwick-oil-project-suspended-amid-permit-confusion.html

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

It could possibly count as market manipulation, which is also an offence.


Obviously I can't say that it was market manipulation, I have no evidence for that.

Market manipulation is a series of types of fraud. Unless they simply knew that the oil wasn't there then there's nothing wrong.

If you look at oil and gas investment boards across the webs there's loads of this stuff. It's quite fun as long as you're not an investor.

padington

Generali wrote: »

Market manipulation is a series of types of fraud. Unless they simply knew that the oil wasn't there then there's nothing wrong.

If you look at oil and gas investment boards across the webs there's loads of this stuff. It's quite fun as long as you're not an investor.

The art world does the same thing. Often when news breaks about a new high price at something going for auction, it's an inside job to try an influence the price. The art world is very very Wild West, auction houses often legalise these 'cons' so in many markets you are allowed to bid on the pieces you are selling, after all, it's so easy for someone else in your family or a friend to bid, why ban it ? This means everyone that counts in the game takes the whole thing as a pinch of salt and only the joe public who are not familiar with the game gets excited about all the comings and goings along the way.

So more the trickery is allowed, the less the 'cons' work. It's only the perception of upstanding righteousness or normal expectations of following 'the rules' that allows the tricks to work.

Hence the idea sold so well, Probably, that an Englishman, is a gentleman.

It's the law against insider dealing, that actually makes it work, probably why there are laws against it in the first place.

The FBI took this to new levels in the Cold War bidding the likes of Jackson pollock et al to all time highs, to allow the U.S.A to be seen as a leading cultural light and win at art against Russia. A trick refined only by the expectation that there are rules and that they are followed.

When really all it was, was very well placed splats of paint on the floor.

Generali

Update on the find.

Firstly, the company is trying to get a £4.5mn share placing away, to provide financing for:

· To further the Company's existing portfolio and in particular its interest in the Horse Hill licence area and other interests in the Weald Basin;
· For the potential investment into new oil and gas investments within the Company's investment strategy; and
· For general corporate purposes.

So is there any extractable oil down there? The answer can be found here:

http://www.ukogplc.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/hh1_ukog_petrophysical_evaluation_exec_summary_report_4th_june_2015_final.pdf

The short version is that there is a very large amount of oil down there but we don't know whether or not it's going to be economically viable to extract.

michaels

I thought recently shlumberger had reanalysed the data and had found it implied there was more oil (in that small area) than the initial claim that caused all the excitement although as gen notes oil and commercially extractable oil are two different things.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

I thought recently shlumberger had reanalysed the data and had found it implied there was more oil (in that small area) than the initial claim that caused all the excitement although as gen notes oil and commercially extractable oil are two different things.

The point of the Schlumberger report is it allows the company to raise more equity capital on the back of an 'independent' report.

Schlumberger will have been paid (AIUI at least) by the company to produce the report so there is a credit ratings agency-style conflict of interest built in.