Amerisur Resources Share Discussion Threads

[sleveen] 17/7/2017 08:20

Nice find Lucy.

[foiledagain] 17/7/2017 08:13

67 pages of definitions, legal requirements, before the nitty gritti of actual work to be done but a decent timescale for works.

The contractor is expected to finish the works for LTT a maximum of 20 days.

Includes construction of 12 horizontal tanks, 2 vertical tanks 500 barrels capacity each plus pumping facilities.

"It is the duty of CONTRACTOR to provide everything necessary for a perfect and complete
installation and organization of work." (Amerisur should adopt this)

Should be revenue when its on test as LTT usually allows surplus oil to be sold into market.

[trotting12] 17/7/2017 08:08

We need a good result from that well to clear out the seller ,,the rise in share price here will be dramatic if the production figures are even half of a similar well on the same trend ,,,

[foiledagain] 17/7/2017 07:55

Does this knock Amerisur out of the running for that tender then (TIC):

14.0 VAGUE AND INDEFINITE EXPRESSIONS
Bids qualified by vague and indefinite expressions such as "Subject to availability" etc. will not be considered.

does this include "transformational", "imminent","assuming" "approximately" "final commissioning". "look forward to updating shareholders".

Light hearted and "intended" to inject some "hope"

[bigwavedave] 17/7/2017 01:06

It means it will be going into production...(?)

[lucyp00p] 17/7/2017 00:31

Tender request on the ONGC Videsh website. I have no idea what it means.

[bigwavedave] 16/7/2017 21:45

I blame Investors Chronicle for its buy tip at 26p a month ago.

[foiledagain] 16/7/2017 21:07

Charlie, with the greatest of respect your comments demonstrate your lack of knowledge about AIM rules especially with regards to notifications.

Have you even read what it says on the AIM rule 26:

You state: "It is a requirement to provide the exact holding of every major share holder, including those who have not notified, at the specified date."

AIM rule 26 major shareholder notifications states: "The Company HAS BEEN NOTIFIED of the following interests on 3% or more in its issued Ordinary share capital as at 30th June 2017."

Rather different isn't it?


They do NOT use all means at their disposal. If they had they would have used S793 of the Companies Act, as that would really safeguard ALL shareholders.

The RNS via the company registrars demonstrates that beyond any doubt.

On how many other occasions has Amerisur issued an RNS holding announcement via the Company Registrars!

If they used every means at their disposal they would be checking every time.

They have the means at their disposal but they don't seem too keen on using them or just not letting us know.

[charlieeee] 16/7/2017 17:09

Foiled again

It is you who simply do not understand either the purpose or the process of the AIM 26 rule.

It is a requirement to provide the exact holding of every major share holder, including those who have not notified, at the specified date.

Clearly they do not just use notifications.

They use all means at their disposal to get the right figures for the list and that includes request, snooping (looking at the register themselves)and compulsion if necessary.

Whilst he may not bother with notifications, Rex Harbour has appeared on every list going back years and would have appeared on the March 2017 list and has appeared on the 9th June 2017 list and has appeared on the 30th June 2017 list.

Those very recently updated lists demonstrate that the board is absolutely committed to keeping shareholders fully informed and that is why I posted here, to draw everyone's attention to the information.

This is not a false market: what is demonstrably false is your assertion that this information has been "withheld".

If you are still asserting that the figure at 30th June 2014 of 74,875,693 is wrong,, then we need to speak to the Nomad on Monday and ask that the formal verification process is activated independently of the company. To repeat myself,I am absolutely sure that the outcome will show that the board have been neither dishonest nor negligent and that the figure will be exactly as declared.

The simple explanation of the drop is that PIs "sold the news" (as they always do), POO gave it another shove, we had the June figures with the dip in production and TA has done the rest, all on very small volume (we are talking in the region of 1m "true" sales a day on LSE for the last 6 weeks and very few high volume days).

Good news and this could rocket, as the TA crowd pile back in (and there is also that short of 6.5 million to close). Interestingly, re PMO all the talk is of the big shorts getting fried on PMO's recent discovery RNS and that short covering will have contributed to their 30% rise: so, the big boys are not always "in the know".

[foiledagain] 16/7/2017 14:39

Doesn't it seem strange at these levels we are not seeing more institutional buying or strategic buying or even an approach.

But why would that happen if the City knew exactly who was selling and how many? Shareholders have had this withheld from them in what seems to be a false market

[foiledagain] 16/7/2017 14:34

You still don't get it do you. The company only list major shareholders and movements through thresholds that they have been notified so that is how the information is compiled. It states it?

Now RH did not notify and still hasn't.

Had certain investors not asked for a check on RH holding then Amerisur would not know and any major shareholder changes would not be known either.

Either way having proved RH had not notified previously it's reasonable to expect the company to find out regularly

[charlieeee] 16/7/2017 10:37

Foiled Again

We do have some common ground so why not establish that first?

The company has a duty under AIM rule 26 at least every 6 months to publish major share holders. Do you agree?

I accept that over time, the information provided in accordance with that duty may become out of date. In this case, RH was selling post the notification on 31st October 2016 and so you are wrong to say that the information at the 31st October 2016 "was incorrect" but you would be absolutely right to say that it had become out of date. Do you agree or are you disputing that RH held 103,817,037 shares at 31st October 2016?

You are saying that RH was a major seller in the spring and that we were not getting the updated information to which we were entitled. I agree with that.

I agree that it was absolutely right for everyone to pillory the company and get the Registrar's declaration. I agree that by doing so, it leveled the playing field between the city boys and us.

You say that had you (and other shareholders) not intervened, "the major shareholder list would still be showing incorrect figures" I disagree. The list has to be updated every 6 months and the company always update it on 31st March (as they did this year and last year). Surely you accept that they would have provided the list at 31st March 2017?

Moving onto the June 2017 listing(s), can we stop squabbling about the implementation of the AIM rules and focus on the only issue of importance to everyone else here: that has to be do we believe that the correct figure for RH is 74,348,913 at 30th June 2017?

It is hugely important because it verifies that RH was not a major seller in the period. It is a comfort to see that he was not the lunatic who crashed the share price back from 27p to 20p (at that date).

It is also hugely important, because it concerns the Board's credibility. They have voluntarily put us in the picture and that demonstrates such goodwill to anxious PIs.

So, to strip this down to the bare bones, I am asserting that the board have acted in good faith, that they will have taken care in obtaining the correct information for RH at 30th June 2017 and that we can rely on the figure of 74,348,913 as at 30th June 2017.

If you disagree and continue to assert that it is wrong,, then we need to speak to the Nomad on Monday and ask that the formal verification process is activated independently of the company. I am absolutely sure that the outcome will show that the board have been neither dishonest nor negligent and that the figure will be exactly as declared.

[foiledagain] 15/7/2017 16:53

Charlie. Seriously what it is you are not getting?

AIM rule 26 on major shareholders is only as accurate as those who CHOOSE to notify Amerisur. It is absolutely clear RH did not, and may still not be reporting to Amerisur, so AIM rule 26 is about as accurate as Michael Fish comments about no hurricane.

If Amerisur had not engaged the registrar then the major shareholders would not have been correct, which proves beyond any doubt the logic of having Amerisur do that regularly keeping shareholders informed.

In my opinion the major shareholders shown on AIM rule 26 was incorrect, and Amerisur sought clarification from the registrar showing RH was selling otherwise the major shareholder list would still be showing incorrect figures and probably still is if RH is still selling which is why we should know.

You tell me when previously the Company Registrar had to be the source of stake changes?

It seems Charlie you are all for the City boys having the source of the information or the Board but see no reason shareholders should know it? I can think of no real reason why Amerisur would not wish to know if RH is still selling, as someone is, and why they would not want to relay that information to shareholders when the City and others and probably the BoD already are aware of it and for those in the know its like taking candy off children.

[lucyp00p] 15/7/2017 15:57

Wow lots of words. I'm not sure how accurate the transaction numbers on ADVFN are but my trades always show up quickly.The transaction activity during this price swoon has been nothing spectacular at all and reported buys and sells are almost a wash. I'd love to know how the share price can be manipulated absent a massive open sale position which RH seems to have completed. As for q&a at the AGM, GC shut the meeting down after 3 questions from the floor.

[fsawatcher] 15/7/2017 12:59

i fink i know wot amers doin and fink they ave broker workin price down deliberately

they goin to do a mate rate placin to keep ii happy that wot i fink.

Raisin about £20m with 150m new shares at 15p. This help ii's get averages down from 25p placin

they tell market they need cash so that they can develop pipeline pumpstation and infrastructure works and when work done they gonna do 7kbopd through pipeline but cant do that without pumpstation works

pi might grumble but price go back to 25p+ coz ii's then in the money

they prob say they ave more cap spend to do in cpo5 coz it struck big discovery so more cash needed

poo cud be $100pb barrel and this still be driftin down coz greedy management and ii want cheap stock

fact is, if pipeline not workin - it gotta be fixed. if no one gonna fix it, the no way it goin to work so amer gotta make it work , that wot they gonna tell market i reckons - that be the excuse

i dont fink this goin lower than 15p - i gonna fill me pcokets up whne this hit 15p/16p to buy coz it goin back to 30p by crimbo

[charlieeee] 15/7/2017 12:59

FoiledAgain

The AIM 26 information is updated periodically and will always be accurate at that point in time.

Going back for the last 12 months or so, the figures for RH have been as follows.

31st March 2016...116,388,691...9.63%
31sT Octob 2016...103,817,037...8.59%
31st March 2017....77,958,772...6.43%
.9th June. 2017....74,578,904...6.15%
30th June. 2017....74,348,913...6.13%

On 22 March 2017, Capita Asset Services notified that R Harbour had sold 7,795,301 shares and thus reduced his holding to 83,023,243.

In forensic terms, that is CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE wholly supporting the accuracy of the AIM 26 rule information.

For the mathematically challenged who don't do number sequences, 7,795,301 sold plus 83,023,243 remaining = 90,818,544 and both that number AND the remaining number of 83,023,243 both fall within the AIM 26 figures of 103,817,037 at October 2016 and the 77,958,772 at the 31st March 2017.

To spell it out in every which way:

At the 31st October AIM 26 correctly declared 103,817,037.
Then he sold 12,998,493 (probably into the residual OBA spike), bringing the figure down to 90,818,544.
Then he sold the further 7,795,301 declared on 22nd March, bringing the figure down to 83,023,243
Then he carried on selling at a rate of knots, another 5,064,471 between the 22nd March and 31st March 2017 to get to the figure declared on 31st March 2017 in the AIM 26 information.

Selling has dried up in the next quarter. IMO, he was lobbing his shares overboard as fast as he could until the Mariposa 1 news broke and that seems to have stopped him in his tracks...as, of course, it would any sensible investor.

If any one still thinks that the the AIM 26 information is not spot on, I would very strongly suggest that they take the matter up with the Nomad, as a matter of urgency: I am 100% confident that the Board have taken the necessary steps to discharge their obligations and that the information is correct at 30th June 2017.

This share has been gang banged a number of times, using ill founded rumor and suspicion and I am in the camp regarding that short with great suspicion: the company has done everything it can to keep us informed on the ground and in the city holdings sphere and if PIs gift their shares to the corrupt, that can hardly be laid at management's door.

[foiledagain] 15/7/2017 11:20

Charlie. No they haven't. You can't make up the rules. Their duty is to publish under AIM rule 26 major shareholders transactions THEY HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED! So the information may not be up to date or even accurate, hence the need for the company registrar to find out, after not being notified for whatever reason by RH.

NO: it is not possible that RH started selling again.

If he had, then it would not have been a single transaction and would have had to be notified in the normal manner as the first sale concluded as that had already crossed % percentage thresholds and would have to have been reported. The fact he hasn't reported suggests he may still be selling from an original single transaction and that's why shareholders need up to date verification of the status of holdings and who any seller is, because as sure as eggs is eggs everyone in the City knows it and is acting upon it, and in all probability the Board could and should know also and so should all shareholders, as its like a license for that those know to steal off those that don't.

You will note that other parties that bought threshold amounts, duly notified because their single transactions had been completed.

You are absolutely wrong in your assumption that if there was anything the market should know, then it would be notified by RNS...because on that basis prior to the company registrar being called upon to prove that selling was taking place AIM 26 major shareholder list was NOT correct, and probably still isn't

[charlieeee] 15/7/2017 11:12

This not a matter which requires attendance at the AGM.

The Board have a duty to keep up to date information in the public domain and have done so twice since the AGM.

If anyone believes that the information is wrong, they should put the Board and the Nomad on notice to that effect and make an appointment to inspect the Register (but be prepared to do forensic analysis on the nominee holdings to establish underlying names and movements: from recollection, historically RH had 3 accounts).

It is possible that RH has started selling again post 30th June, but he would cross the 6% thresh hold very quickly: his purchases and sales have always been on market (not capable of reversal) and as such are notifiable when executed.

As Blackdown says, if there was anything the market should know, then it would be notified by RNS: just think back to the mudslide disaster and how quick they were to set the record straight.

It is a difficult time for shareholders, but everyone has to either take the view that the share price is due to panicking PIs (which is the story told by the updated major shareholders notification and the absence of a "bad news" RNS ) or follow the rumor driven herd and sell (a sound strategy in TA terms, Trend/friend etc.)

[foiledagain] 15/7/2017 10:56

Its nuts to think that you have to go to an AGM in order to receive proper notification including information that is price sensitive, that should be a matter of course, or where its already been shown that a seller has not informed the company, but has shown by the company registrar to have offloaded millions of shares, and may still be doing that, so there seems little to lose in shareholders receiving that information instead of being excluded whilst those in the City and the company can easily have that information...which makes it very little different to the criteria for a consideration of insider trading where information that is not available to the public is available to others and may be actioned accordingly.

So on the AIM rule 26 major shareholder information it can be taken with a pinch of salt and not be considered accurate, as its already shown not to have been otherwise the company registrar would not have had to ascertain previously that undisclosed sells had taken place, and where there might not have been an obligation to notify if the transaction was continuing and factually we have not had an RNS from RH so that would be a reasonable assumption, and in that case we need to know, as well as City bods and others.

To repeat, AIM rule 26 major shareholder information is ONLY based on the COMPANY BEING NOTIFIED and in some instances as we have already seen companies are not notified, but companies can and do have that information available, and so does the City, and its wrong then for shareholders to be excluded from that circle.

Ask yourself this, if City bods and the BoD were aware it was RH selling out completely, so he would have no obligation to announce until after that transaction, do you think shareholders buying on the way down would have done so if they had similar information. Do you think spreads and leverages longs would do so under those circumstances if they knew X million of shares were still to be dumped? So why would it be OK for the City and any Board to know that, but exclude shareholders?

It would give the potential for insider trading, as some in the City would know EXACTLY when selling was finishing to close down shorts, to start buying and soaking up shares taken off shareholders in the dark.

After all it's only about ascertaining share ownership and in doing that gives full and accurate information to the market and holders alike. I cant see much wrong with that.

Something is pulling this down, and in my opinion information that is easily available to the Board and the City should also be known by shareholders or potential shareholders, some of whom may have been stopped out, some of whom might have sold thinking something is wrong, and some buyers making decisions within what looks like a false market.

[foiledagain] 15/7/2017 10:49

Charlie. That might be the purpose of AIM 26 rules, but I pointed out the caveat, and in fact you are wrong with your assumption that the company is under a duty to disclose correct information with regards AIM rule 26 Major Shareholders, or that the Registrar assists in compliance in connection with holdings announcements, as many AIM companies simply do not disclose correct information or at least do not even seek to when there is an easy route to establish exactly who owns what and who has been selling what.

The company's obligation under AIM rule 26 major shareholders is only to publish a list based on what THEY have been notified of by the transacting parties.

The obligation is on the part of the transacting party, not the company, so the company can if it chooses use the "I see no ships" approach which is what I suspect is happening.

As a point of fact the Registrar did not 'grassed him up' it was a result of a complaint that selling was taking place and not being reported, which should be disclosed.

Companies have access and means of access to know all of this, but some choose not to, and this is not helpful to shareholders at the bottom of the food chain.

So NO AIM 26 rule cannot be relied upon to give accurate information, which is why S793 of the companies act exists.

AIM rule 26, you should read in the company's accounts, and especially the following:
"The Company has been notified of the following interests on 3% or more in its issued Ordinary share capital as at 30th June 2017." On that basis any transacting party buying or selling and reaching thresholds that they did not report, would then not update AIM rule 26 major shareholder information as the company would say they had not been notified.

So it is ONLY information notified to the company, and we know RH did not notify about a sale of shares, probably because he didn't have to if the single transaction had not been concluded.

There is in my opininion a false market operating, as otherwise if RH's sale had finished we would have had an RNS notifying it and we haven't.

But then its wrong for some to have that information which is easily available to City firms and CEO's, without shareholders being made privy to it, which is why I strongly suggest S793 for the avoidance of all doubt.

[filterwest] 15/7/2017 10:37

Pi's always last to know about share price falling. I got out 20p with 2k loss. This aim stock for you.

[big7ime] 15/7/2017 10:13

Pity none of you asked these questions at the AGM, I knew you wouldn't.

[charlieeee] 15/7/2017 00:10

The Board have informed the shareholders of RH's holding.

That is the purpose of the AIM 26 rule.

Whilst the disclosure uses the "notified" terminology, the company itself is under a duty to disclose correct information and the Registrar assists in compliance.

Failure to do a TR1 is an omission, but what is now being suggested is that there is collusion to hide information.

Just why does anyone think that the Board would act this way to assist someone who was instrumental in partly wrecking their gravy train?

Look at the evidence: back in March the Registrar grassed him up, which tells us that the Registrar is playing cricket by the rules.

The Directors HAVE just earned their keep by putting us all in the picture at the end of June and we can see that it is not the major shareholders who have done the damage: it is PIs and possibly those shorting (and it should not be forgotten that taking the share price down just before an RNS is characteristic of MM activity on this share).

In any event, overall volumes on the fall are small: that should make it as easy to bounce, once the TA indicators reverse and the traders pile back in.

[oilandgas1] 14/7/2017 20:26

Foiledagain - good posting!

Oil up and Amer down again .. shocker .. but I am holding firm ( DYOR) for the next 10 weeks when I expect to be back in the mid 20s ( on the back of good news and steady POO) . GLA