We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. Hydro | OHM | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 5.25 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.25 | 5.25 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 22/12/2011 09:46 by ucasavi OHM should be RSI now. I am just a squatter here. |
Posted at 08/12/2011 17:19 by gwr7 The penny dropped and it dropped to a penny. OHM now known as RSI. |
Posted at 02/9/2011 16:39 by sandlab Sort of.Company was floated as OHM. OHM took over Rock Solid Images. Then the EM bit, which was the original company, was divested, leaving basically RSI. Hence current RSI is basically just the original RSI. (I used to work with their software. It was good). and The original OHM is now merged with EMGS R.I.P. OHM. |
Posted at 02/9/2011 16:22 by schrodingers_cat OHM is now RSI |
Posted at 04/2/2011 10:17 by gwr7 "After an optimistic start the financial year to 31 August 2010 turned out to be our toughest on record as shown by a pre tax loss of £17.3 million"Oh that's good. I knew it would be a record but they've done the business there. I took profits on EMGS yesterday and am so pleased they've done well after the patent dispute during which they were portrayed as the bad guys. Funny how the patent hearing officer, Mr. Hayward, didn't say the EMGS guys were unconvincing witnesses, and he's been proved right. As for the name change, I think anyone would be ashamed to work for a company called OHM. RSI was the small minority company when they bought it but that's about all there is left (and it's not even worth what they paid for it). Not the first badly managed company to have listed on aim and no doubt not the last. |
Posted at 18/1/2011 09:39 by humphries1 Appointment of Dr. Michael Frenkel as V.P. of Research & DevelopmentOffshore Hydrocarbon Mapping plc (AIM: OHM) announced today the appointment of Dr. Michael Frenkel as V.P. of Research and Development, based in Houston, Texas. Previously Dr. Frenkel was V.P. of Geosciences at EMGS Americas. During the last three years, Dr. Frenkel has been managing a spectrum of large-scale marine CSEM exploration projects and also served as a co-chair of the non-seismic committee of SEAM (SEG Advanced Modeling Corporation). While working at the Houston Technology Center of Baker Hughes from 1992 to 2007, he led research and development of cutting--edge well logging data acquisition and inversion-based interpretation technologies. In the 80s, Dr. Frenkel published pioneering works in the areas of CSEM data processing and subsurface imaging, which advanced the idea of back propagating or migrating the scattered EM field. Commenting on the appointment, Dr. Lucy MacGregor, OHM's Chief Technology Officer, stated: "Dr. Frenkel brings to the company over 30 years of theoretical and practical experience in 3D surface and borehole electromagnetics, and we are delighted to welcome him to our growing team in Houston. Dr. Frenkel shares our passion and vision regarding integrated interpretation using the shared earth model and has unique experience and skills to accelerate our progress and market penetration." Lets hope he can do something for the company humph |
Posted at 15/10/2010 00:03 by mr macgregor They're not really taking on debt as the company was always largely debt free (except there was the, ahem, stunning off balance sheet charter liability that nearly sunk it, but that was cleared by earlier rescue funding).What they're taking on is required capex as Version 102 mark III(a)(ii) TDi etc. of their equipment apparently needs replacing. What worries me is the following: Pending Completion, in the event of a material adverse change in the business of either of OHM Ltd or OHM Malaysia the parties have reserved the right to terminate all agreements relating to the Proposals whereupon ETS would have the right to call upon OHM Ltd to repay the sums the subject of the Deferral Arrangements, subject to a grace period of 45 days in the event that the termination is at the election of the Buyer. The Company has provided warranties relating to the proper disclosure to the Buyer of any Material Adverse Change (as defined in the Sale Agreement) prior to Admission which, if not complied with, would provide the Buyer with the right of redress for a period of one year. Patent infringement proceedings, should they arise, would presumably have a material adverse effect. |
Posted at 09/9/2010 19:04 by gwr7 As I'm talking to myself again just thought I'd take a trip down memory lane with some posts from 5 years ago. Funny how a lot of it is still relevant today and what about the innocent reference to Rockhopper just after the little penguin had hatched.emptyend - 14 Feb'05 - 22:29 - 86 of 1155 I've been taking a passing interest in this company and its competitors. Would anybody be in a position to summarise for a non-techie what the core of the patent dispute hearing is about? In particular, how solid is OHM's case compared to its two competitors? And when is some result expected from that hearing? TIA ee bomfin - 14 Feb'05 - 22:37 - 87 of 1155 I notice Dr Jungels has another company farmed in to Desire's Falklands blocks today. Wonder if he'll recruit OHM's services?. If not why not? GWR7 - 15 Feb'05 - 20:29 - 88 of 1155 Yes, I noticed Pierre Jungels is chairman of a recently created company called Rockhopper Exploration. They're unlisted and I've no idea about the state of their finances but they're funding 30% of the drilling costs of three wells in blocks licenced to Desire, who seem keen to press ahead with drilling in locations already chosen on the basis of 3D surveys. I can't see them using CSEMI as they're too far forward. It would have been interesting if they'd combined CSEMI with 3D but I suspect it's too late. As for the patent dispute it's over entitlement to two patents that OHM benefit from. I've heard it's a complex case and could be months before a decision is made. emptyend - 15 Feb'05 - 20:39 - 89 of 1155 Which two patents, may I ask? And who is contesting them? Is it Schlumberger or the Warburg Pincus -owned outfit? CaptGuns - 17 Feb'05 - 17:56 - 90 of 1155 GWR7 or anybody else for that matter. Could this CSEMI technology be used for a site survey or adapted to do one?? Hi resolution and side scan type survey?? GWR7 - 18 Feb'05 - 18:58 - 91 of 1155 ee the key patent number is GB2382875. There is also WO 03/04 8812, effectively the same patent but administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Statoil the Norwegian State oil company are disputing entitlement. Well done with SOCO by the way. cg the technology is proven in deep water, more research being undertaken for shallow water application. Site survey usually done in association with seismic. Try www.ohmsurveys.com for information on source/receiver alignment. The technology is good and I wouldn't mind betting Exxon benefitted from it with their Angola discoveries recently announced. Too many risks surrounding this company for my liking though and they will have to run very hard to justify their current rating, which will be difficult on the back of two profit warnings. emptyend - 19 Feb'05 - 09:35 - 92 of 1155 GWR7, Many thanks for the info. Interesting that Statoil are disputing - because they sold their operation [EMGS] to Warburg Pincus [the private equity group] early last year. Did they retain the patent? I doubt it, unless they licensed EMGS in perpetuity. There is a good article I found on the web but have lost the URL which mentions that Exxon's Angola run is at least partly attributable to OHM's work for them [about which they have to be contractually silent]. My own view is that the technology is a very interesting one but, partly in view of the patent issues, it is far from clear that OHM can be the ones to clean up. Nevertheless, I'll be keeping half an eye on it. Thanks re SIA - so far so good :-) By the way, does anyone know where the ships are at present, please? rgds ee |
Posted at 30/7/2010 10:32 by gwr7 Oh dear. The perrenial under-achievers at Pratt and co. seem to have let you down again by not keeping you updated on events. Back in January 2009 they were quick to let you know that Schlumberger had defeated EMGS in the High Court."OHM welcomes UK High Court decision in Schlumberger - EMGS patent case... The case was brought by Schlumberger on the grounds that the ideas that the patents sought to protect were already well known and in the public domain." One of the patents revoked, EP 1 256 019, was the general method patent on the use of CSEM for direct detection of hydrocarbons. Those with long memories will recall that OHM used to pay a license fee to the University of Southampton. Another, EP 1 309 887 was related to the general method. The company and in particular Lucy MacGregor were quite vocal about it. "OHM has stated for several years that the above patents were invalid and unenforceable (erm despite OHM paying the University a license fee and despite Ms MacGregor being an applicant for patent 887), especially given the long history of published prior academic research including notable works by Dr Lucy MacGregor, one of the founders of OHM. The decision of the UK Court confirms that OHM can continue to operate within UK patent jurisdictions. (Note the last bit). This is the first time the validity of these patents has been ruled on by a court. This decision by the respected UK court will serve as useful guidance in other jurisdictions. Lucy MacGregor, OHM's Chief Scientific Officer, said: 'We welcome legal clarification in line with our view of the situation. CSEM is a very valuable tool for oil and gas exploration. Too much time, effort and focus has been placed on dealing with emgs's now discredited patent claims rather than promoting the value of this technology to the industry. This decision will hopefully allow us all to get on with our mission of helping our clients improve their exploration success, without uncertainty, interference or threat of legal action from these claims.' But there's been a bit of a hitch. EMGS had the decision overturned on appeal with Schlumberger having to pay the costs with no further right of appeal. Here is Wednesday's announcement. Electromagnetic Geoservices ASA (EMGS) today reported that the Court of Appeal in London has ruled in favor of EMGS in a patent dispute launched by Schlumberger, where Schlumberger sought to invalidate two of EMGS's basic method patents. Today's decision overturns a ruling by the High Court in London handed down on 19 January 2009. Consequently, the two method patents are confirmed valid in the UK. EMGS has been awarded its costs of the appeal in full and majority of its costs at first instance, the total figure for which will be determined by the Court if not agreed between the parties. In the meantime, Schlumberger has been ordered to make an initial payment on account of these costs to EMGS of £2.3 million (USD 3.5 million). The Court of Appeal has refused Schlumberger permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Roar Bekker, EMGS chief executive officer, commented: "We welcome the decision by the Court of Appeal, which confirms that EMGS was the inventor of the marine EM method to detect hydrocarbon reservoirs beneath the seabed. "The commercial value of our patents is demonstrated through the fact that most of our contracts are won through direct award. Going forward, we expect that today's ruling will reinforce this trend and may also result in multi-client exclusivity in certain countries." EMGS has a broad portfolio of patents and patent applications relating to EM technology. The two EMGS method patents that were upheld in today's ruling by the Court of Appeal are basic to EM surveying and a prerequisite to perform 3D EM acquisition in jurisdictions where EMGS holds the patents. These patents have been granted in 24 jurisdictions. Commenting on today's decision and recent developments, Bjarte Bruheim, Chairman of EMGS's Board, said: "This decision provides further momentum for EMGS's 3D products and services. Recent developments, spearheaded by the PEMEX contract and underpinned by our advanced 3D EM technology and purpose-built vessels, demonstrates that the company is delivering on its strategy. "We will continue to manage our patent portfolio and defend our basic method patents in the interest of our shareholders and other stakeholders. Furthermore, EMGS is, as a part of its ongoing strategy to exploit fully the commercial potential created by our unique technology, reviewing the company's options with regard to licensing its technology to third parties." |
Posted at 21/11/2009 12:14 by robson1974 Excellent interview :-Back on the map: how Offshore Hydrocarbon Mapping found itself again 20 November 2009 Richard Cooper recently secured a $2.5m contract from a Chinese oil company to look for new discoveries in West Africa. While the new cash will undoubtedly be welcome, Cooper is equally keen to use the deal to help him begin rebuilding the reputation of a technology that has divided the oil and gas industry for many years. Since taking the reigns as chief executive of AIM-listed surveying specialist Offshore Hydrocarbon Mapping plc (OHM) in July, Cooper has been kept busy. Not only has he been forced to deal with eye-watering volatility in the oil and gas market, he has also needed to get the company's costs under control and breathe new life into the reputation of its flagship technology controlled source electro-magnetic (CSEM) surveying. Cooper acknowledges that while OHM has had to make some tough decisions in recent months, the exploration ambitions of its customers are beginning to grow and the company is now on a much surer footing to take advantage of interest in its technology. Integrated technology A geophysicist by training, Cooper headed up a seismic data specialist called Rock Solid Images for ten years before OHM acquired it in 2007. Throughout the turmoil of the last two years that traditional seismic and well data business has continued to prove resilient. It is the CSEM side that has proved more troublesome. The two companies first came together back in 2005 when they started collaborating on technology that blended seismic data, well data and CSEM data in order to get a much more accurate view of potential oil and gas discoveries. While traditional seismic and CSEM surveys achieve different results, the way the surveys are carried out is actually quite similar. Seismic surveys generally involve setting off an explosion either on land or in water and then measuring the sound waves as they bounce back from reflective layers in the earth. CSEM replaces the explosion with an electrical source that creates a giant electro-magnetic field which propagates through the earth and is then measured back up at the surface. As their integrated technology flourished, OHM opted to buy Rock Solid for £10.4 million in August 2007 in an effort to resolve the issue of who actually owned the technology. Cooper recalls that things became tough almost immediately after the acquisition, when the market's perception of CSEM data became obscured by over-aggressive hyping of the technology. "Back in 2002, when it came on the scene, CSEM was being promoted by some of the providers as almost like a magic bullet," he said. "You could acquire CSEM data over a proportion of the earth and it would immediately tell you if you had hydrocarbons or not and where they were. It tuned out that it is just not that simple the earth is a far more complicated place. "There were very high expectations, particularly in the investment community. I think the oil and gas industry was a little bit more sensible and willing to be convinced. But there were some very large forecasts made for the market size, which turned out to be not true." Unsurprisingly, the valuation of OHM and its competitors suffered badly and revenues fell away, leaving the company struggling to redress the situation. Cooper reckons that one of the main problems was that the CSEM technology was being promoted as an alternative to seismic data "It is really a very important companion technology to seismic," he said. "You use it to add value to seismic as opposed to replacing the seismic that's the way that we are pitching the technology now and that's how the oil companies are most comfortable using it." These days, Cooper's explanation of CSEM is simple. While seismic data struggles to find fluids (such as hydrocarbons) under the earth's surface, CSEM is much more capable. This means a joint-approach is very effective. "The beauty of integrating the two methods is in using the seismic data to give you the basic structural information," he said. "The question is then whether there is what engineers call a 'charge' is there a hydrocarbon charge at the location. You can use CSEM to answer that question with some degree of certainty. "It is an integrated strategy and I think that will be the way you see this technology evolving and used in the future." Modest goals While the reputation of CSEM data has been put under scrutiny in recent years, oil giants such as Exxon and Shell have continued to use the technology in their own oilfield analysis. Cooper points out that while oil majors can afford the capabilities to acquire, interpret and process the data in-house; the majority of companies need a specialist like OHM to fulfil the task. Indeed, he says the recent contract to work with the Chinese Bureau of Geophysical Prospecting (BGP) in Equatorial Guinea, West Africa will hopefully be "a very positive result" by offering short term revenues and the long-term benefit of rebuilding confidence in the CSEM method. The company has also fixed a long-term cash burn problem over its two sea-going vessels, the OHM Leader and OHM Express, by giving the vessel owner SeaTrans a stake in the company. In an unusual agreement for the industry, OHM is now using the vessels on a "pay-as-when-used" basis and is likely to enjoy easier negotiations with SeaTrans, which will be mindful of the longer-term value of its equity position in the company. "We are comfortable that we have been through the worst, we have got all the issues solved and are looking forward to a brighter future now," Cooper said. "Looking ahead, we have some modest goals. We treat every contract like gold and want to make sure that every customer turns into a real zealot; so that they like the technology, they are comfortable with it and they get a result. As with any business, you need to build that confidence." The good news is that with the new cost structure OHM can be selective about what it takes on with an eye for projects that offer the chance for good, long-term relationships. "That is the future of this technology to very much restore confidence and build its reputation," Cooper said. "After that, it depends on the size of the market you'll still hear a pretty wide spread of numbers up from a few hundred million to a couple of billion and we're probably somewhere in the middle of that. But first we need to get back onto the growth curve again." Ben Hobson, SmallCapNews.co.uk |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
