ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for discussion Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.

OHM Off. Hydro

5.25
0.00 (0.00%)
28 Mar 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Off. Hydro LSE:OHM London Ordinary Share GB0034272194 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 5.25 - 0.00 00:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
0 0 N/A 0

Offshore Hydrocarbon Mapping Share Discussion Threads

Showing 3001 to 3024 of 3075 messages
Chat Pages: 123  122  121  120  119  118  117  116  115  114  113  112  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
23/8/2010
17:23
As I say, there may be some truth in my piece but I don't know how much. Funny though how a number of people on here said the share price would necessarily climb to the higher placing price. It was a non sequitur that I'll be wary of in future.
gwr7
21/8/2010
12:02
GWR7 - interesting comments. Very useful to disect these things in retrospect.
bones30
21/8/2010
02:09
nice to read such analytical stuff GWR

I would imagine the only thing which might keep OHM going is the industry needing someone to keep EMGS 'honest' and stop EMGS or Sch/WG charging what they want for the remaining CSEM vessels

bonsoir7
20/8/2010
19:01
I can only guess why Seatrans and East Hill (formerly Landon Clay Associates) paid 21.52p a share when the market price was 8.5p.
I guess they were told the group wouldn't be able to cover the ship charter liabilities and was in danger of going under. For example they had a fixed charge of over £7m for operating lease agreements arising in the year 2009/2010 and dwindling cash. (This demonstrated the importance of reading annual reports right through as this nugget, or 'off balance sheet event' was tucked away at the end of the notes. I guess a few of us were startled at the scale of these future liabilities). OHM probably couldn't tap the market so went to existing partners and shareholders who must have agreed to inject the required capital to prevent the company going bust whilst keeping dilution to a minimum. It probably looked a sound deal at the time to Seatrans, swapping liability payments it might not receive for equity. As for East Hill 21.52p would have looked cheap compared to the 240p they paid for Pratt and MacGregor's shares two years earlier.
They must have been convinced the company's problems were in the past and their capital was safe. It was after the credit crunch and the High Court decision against EMGS, and the CSEM market was expected to grow. The reversal on appeal must have come as a surprise and I guess patent infringement proceedings against OHM, covering the jurisdictions the general method patent applies to, may begin. OHM have previously said they made changes to their technique to prevent infringement and EMGS previously pulled out of an earlier claim. Having read the judgement I think OHM will be looking for a nifty lawyer. It's possible there could be a settlement via a licensing fee but given the history between the two I'm not sure if that would pan out.
The Ernest dry hole must have come as a blow as it goes against Pratt's comments that CSEM results had de-risked Rockhopper's acreage, especially as the Sea Lion discovery was, as far as we know, made on seismic interpretation only. I was staggered by that result but fortunately my RKH shares were not dented. All guesswork, DYOR etc.

gwr7
20/8/2010
01:44
The thing that puzzles me here is the placing prices. GWR: any thoughts?
bones30
19/8/2010
09:34
Sorry to have been the bearer of bad news bones. You're a good guy and deserve better. Speaking of which I always thought OHM were the good guys and EMGS the baddies. I thought the patent officer Mr. Hayward had got it completely wrong when he took the patents off Univ. of Southampton and awarded them to EMGS and that view was backed up by the High Court. The reversal on appeal came as a big surprise but having read the records of the various proceedings I can see I had got it the wrong way around. Just shows what taking the word of a snake oil salesman can do to you. As well as being given the credit for first having the idea of using CSEM to find hydrocarbons it appears that the EMGS guys were considered the more reliable witnesses.
gwr7
18/8/2010
22:13
Yes, noted RKH today and the link.
bones30
18/8/2010
17:36
Yeah, amazed the share price has held up so well. The high profile duck egg OHM have laid over Rockhopper's Ernest prospect perhaps explains why EMGS gets the $150m repeat order from PEMEX while OHM gets breadcrumbs.
gwr7
18/8/2010
16:42
Unfortunately the CSEM did not do the trick for FOGL or RKH.
leighton denny
14/8/2010
21:20
This is a very insightful article from 2007 indicating that the EMGS guys were the first to come up with the idea of using CSEM to detect hydrocarbons.

It does rather look as though the University of Southampton were engaged in something tedious and academic before they latched on to the idea and somewhat cheekily patented it.
CSEM works (there's even a bit on how Rockhopper's acreage was significantly de-risked and hasn't that worked out!) but if you're backing OHM I'm afraid you're on the wrong horse.

gwr7
11/8/2010
19:30
Putting 2 and 2 together,
given OHM said:
"The decision of the UK Court confirms that OHM can continue to operate within UK patent jurisdictions."
and;
"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."
and the decision has been reversed,
and given EMGS said:
"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."

it follows that EMGS could initiate patent infringement claims.

gwr7
30/7/2010
09:32
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."

gwr7
29/7/2010
14:40
Oh my! Wonder when the penny will drop.
gwr7
19/7/2010
15:50
I have a question. Did the $3.3m fund raising from Sector Asset Management get approved? Does the recent statement mean they've burnt through the whole lot already? Or are they really going to use the $2.7m for R&D despite the cashflow issues? Seems nuts either way to me. Can't see Sector raising their stake above the 24% so where does that leave us?
wonder boy
16/7/2010
06:39
From DNX RNS today

Accelerating Drilling Targets through Seismic and CSEM Surveys across Key
Exploration Areas

Good progress is being made offshore Morocco. Following the discovery of the
Anchois gas field, with Dana's first well offshore Morocco in 2009, the
joint-venture group, led by Repsol, has recently acquired 1,336 sq km of 3D
seismic and has also acquired 3D controlled source electromagnetic surveys
(CSEM). These new data sets cover the majority of the significant number of
identified prospects and leads within the Tanger-Larache concession and will be
used to rank the most attractive prospects for drilling in mid 2011. The 2011
exploration programme currently comprises a firm exploration well plus a
contingent exploration well and also a contingent drill stem test on the
Anchois-1 well, which was suspended for future use following the 130 billion
cubic feet gas discovery.

robson1974
15/7/2010
21:49
"A 30% markdown on piddling volume ! On past performance if they need to raise equity I expect it will be at around 15p and the share price will be marked up again on equally low volume. Also given that their sales are more than doubling year on year and as they don't have the muscle to manage it they remain an attractive takeover target."

?????

acm434
15/7/2010
21:49
"A 30% markdown on piddling volume ! On past performance if they need to raise equity I expect it will be at around 15p and the share price will be marked up again on equally low volume. Also given that their sales are more than doubling year on year and as they don't have the muscle to manage it they remain an attractive takeover target."

?????

acm434
12/7/2010
06:39
emgs
not London listed?

andrbea
07/7/2010
09:05
I did wonder if it was old ally Statoil helping EMGS out with the massive $150m dollar contract but it is PEMEX. EMGS is certainly forging ahead and as I said earlier it's worth holding them as well as OHM.

EMGS signs largest ever marine 3D EM contract with PEMEX
Reference is made to the stock exchange release dated 19 June 2010 and titled "EMGS awarded largest ever marine 3D EM contract".
Electromagnetic Geoservices ASA (EMGS) is pleased to announce that it has today signed a multi-year contract worth a minimum of USD 150 million with PEMEX, one of the world's largest national oil companies.
The work program, which is located in the Mexican sector of the Gulf of Mexico, consists of approximately 30 deep water 3D EM surveys. Data acquisition will be performed using the purpose-built 3D EM vessel BOA Thalassa, with mobilization towards the end of August.
As previously communicated, EMGS anticipates that the contract will generate 2010 revenues in the range of USD 20 - 25 million, and that the remaining contract value will be recognised in 2011 and 2012.
Roar Bekker, EMGS chief executive officer, commented:
"As a repeat customer, we are proud that PEMEX has made this commitment to EMGS, and we look forward to working closely with PEMEX to ensure that this customer receives all the value that 3D EM technology can deliver. We are confident that our 3D EM data will create significant value within PEMEX's portfolio and, consequently, will support its efforts to improve the reserves replacement ratio offshore Mexico."

mr macgregor
02/7/2010
13:25
Electromagnetic Geoservices ASA (EMGS) has been awarded a USD1 million contract
to provide marine EM services for independent oil and gas company EnQuest. This
is the first time EMGS has worked with EnQuest, which focuses on production and
development on the UK Continental Shelf.

Roar Bekker, EMGS chief executive officer, commented, "We are pleased that
EnQuest has provided us with this exciting opportunity which will help to
strengthen our UK Continental Shelf experience."

robson1974
01/7/2010
22:54
i dunno just idle speculation
robson1974
01/7/2010
21:57
Robson is there a clue there somewhere...
bangers for bucks
30/6/2010
23:36
note from GCM thread Bangladesh today announced shelving of gas exploration in the Bay of Bengal due to discussions with India

that is massive news (Banlges are massively short power/gas)

may explain the geopolitical issues OHM have had? dunno there are similar disputes everywhere around the world

robson1974
29/6/2010
11:37
Sitting duck for a Ta i would have thought.Why pay 2 million for a bit of work when you cvan buy the whole company for 6 millions? Could bee the ideal purchase for Falkland companies.
borderriever
Chat Pages: 123  122  121  120  119  118  117  116  115  114  113  112  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock