Brokers List Thread

Debug

unread,

Nov 30, 2012, 3:31:23 AM11/30/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

All, If I keep this thread frequently updated then you'll be kept up to date with the number of views of the spreadsheet and also access the useful links to charts and recent PR etc....I'll also keep Worldstocks updated a bit more than usual and feel free to copy and paste bits of the post on to LSE if it's needed/requested from time to time. I don't want to keep clogging up the LSE BB by re-posting this whole post many times a day because the format can't handle it and it will soon get tedious.

Friday 16th Nov 2012 output

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/50383/us-oil-and-gas-chief-remains-confident-of-flowing-nevada-wells-primary-pay-zones-50383.html

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/stocktube/1446/us-oil-gas-ceo-remains-confident-1446.html

http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/61003/view-top-us-oil-and-gas

Ocean.

scooter

unread,

Dec 11, 2012, 10:27:19 AM12/11/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

I notice that the "Some Recent PR" links only include positive PR. Would it be a good idea to balance the list with some of the recent adverse PR coverage?

fightfear

unread,

Dec 11, 2012, 10:38:25 AM12/11/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

No IMO. If it made any sense than I would by all means agree but balanced views is one thing and slander is another.

If I was creating a description of this company for yanks (which I may well do at some point) than I would no doubt mention the risks and negatives without trying to hide anything but what is currently available on the net cannot be classed as constructive and is simply out there to cause damage.

fightfear

unread,

Dec 11, 2012, 10:41:16 AM12/11/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

I agree with BTB - a website could be setup with all info for investors together in one place and that would IMO be the place to talk about risks and negatives to give a full picture of the situation (not links to articles/posts/blogs etc made by those with agendas)

scooter

unread,

Dec 11, 2012, 11:12:47 AM12/11/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

Sorry but who is BTB? And I don't understand why a website would be different to this group.

Of course there will be shareholders who argue that adverse PR is poorly researched or agenda-driven but those same arguments apply to much of the PR examples which have been listed here, some of which are paid for editorial, for example. Afaict, the 'agenda' is more obvious in the paid-for/sponsored articles and interviews than it is in the adverse articles I have seen.... by Tom Winnifrith and Wexboy, for example. What is their agenda?

By The Bay

unread,

Dec 11, 2012, 11:48:59 AM12/11/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

I am BTB and a web page would more than likely rank better in the search engines than the USOP Google Groups purely because you can add you own titles, headers and meta tags.

As for negative publicity, i would hardly call Winnifrith and Wexboy objective - it's not even journalism. It is designed purely with an agenda in mind. Winnifrith couldn't even get his facts straight and Wexboy is very selective and non-objective and both are very, very personal - not very objective imo. Like a few agenda-driven posters on the now defunct boards. PR-driven press is basically company-sanctioned and in-line with official new releases.

fightfear

unread,

Dec 11, 2012, 12:21:24 PM12/11/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

What BTB said

There is nothing wrong with talking about risks or negatives - quite the opposite. I think it could even help new investors making a decision to buy. Everyone should IMO have a full picture of the situation before they make their decision and if it's not provided by investors it will inevitably be twisted, taken out of context and turned into deramps by those who can profit from such activities (as we have all witnessed recently).

fightfear

unread,

Dec 11, 2012, 12:24:52 PM12/11/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

This is probably not the best thread to discuss this issue anyway IMO. It should be discussed elsewhere within the forum where it wouldn't clutter

scooter

unread,

Dec 11, 2012, 1:31:30 PM12/11/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

OK, I can see that a web page would have some advantages over a Google group - as long as it isn't hosted or policed by an individual or group who has an agenda of their own. What I am hoping to find is a balanced debate and since most/all of the information which has been posted here so far looks designed to present USOP as a screaming buy, I hope that the downside discussion is also encouraged - especially as we have just been given a reminder of the risks in the heavy fall in the share price.

As for Winnifrith and Wexboy, they certainly do have individual/personal writing styles but they also do a lot of research. Imho, it's a cop-out to accuse them of having a hidden agenda unless you can say what that agenda is. In the past, I have seen similar accusations aimed at anyone who dared to question USOP's prospects and it's just a way of sweeping the downside under the carpet.

And the problem with PR-driven/paid-for editorial coverage is that it never addresses the downside.

fightfear

unread,

Dec 11, 2012, 2:10:29 PM12/11/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

The downside would have been discussed if it wasn't for those who were deramping - it is them who made the boards what they are (or rather were).

Also - if something is a screaming buy than it is reasonable to expect that it will be portrayed as such as I'm sure you'd agree.

What is your nickname from iii/LSE? Are you invested? Have you ever been invested or traded this share?

dodger

unread,

Dec 12, 2012, 4:17:14 AM12/12/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

I can see both sides of this argument, in the past USOP holders have been criticised for being too optimistic and shouting down the nay sayers and consequently created their own troll following. Perversely would having anti USOP comments be enough to scare away potential investors.

Would it be a good thing to add Wexboy type links, my first thought was a definite no but on reflection it could be a refreshing change to see this type of negativity put into perspective, potential investors would be able to find them online anyway so it may be better to gently steer them in our direction.

One of the conversations recently used SWOT analysis as a considered route for investing (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats), i would imagine that the Threat aspect could use these overly negative blogs. These blogs are gradually being countered by the actions of the BOD and the credibility of the bloggers is being eroded to the extent of being virtually pointless so if these were the only aspects seen as Threats then Bobs your uncle!?!

Basically what i am saying is that in an open and balanced environment even the negative aspects can be changed into positivity if done in a clever way and further reassure potential investors to buy in.

Justin Profit

unread,

Dec 12, 2012, 5:02:10 AM12/12/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

Dodger

Not really sure I agree mate. If we're trying to 're-spin' the likes of the wexboy blog it's no different to the sort of manipulation the trolls love to use. For me the best way forward is to stick to the facts and in the absence of proper critique we have to be our own critics. We should use / highlight / discuss the mistakes that have been made as well as be open to discussion o and link to articles that show the downside of oil exploration, particularly in our region. There is room for this sort of critique and open discussion on the geology thread where the real dangers this investment faces could be discussed cordially.

That would create a proper balanced forum that really would provide a valuable read for those thinking of getting in as well as existing PI's.

By The Bay

unread,

Dec 12, 2012, 5:30:10 AM12/12/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

Aye, I doubt Wexboy or the pizza boy would agree to positive links on their sites.

dodger

unread,

Dec 12, 2012, 5:55:00 AM12/12/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

Are we talking about an information based webpage or a open forum? My thoughts are that a webpage that could reflect the current position would be the best initial research tool available as opposed to another forum.

I totally disagree with the Wexboy and Winnithrif tripe, purely on the basis that it is so vociferous, has no balance whatsoever and the agendas are so unclear/ unknown.

I agree 100% with JP in that we need to be more critical of ourselves, it's something that has only just started to happen and people feel more able to voice their concerns on the open forums due to the perceived lack of trolls (although it's been proved that they are here anyway!).

The 'screaming buy' that some would suggest we have here is far from it in my eyes, i have bought post price slump, i still have concerns as everybody should, however if funds were available to me i would buy more!

Boddi

unread,

Dec 13, 2012, 11:12:47 AM12/13/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

Greeting group....cheers debug for recruiting me chief of police, so no rif raf like rigs on here eh, you never know the trolls...lol...rip iii....nah let this forum be in usop best intention for moving forward with sensible discussion.....cheers debug and your twitter feed is genius.....peace everyone and roll on the ops start date.....

Boddi

unread,

Dec 13, 2012, 11:17:29 AM12/13/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

I reckon the program will commence in Jan.....I spoke with Jonathan yesterday but no news or rns is being penned at the moment,,,,but we never know......

Rigsuper

unread,

Dec 14, 2012, 2:42:34 AM12/14/12

to usop-...@googlegroups.com

Boddi ... hopefully you will get your information from this site now .... :o)

So now please stop texting me and phoning me .... theres a good chap .... hanging up the phone like I do ... always make me feel ignorant.

Thanks.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward