Will this hawk fly?

1st Dec '08 by Stocktaculous

63 comments 12982 reads

Just getting up to speed on this stock but here's what I know so far:

Joined AIM in March 2007. US-focused hydrocarbon production and development company. It has interests in seven projects in the US, all of which are operated by Running Foxes Petroleum, its co-shareholder in each project.
Of the seven projects in which it holds significant interests ranging from 50% to 80%, four are now in production, Jolly Ranch, Devon Oilfield, Cisco Springs and Centurion. The company is also hoping that some of its Buchanan Group projects will soon also reach production status.
Nighthawk raised £14 million in January 08 to fund development drilling on the Jolly Ranch oil project in Colorado. Jolly Ranch is apparently home to multiple stacked targets that could hold more than 100 million barrels of oil. The acreage is said to be productive as it is home to the shut-in Bolero and Craig Ranch oilfields, which were abandoned by previous operators BHP and Anshultz during the oil price slump of the 1990s.
Its Centurion project in Kansas has only recently started production. Nighthawk holds a 50% interest in the15,000 acre project. In its operational update in November, the company said its Franklin 13-6 well had been placed on production at a restrained rate of 80 barrels of oil per day after encountering excellent live oil shows.

What's everyone reckon? Could this be the making of the Colorado Hillbillies?

Unlock with Email

Unlock with Google

Already have an account?
Login here

About the Author

Stocktaculous

Premium Member

63 comments

marben100

6th Oct '09

...and how does Monday's announcement stack up against this, from June 2008, 16 months ago? : http://fool.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200806030700037855V.html

As announced on 26 February 2008, four injector wells have already been drilled and cased in a four-spot pattern. A further 20 injector wells are currently being drilled and will be added to the production facilities.

The expanded waterflood injection and design is expected to take between four and twelve months. This will involve observing the effects of waterflooding, fluid migration paths and reservoir production characteristics.

Where are the "observations of the effects of waterflooding"?

David Bramhill, Managing Director of Nighthawk stated 'The planned development strategy of the Company is on course and Devon is now our second project to be brought to production status. I am confident that further of our development projects will move into production over the next twelve months.'

And in September 2008: http://fool.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200809180700097035D.html

Regarding Buchanan, neighbouring Devon

An average of three wells per week are currently being drilled to take advantage of good weather. To date, six wells have been perforated, put on pilot primary production (without water injection) and are flowing at rates of 1 to 2 barrels per day (BOPD) and approximately 30,000 cubic feet of gas per day in aggregate. The other wells drilled will be put on primary production in the near future. Once the waterflood process has been completed, production per well is expected to increase significantly, typically by between two and ten times over that seen under primary production.

A gas distribution line has been connected to a third party tap for the sale of gas. An extensive gathering system is planned to be constructed by Nighthawk and Running Foxes and will be designed to accommodate the wells within the Buchanan Group project areas.

And on Devon:

The field is presently producing at a combined total rate of between 6 and 15 barrels of oil per day. The field has produced approximately 660 barrels of oil and in excess of 180,000 cubic feet of gas to date. The waterflood injection process is ongoing and on completion, each well is expected to increase production by a factor of between two and ten times over that seen on primary production. Currently, each of the four current injector wells is injecting at a rate of 10 barrels of water per day and a further five injectors have been drilled and are expected to be operational during October 2008. An additional 15 injectors are in the process of being permitted.

Since those RNSs, I have not seen any statements confirming that Nighthawk has managed any material, sustained production.

I am astonished that Nighthawk's remaining shareholders are prepared to put up with this lack of delivery against promises and absence of information on waterflooding progress.

Mark

Fangorn

8th Oct '09

Just in from those chaps at GE&CR on Nighthawk Energy

Nighthawk Energy* – Annual Results. Stance Maintained at Strong Buy with Increased 227p Target Price.

Releasing its annual results for the 12 months to 30th June 2009 on October 7th, Nighthawk is transparent in its strategy of sacrificing short-term production for a responsible and focused development programme aimed at maximising overall shareholder value. Having said that, the company increased revenues by 258% to US$497,876, and reduced its pre-tax loss by 42% to US$2.0 million in a challenging economic environment which produced volatile oil and gas prices.

Key projects: The Jolly Ranch group of projects in Colorado and the Revere group of projects traversing Kansas and Missouri are now the undoubted stars in Nighthawk’s portfolio.

Financially, Nighthawk reported higher revenue of US$497,876 (US$138,998 in 2008), lower administrative expenses of US$2.5 million (US$3.3 million in 2008) and, as a consequence, a lower pre tax loss of US$1.7 million (US$2.5 million in 2008) and loss per share of 55 cents (134 cents in 2008). The company remained debt free and although its net cash position was down significantly at the 30th of June 2009 (US$5.9 million compared with US$21.2 million at 30th June 2008), the aforementioned August 2009 placing leave the company’s current net cash position at $40 million.

After incorporating the increased resources estimated at Buchanan, we have increased our target price by 7p to 227p and, with the shares at 38.25p, we maintain our recommendation of strong buy.

Nothing new info wise I suspect, but interested to see the stance and valuation.

AbAngus

8th Oct '09

I think I understand the reasons why so many people are doubtful about HAWK. They are:

RNS's that consistently avoid giving important info like production figures or reserves
A 'jam tomorrow' feel going all the way back to when Cisco was the bright hope (JR and the waterflood projects now provide the hope value)
A rather cosy relationship with Steve Tedesco and Running Foxes

Nonetheless, I remain long on HAWK - albeit with only a smallish sum. This may be because (1) I have a tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt (rude people would say that I am gullible) (2) I sympathise with contrarians. In the case of HAWK, I disagree with those who see it is another FRR. My arguments are that:

HAWK cannot attribute reserves (or indeed meaningful production figures) until they have discovered how much oil they can actually get out of the ground - either by waterflood (Revere) or by horizontal drilling (Jolly Roger)
They have 1.5 bn bbls STOOIP (independantly verified).
I see no evidence of any actual impropriety with Running Foxes. One might argue that the sale of Centurion to Osceola (another Bramhill company) looked a little neat - but who is to say it is not in both company's interests?
They have sufficient funds for their plans and no debt.
They are actually doing a lot of work and quite fast (unlike FRR)
They have made no secret of wanting to be bought out

Both the gullible and contrarian sides of me tell me that the risk/reward balance is worthy of a punt. But I will not be surprised to be wrong (again).

doverbeach

8th Oct '09

In reply to AbAngus (post #46)

I see no evidence of any actual impropriety

oh I agree. But it smell bad. The way their "great white hope" changes each year. The long and complicated RNSs that omit the details about production that we actually want to know. The fact that Running Foxes are making a fortune from all the drilling. The way they did a placing at the appaling price of 20p late last year despite having a portfolio of blue chip shares that they could have sold.

AbAngus

8th Oct '09

In reply to DB (post #47)

But it smell bad

When I lived in Alabama I was dumbfounded to find genuine fox urine for sale in small bottles. One man's smell is another's hunting camouflage! But I am damn sure that if I ever tried wearing it, all I would do is frighten any game for miles - not to mention the wife. Smells, I agree, are usually best left alone.

marben100

8th Oct '09

Having said that, the company increased revenues by 258% to US$497,876, and reduced its pre-tax loss by 42% to US$2.0 million in a challenging economic environment which produced volatile oil and gas prices

Personally, I find a statement like this outrageous hype. Whilst the cost reduction is creditable, revenues of < $0.5m are entirely immaterial to a company with a market cap.of £135m.... and HAWK have not even deigned to publish how many boe were actually produced over the course of the year. Given the low revenue figure, it presumably wasn't very many. I was gobsmacked at the gullibility of those posting elsewhere comments along the lines of "wonderful results". I did not find anything of substance whatsoever in these results

Similarly (in the headlines of the results themselves):

Non-current assets increased by 60% from US$47.00 million to US$75.18 million

How did this increase come about? Well, we'll have to wait for the notes in the AR to find out, but usually this increase simply represents the cash pumped into their properties (e.g. by explo drilling). Incidentally, that also means that the trumpeted cost reduction is pretty immaterial too. Whether that cash has actually created any REAL value remains to be seen. Shareholders will only know when production figures are published, an independent valuation is made (NOT an estimate of STOOIP), a genuine arms-length asset sale takes place OR an impairment charge is taken if the fields turn out not to be commercial.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, Nighthawk's RNSs from over a year ago indicated that results from Revere waterflooding should have been visible quite some time ago. Yet we have heard nothing about the success or otherwise of the this process. If it had been successful, surely Nighthawk would have been shouting it from the rooftops? What on earth is actually going on at Revere, after all this time?

Similarly, the most recent concrete production information we have had concerning JR has been this, from March: http://fool.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200903260700185048P.html , back in March

1,088 bbl/d achieved from seven wells during testing on Jolly Ranch Project

The miniscule revenue numbers (as that's all we have to go on) clearly indicate that this production has not been sustained. Why not? If it could be sustained, HAWK could be generating revenues of more than $60,000/DAY at current oil prices, which could fund substantial work - and clearly demonstrate the commercial viability of the project. Instead, HAWK has repeatedly gone to the market for more funds.

I cannot argue with anyone taking a small "punt" on the (IMO) slim chance that any of HAWK's projects are commercially viable. I'd suggest that anyone committing more than that looks dispassionately at the evidence that HAWK's RNSs provide and, in particular, at the data one would exoect to see based on foregoing RNSs, which is so patently absent. There are plenty more inconsistencies than those I have quoted so far.

Remember 1bn bbls of STOOIP is worth zilch if it cannot be produced economically.

This bit takes the biscuit:

Nighthawk, together with its partner Running Foxes, has drilled over 250 commercial wells during the past two years spread over the whole portfolio of projects. As reported to shareholders in my statement last year, ongoing evaluation of the results obtained from these projects both in-house and, more importantly from a validation point of view, independently from external consultants, Schlumberger and OPC, demonstrate the difference in scalability and the range of resource and potential future production.

The directors' belief in Jolly Ranch and Revere has been confirmed independently and in the case of Jolly Ranch we are of the opinion following the findings of the Schlumberger report, that we have the makings of a future world-class project.

WHERE IS THE MATERIAL PRODUCTION FROM THOSE 250 WELLS? [which have cost, what, upwards of $50m to drill?] Without material production, how can HAWK claim the wells are "commercial"?

The only "independent confirmation" I have seen Nighthawk publish* is of STOOIP which, as I've pointed out, says NOTHING about the commerciality of the find.

*Apart from reserves relating to Cisco, which HAWK seems to find reasons not to bring on-stream and generate cash from either.

Mark

djpreston

9th Oct '09

One of the main problems with HAWK is that the company has got itself into somewhat of a bind and now has a "reputation". No one Ive spoken to has a bloody clue what the hel the company is producing from where and at what rates. The RNS flow has been so inconsistent that no one now trusts them and until they see revenues being built up in the accounts then they wont.

The only course of action for the company is to publish a well by well report detailing what well was drilled, where and when, its purpose (injection/flodding/production etc) and what IP, decline etc rates have been.

If they can do that then they can start to rebuild some trust.

marben100

9th Oct '09

Further to my post #39, I see that Nighthawk's Annual Report is now available on their website.

It confirms the point I made about the trumpeted gain in assets. The ~$28m gain in non-current assets comprises:

$2.2m purchase of land holdings (note 9)
$7.8m net spent on plant and equipment (note 9)
$20.1m increase in intangibles (note 10)
$1.8m decrease in value of "available for sale financial assets", or which $0.6m arises through forex differences and another $0.6m due to mark-to-market writedowns, so in $ terms, HAWK has LOST over $1m by not selling those assets as db suggested (assuming that the previously quoted figure was realistically marked-to-market).

AFAICS the increase in intangibles arises solely as a result of exploration expenditure (see "Exploration costs" under "Principal Accounting Policies", p25 of the AR)... and assumes that all that expenditure results in commercially successful wells - which Nighthawk has not so far demonstrated. Last year, $0.3m of impairment was taken, presumably as a reuslt of unsuccessful exploration. The lack of impairment this year implies that all the expenditure is considered commercially successful by management. It remains to be seen whether it is or not.

So, why has Nighthawk made the first headline of their preliminary results?:

Non-current assets increased by 60% from US$47.00 million to US$75.18 million

Why is that something to boast about?

muckshifter

29th Oct '09

I have questions for any “oilmen” on this board, who know about waterflood projects.

The time taken to see the step change in production predicted for the waterflood project troubles me. It seems to be taking much longer than anticipated in the company’s early predictions and makes me wonder why, and why the slow progress has not been explained. Initially when it seemed to be taking longer than predicted, I wondered if it might be down to the configuration of the well patterns, because there will obviously be an “edge effect” where the outer water injection wells will also be pushing oil away from the “square”. This effect would obviously be minimised as the number of wells back to back increases, and I came to the conclusion that this would be a relatively short term and predictable (and therefore presumably accounted for in the original prediction) delay.

So my concern is that there may not be a good enough seal beneath the oil (or even above), and I’m hoping that someone here will have seen enough well records from done so far in that area, to reassure me that this isn’t the case.

As I see it, the thickness, porosity, oil content, oil viscosity, etc, of the reservoir should be well understood using sampling at every well point by now, so provided the seal above and below the reservoir is intact, the behaviour of the reservoir should be predictable with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The fact that it isn’t following predictions, and that no explanation has been offered, makes me curious about the seal, and I would be grateful for any information about the consistency of the sealing layers in this part of the US, and opinions on this or other likely causes of delay.
Regards

AbAngus

29th Oct '09

In reply to Muckshgifter (post 52 above)

If it is of any use, I talked to the company a couple of weeks ago - and asked about the waterflood and why more details had not been published. The reply was that there were so many different wells at different stages of production/waterflooding that it would be difficult to itemise. They confirmed that they were entirely happy with the progress and it was all performing as expected.

muckshifter

29th Oct '09

Thanks for the response AbAngus.
Unfortunately I find the answer they gave you a bit opaque. Although different wells will obviously be at different stages of the process, they will clearly have been done in a pre arranged pattern, which should mean that the full waterflood effect should be clear in the early wells, IMHO. But this is not apparent from production info AFAICS, and has not been confirmed by NH.

The other point is that surely there has been a significant change in expectations, from those published long ago, which means that without explanation of those changed expectations, or detailed confirmation that the full effect has been seen in the earliest wells, "all performing as expected" doesn't mean much.
Regards.

AbAngus

29th Oct '09

Reply for MS (above) -

I understand your anxieties. Why not give David Bramhill a call and ask him direct? He has always been very approachable to me. The company number is: 0117 917 5204

Have fun,

AA

djpreston

30th Oct '09

I understand your anxieties. Why not give David Bramhill a call and ask him direct? He has always been very approachable to me. The company number is: 0117 917 5204

Indeed he has. This has beena characteristic Ive not liked about HAWK, the willingness of the management to brief and "clarify" investors whilst leaving the market still confused - something about which the brokers (and company) are well aware and yet they still cant/wont clear it up.

monkeynuts

13th Nov '09

Hi, I have added some thoughts in a new article here - http://www.stockopedia.com/article/view/33233/nighthawk-energy-the-good-ol-us-of-a . Strikes me as pretty interesting at the moment.

doverbeach

13th Nov '09

Strikes me as one to be avoided! See marben's and my comments on what seems to me to be a very misleading article.

db

marben100

16th Mar '10

I have come across some extraordinary posts which have been made on ADVFN, which I reproduce here, for the information of any investors with any interest in Nighthawk:

Saxoil - 15 Mar'10 - 15:58 - 89562 of 89792

Hi you all!!!

We find it always amusing how someone like steady6 or Timinator can take a mere statement and twist it into something it is not. There are a number of people who are on this blog who seem to have the sole purpose of tearing things down.

It is always fascinating to me is that when people visit the projects they have no issues and they go away feeling like everything is above board and proceeding. Just recently, the new auditors and a group of brokers visited Jolly et al and were very satisfied. What’s a matter steady6, Timinator and Escondido are you all mad because you have not been invited to see the projects?

Okay, so to clear up some things in the later 90s, Huntford was formed by a group of Canadians based out of Toronto with ST. It was private and never went public. Most notably of the investors was Pierre Lassonde who ran Franco-Nevada which at some point took over Newmont Mining. Huntford raised money just as the Bre X scandal hit and instead of raising $3M (US) raised $1.5M (US). They had three properties which resulted in one dry hole and two gas discoveries. The gas discoveries were not commercial at the time because gas prices were below a $1.00.

At some point Soho Resources run by Ralph Shearing, then and now, at the request of Lassonde, showed up to talk to Huntford looking to merge. Soho still does have a gold vein deposits in Mexico that is interesting but is not a real company maker. Gold had cratered the year or so before because of Bre X. The deal between Huntford and Soho was that a property be put into Huntford, that Huntford and Soho be carried through the first well and then Soho would raise monies to pay its way. A property called Quest in the Uinta Basin was put into the company by ST for no consideration and three gas wells were drilled. They were completed right as gas peaked at $8. Soho raised monies to cover the drilling and completions costs. At one point Ralph and ST were co-Presidents but Ralph ran the company and had all the books. ST never had signature authority. The reason ST was co-president was that an oil and gas guy was needed in the upper management and Ralph was a mining guy. Brokers wanted to see that someone had experience in the industry. Gas subsequently cratered to $0.50 in six months and Soho could no longer raise money. Meanwhile Soho and Huntford were merging. Soho’s board was basically Huntford’s board. ST was the only original member of Huntford’s board left. The original Canadians in Huntford had long disappeared. Because of gas price collapse and the fact that ST had to operate the property under his own name suddenly he was owed $2M (US) by Soho\Huntford.

It became clear that Ralph could no longer raise monies for gas projects. Typical boom and bust market. So ST resigned from Soho and Huntford’s board and enforced the penalty clauses under the Operating Agreement. These are standard in all operating agreements. So within 90 days after ST resigned Soho\Huntford were out of the property. They made no effort to pay their bills but waved their arms in the air and threatened all sorts of legal action. By the way, these documents are all filed in the Denver County and Uintah County offices.

If Soho could not file its necessary documents that probably was more due to the fact that Soho was in a lawsuit over its Mexican property. The original owner of the Mexican property was suing to take it back and that legitimately affected the 43-101 document filed with the Vancouver securities exchange.

In terms of Admiral Bay, sorry it gives you shivers steady6, maybe after you get fired from your present job; see below, that broom stick up ass will be of more concern. Mark Brennan who previously was the President of Admiral Bay came to ST looking for properties, specifically in coal bed methane. He bought five of them from ST and then a month later asked ST to operate them. Basically Brennan is a broker out of Toronto who operates several small companies such as Largo, Apogee, Consolidated Thompson, etc. He and a guy named Bharti love to pump and dump all day long. There are 18 companies in his offices. So he asked ST to run the properties. Which was fine, except Brennan could never raise enough money. Finally, ST who had a 10% working interest in the properties was owed $2M, offered to sell his interest to help raise monies and recover monies owed. Brennan raised the monies but spent most of it elsewhere. At that point several US institutions which were and some still are in ADB gave ST and Brennan two choices, ST take over and run the company or if ST left they would blow out the stock and sue Brennan for fraud. Macquarie was waiting in the wings but would not loan ADB monies as long as Brennan and the other Canadians were there. They had vetted ST and found no issues. They had vetted Brennan and Bharti and had a lot of issues. Also Brennan had caused ADB a lot of legal fees defending against lawsuits because of basically incompetence. It involved properties in Mexico, Ontario and Chautauqua County, Kansas. Brennan is being sued today by ADB for funds that he walked out of the door with.

Let’s discuss the sad case of Neal Farley. I forget what his handle on this blog was but he sits or should I say was sitting in Romania working for Epstein. In January and February, Mr. Farley became overly aggressive and started emailing DB and ST directly making a number of accusations. He also had some reasonable questions.

One of those was why was there a discrepancy between the test flow rate at the 16-1 and production. A test flow rate is exactly what it is stated to be, a test flow rate. Actual production is always different. If a company chooses to put out the test flow rate then the reader needs to understand it does not reflect actual production. In shale plays the test rates typically are misleading. The test rates in any play are misleading unless length of time of the test is announced. This is in answer to one of Mr. Farley’s more reasonable requests while he was abusive.

Regardless, after an especially vile email, ST filed a complaint with Epstein about Mr. Farley. Mr. Farley was using the company email address on company time. Essentially the company becomes a coconspirator. He was very naughty boy. It turns out that Mr. Farley had actually been terminated 1st of February for cause and given 60 day notice. Epstein profusely apologized and begged not to be sued. The downside for Mr. Farley is that ST\RFP have not concluded whether it’s worth it or not in going after Epstein and Mr. Farley and thus make Mr. Farley’s next job problematic. Probably starting a new career in janitorial industry for example.

So steady6, we have your IP address and a court order is in the works to find out who you are. So once we know that we will be contacting you and your employer. If you own your own business or retired you are just as liable. So do you want to apologize now or do you want your employer do it for you along with some greenbacks? By the way ADVN will sell who you are for a mere pittance. Might want to remember that.

Maybe we should set our sights on Escondido since he is in the US. What do you think?

It is really sad when there are people who just do not have any intent other then to destroy people’s reputations or what they are doing. The Jolly Ranch project is potentially a world class shale play, or it could be an average shale play or it could not work at all. Regardless it took 20+ years for the Barnet to be developed, 100+ for the Marcellus, over five for the Bakken, seven for the Fayetteville, etc. Hopefully it won’t that long. The Haynesville took two years but now it very uneconomic and probably is not working even with the best of prices. The Niobrara has had a recent dramatic resurgence and it was discovered in the 80s. So we plan to be patient and get our work done. The Jolly Ranch project has two small companies making a herculean effort of creating a shale play with limited resources when compared to the likes of CHK, NOG, EOG, RRC, XOM, etc. The project is making commercial hydrocarbons with some of the wells. Maybe all of you should go out on holiday for six months. It would make life less stressful.

Nils214 - 16 Mar'10 - 16:43 - 89877 of 89889

chavi, the sp certainly responded to February's rns, a point which I raised with the BoD, and which I raised on this bb. The market did not receive what it expected and the sp was hammered. There are 330mln shares in issue, very small %age of which read this bb, so I think undue credit is given to info on here and the resultant sp. (that's my opinion). Only when the market decides the news is good and the company is moving in the correct direction will the sp move north. This means production figures moving up from here, beginning with the March release of the final results to Dec 31st 2009 with an update for latest production in Jan and Feb and possibly even latest news from the coalface during March, or maybe that will be in a subsequent rns' shortly after the full results, but not too long after in order to keep the market happy.

imho Constant newsflow is now required and strategy has to focus on the delivery of production for the market to be impressed. Peter has cried wolf too many times and now the market is tired of predictions and will only listen to results. I also informed the BoD of this as my evaluation of the market's opinion of NH. I do not consider that to be abusive or anything else. I also stated to the BoD that the market and bb posters were viewing the rns' as lies, I never stated that they were lies. I also asked the BoD where had the money gone, the 60% of the funding raised even though only 25% of the drilling programme has been completed (as many had noted on this bb). I do not consider that as an accusation of misappropriation of funds, I consider it as a concerned shareholder raising issues that were not clear in the broker's report. To date I have not received clarification concerning the cashflow out, and I hope to see this in the final accounts. I am sure there is a logical explanation, and DS commented that the $18mln is sufficient to complete the drilling programme...and I would believe that they got their information from NH, so it must be true :-)

With regards to saxoil's post, he can only have received information from NH/RF, so it is somebody within either of those organisations, and as he clearly posts from a US driller perspective, I believe that Saxoil is ST, which makes it all the sadder that he is spending time on here having to defend his reputation, which should normally speak for itself. If ST has a personal beef with me he could have contacted me direct, like a man, not like a snake, he has my email, if he thought I had offended him in any private email to him he could have asked for an apology. People who know me and have had something to say off board can confirm that if I have mistakenly offended them I am always prepared to issue an apology. Now ST's letter to my employer was the lowest of the low, and I believe that he is a God fearing Christian, so on that basis if he has any sins they will be punished in this life or the next.

With regards to anybody else's comments about myself, do not post what you do not know. There are too many uninformed unintelligent posters on these bb's who wouldn't know a sucker rod from a pipe cleaner! and they would be best off reading, not writing!!

have a good evening

Regards,

Mark

djpreston

16th Mar '10

In reply to marben100 (post #59)

Cheers for that Mark - bleeding Norah - what fun to watch from the sidelines eh?

djpreston

17th Mar '10

In reply to djpreston (post #60)

I see Mark's post above has been reported for misinformation. How is posting two posts from ADVFN misinformation?

This just gets more and more bizarre with every passing day.

Murakami

17th Mar '10

Hi, we will look into it and revert.

marben100

17th Mar '10

I'd just like to record my thanks to the moderators and advise that the deleted portion of the post originally made by "Saxoil" is considered by some to be libellous.

I would like to stress that I in no way condone what was written but that I wished to highlight what someone who appears to have intimate knowledge of Nighthawk & ST's track record ,and appears to support the company, considers reasonable to post and reasonable action to take. I have also highlighted one contrary response to the post. Naturally there is a much more extended debate about this, the company and its behaviour on the ADVFN thread and I'd refer anyone with a serious interest to that thread: http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=13981890

I would like to apologise to the complainant for any offence caused and would urge the complainant to take the matter up with ADVFN and with "saxoil".

Regards,

Mark

Will this hawk fly?

Unlock the rest of this article with a 14 day trial

About the Author

Stocktaculous

63 comments

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...