Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter

IGAS Share Chat - RSS Feed

Igas Energy Share Chat (IGAS)



Share Price: 53.00Bid: 53.25Ask: 53.75Change: 3.75 (+7.61%)Riser - Igas Energy
Spread: 0.50Spread as %: 0.94%Open: 49.50High: 56.25Low: 51.75Yesterday’s Close: 49.25


Share Discussion for Igas Energy (IGAS)


Thread ViewThread View
Please Login or Register to post messages
Posts per page:


jollyspeculator
Posts: 14,915
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:53.00
taste
Today 21:54
best possible
 
DiviLike
Posts: 27
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:53.00
View Thread (3)
RE: for bluffers
Today 21:08
One more: http://tinyurl.com/mzwv5mo

Ps. I hope you realise this is all in good humour :)
DiviLike
Posts: 27
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:53.00
View Thread (3)
RE: for bluffers
Today 21:03
Urgh, a philosopher.
This is an excellent summary of philosophy: http://tinyurl.com/qaf5zxg (I agree with everything he says except the religious bits)

Aaaaaaanyway, this is off topic :)
Let's not continue this here. Would be fun though. Hehe
jollyspeculator
Posts: 14,915
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:53.00
View Thread (3)
for bluffers
Today 20:55
From Plato

The realization that we do not experience reality as it is, but only a picture of reality constructed in the mind, is not new. In The Republic, Plato argued that the objects we perceive are not the ultimate reality, but more like a shadow of reality. He illustrated this with his analogy of "The Cave".

Although Plato believed the real world was a world of ideas and eternal perfect forms, his story is still pertinent to our own experience. Most of us assume that the sights and sounds we perceive are the "real world". When science inform us that we are not seeing reality as it is, but merely the images that manifests in our minds, we shrug in disbelief. How can that be? How can the world that I experience so clearly as "out there", be just an image in the mind?

To Kant

The notion that reality is "all in the mind" resurfaces repeatedly in modern philosophy. The person who is generally regarded has having made the greatest contributions in this area was the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Building on the work of Berkeley and Locke, Kant drew a clear distinction between our perception of reality and the actual object of perception. His key insight was the realization that all we ever know are the structures generated in our minds; the world that gives rise to this perception, what he termed "the thing-in-itself", remains forever unknowable.

All we can ever know, propsed Kant, is how reality appears to us -- what he referred to as the phenomenon of our experience, "that which appears to be". The underlying reality he called the noumenon, a Greek word meaning “that which is apprehended", the thing perceived.

Kant's statement that the noumenon is forever unknowable should be interpreted as forever inexperiencable. The mind is forever barred from a direct knowing of the thing-in-itself. This does not imply that we cannot understand it, or form concepts about it, which is what modern science sets out to do.

Because all we ever know is the product of the mind operating on the raw sensory data, Kant reasoned thatour experience is as much a reflection of the nature of the mind as it is of the physical world. This led him to one of his boldest, and at that time most astonishing, conclusions of all. Time and space, he argued, are not inherent qualities of the physical world; they are a reflection of the way the mind operates, the perceptual framework within which our entire experience of the world is constructed.

It seems absolutely obvious to us that time and space are real and fundamental qualities of the physical world, entirely independent of my or your consciousness -- as obvious as it seemed to people five hundred years ago that the sun moves round the earth. This, said Kant, is only because we cannot see the world any other way. The human mind is so constituted that it is forced to impose the framework of space and time on the raw
jollyspeculator
Posts: 14,915
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:53.00
Divilike
Today 20:51
causation is tough philosophical area...we can never know the underlying reality (read some Kant..in English if you have to...just appearances (read Plato)

...science is misnamed and has mislead scientists to reckon they know...when they can only speculate and test their speculations by experiment...and then only to falsify..never to prove (read Popper)

...nothing is certain

...nothing is most

..connect serenely to The Infinite Nothing
DiviLike
Posts: 27
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:53.00
View Thread (2)
RE: Re: Dead in the Water
Today 20:41
I'm afraid I'm unable to suffer fools who show an ineptitude for science (my field). Iancrane, you scientifically illiterate fool. You should learn the difference between correlation and cause and why one shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. Here's an exerpt from a book I have which should help you:

"Another problem is that a statistical correlation between two events can simply be a coincidence. A sophisticated statistical study by Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein citing figures from 141 countries found that the larger the percent of its gross national product a country spends on weapons, the higher is its infant death rate. Woolhandler and Himmelstein concluded that there is a plausible link between military spending and the infant death rate: “Our findings confirm what many have suspected – that militarism is deleterious to health even in the absence of overt hostilities”. However, critics questioned whether their finding represents anything more than a coincidence. Dr. John Bailar, a statistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, said that the same statistical approach could be used to show a causal link between infant mortality and the consumption of bananas. He questioned whether statistical correlation between two things, in cases like these, is a reason to
conclude that one thing causes the other."

Ps. Could you point us to the peer reviewed research which found the birth defects and cancer mortality figures please? Obviously you can't because it never happened!
Berghaus
Posts: 222
Answer
Opinion:Strong Buy
Price:53.00
View Thread (3)
RE: 3420p SP in 5 years
Today 20:23
Good post DTH. And I am glad you can see the same thing I can; an insanely cheap share with a colossal promise in the near future. The fact that Ineos are prepared to sink £640 million into shale tells you they already know something we don't. I suspect that along with IGas they have some very good research on just how much gas is there and that it is eminently recoverable. That no-one is joining the dots there is crazy to me. What's even more nuts is that there are loons on here who believe in the Lizard People and are pretending to make reasoned statements on the future of shale gas in the UK and their craziness is entertained by others on these forums.

In the end the shorters get a small gain quickly. But you and I will be getting a massive gain within 2 years (or, I suspect, sooner). Once the OPEC meeting is out the way we have short term stability followed by the Chancellors Autumn statement which will give a boost and then from there on in a slow and steady trickle of news that will send the SP soaring. This is the one share I have ever owned that is going to make me a millionaire. ianrcrane can stick to selling his DVDs on the New World Order. I'm sticking with Igas.
TheGecko
Posts: 13
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:53.00
Re: Dead in the Water
Today 20:22
ianrcrane
Posts: 31
Off Topic
Opinion:Strong Sell
Price:53.00
View Thread (2)
Re: Dead in the Water
Today 20:03
"A 30% rise in birth defects and 38% rise in cancer mortality has been documented in areas where fracking took place," he said, pointing out that it's usually possible to extract only around 4% of the gas in the ground.

"So the question that needs to be asked is: how many birth defects should we have to carry out the drilling? If you say none then you've just banned fracking."

http://www.canterburytimes.co.uk/Fracking-Kent-unsafe-says-EU-Commission-adviser/story-24571030-detail/story.html
MarktheSpark
Posts: 432
Observation
Opinion:Buy
Price:53.00
Ineos
Today 19:03
Malcy's blog commented on the Ineos deal. Suggests there might be further asset deals on the offing and mentions Igas in particular as possibly be involved. We are probably 3 years from revenue so we need the market to become completely confident about the prospects to push and then maintain the SP. The autumn statement with an announcement about the northwest wealth fund will help.



Share Trading BrochureRequest your Free brochures on share dealing, spread betting and CFDs

Sign up for Live Prices
Home  |  Contact Us  |  About Us  |  Careers  |  Advertise with Us  |  Sitemap  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Cookies  |  Privacy


Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.