Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter




Member Info for MrMagic


Member Since: Mon, 13th Jun 2011

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 7,993
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 14

Last Posted: Tue 20:03


Post Distribution over the last 30 days




Tue 20:03


RRR4Ever - Your post is very much against site Ts&Cs and should be removed.

You may not:

"b.post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge."

"c.post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities."

Tue 15:43


"Fracking and such like is still not acceptable in this country according to the recent ruling by Lancashire"

I'm not sure that is strictly true. What we are seeing are "local issues" being raised during planning applications which rightly need to be addressed. e.g. noise, traffic concerns etc. It's not a nationwide opposition to the business of Fracking itself (despite some activists trying to present it as such). The concerns raised about the industry as a whole have already resulted in much tighter laws being put in place to ensure safe operation and maintenance of sites, equipment and chemicals used.

The Lancashire planning application cited was only rejected on the grounds of landscape and noise impact. Nothing to do with the actual process of fracking per say. The wording of the official rejection was reported by the Telegraph in this link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11705333/Fracking-decision-Lancashire-live.html

and states:

1) The development would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape, arising from the drilling equipment, noise mitigation equipment, storage plant, flare stacks and other associated development. The combined effect would result in an adverse urbanising effect on the open and rural character of the landscape and visual amenity of local residents contrary to policies DM2 Lancashire Waste and Minerals Plan and Policy EP11 Fylde Local Plan.

2) The development would cause an unacceptable noise impact resulting in a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents which could not be adequately controlled by condition contrary to policies DM2 Lancashire Waste and Minerals Plan and Policy EP27 Fylde Local Plan

Valid concerns and they need to be addressed.

My personal take is that the nation WILL engage in a fracking strategy as the need to gain self-sufficiency in energy terms from current foreign imports is a pressing one. It IS going to happen imo, just a case of when and where. That being the case, I think EOG is positioned pretty well having it's foundations in conventional energy yet also sitting on a future "nest egg" of Humber Basin licenses which could yield Shale Gas.
Tue 13:51


Not sure what to make of it. After all the ramping about ventures into Candy Land it's all a bit of a damp squib at present. All I can fathom is:

We own 11% of RSL

RSL owns 15% of Sugar Dragon

Thus indirectly we have a 1.65% interest in Sugar Dragon

The interesting/puzzling element is that RSL do NOT want another 45% of Sugar Dragon but DO want the 15%. What does that mean? I'm guessing it means that RSL don't want controlling interest of the company. With Sugar Dragon bout to list on ASX then I'm not sure what message RSL's termination is sending out to the markets. Either way it's small fry for us at present with our RSL holding being worth about £196K. What we want is for RSL's investments to do well and for that RSL holding to increase ten-fold. Would welcome info from anyone who understands this better.
Sat 12:44


"I like what AB is trying to do, buying into assets fairly cheaply at early stage exploration"

Really? You'll have to explain that one to me I'm afraid. Bearing in mind we have little in the way of cash income, surely it is better to invest in assets that WILL return an income in the SHORT TERM rather than punting "early stage exploration" which will likely take years to generate any income? Even though Mt Ida / Mason are mothballed, they are surely still closer to generating income for us than Elephant Oil or IC or any speculative exploration. Wouldn't you agree?

If we were cash rich, had steady income stream then absolutely, go out and punt as many exploration projects as possible on the basis that one or more might come off. As it is, with every £ in the coffers being precious to us, such a strategy seems to be to be somewhat questionable. AB had his chance 2-3 years ago. JMS holding was worth in excess of £30m !! He could have sold them there and then and had a £30m company with which to punt all these explorations and still not have to dilute shareholders. Now we have an SP of 0.065, not much cash and we still don't have a clear strategy comminucated to us that explains how cash is going to be generated. I'm open to views on this. How, in your opinion, is AB going to generate steady cash income in the short or medium term from any of the existing projects?
Fri 16:54


" if AB sold all our stake in JMS, we will get £2.6m !! that implies that nil value to all other assets in RRR"

That imo is quite a nonsensical statement. You can't simply take a notional value of an asset and say, that's what we are worth. It's for that exact same reason that PR tomfoolery broker reports never live up to the over-inflated expectations they put out.

What counts is the COMBINATION of the value of an asset PLUS the time it will take to actually REALISE that asset value. The other assets have been pretty much assigned nil value by the markets, imo, because the perceived time it will take to realise their true value is quite some way off and because in the meantime, a large number of additional shares will likely be added to the pot. So any calculation you care to do to estimate the MCAP here must surely take into account the asset values PLUS the number of shares that will be in issue at a given point in time. Anything that doesn't factor both those in is just a nonsense.

I'm not playing down the news here, the Jupiter assets clearly have good value and in time to come will hopefully have a great deal more value. In the meantime, cash is king, and we need to find ways of generating it.


Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days
Share Price Spacer2ears1mouth639 
Share Price SpacerEastbeachdave626 
Share Price SpacerDalesman521 
Share Price Spacermaxpower100429 
Share Price SpacerS4LMO420 
Share Price Spacerhoffman381 
Share Price SpacerChrisD1975370 
Share Price SpacerPunkfeelinglucky356 




Member Login

Forgotten your password?
Email:

Password:


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!


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.