Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Bav3, how can you get your money back by holding anyone in SOU accountable? For every person who bought at 100p, someone else made a packet selling at that level. The sellers were not JP and crew. You cannot reverse those transactions. There is nobody at SOU who can pay the difference between a £1bn market cap and a £20m market cap. So what, exactly, are you hoping for?
BCC works fine trellis, just create a distribution list in outlook or similar and make sure you add the list to the bcc field. if on outlook you can also set the system / email to delay in sending so if a mistake was noticed you can amend / delete before the original email is sent...i have my system defaulted to this as its always just after you have sent the said email you notice an error...recalling does nothing... Rock on Trellis and lets have these cheese balls gasping for air!!!!
“Levelup just made the first sensible point I've seen in all this negative sentiment. I did actually believe the "£1.50 per TCF to Sound", which would have underpinned us at 57p for 355 Bcf recoverable. But when I think about it, I probably got that idea from this board not the company. I do remember at some point they moved to clarify it was 57p multiplied by SOU's 47% interest, i.e. 27p per share. Did someone deliberately mislead?”
It was said multiple times & I was there at an investor event when someone questioned it. JJ stood up and said 1 TCF was £1.50 to Sound in an almost condescending tone. They knew damn well that we all had it wrong and chose not to address it. I remember they even admitted so later on & apparently took legal advice on the matter.
"deck"
JP couldnt deal a deak of cards... Fact!! #thefailure
Trellis, use BCC and you can send in bulk without showing others email addresses.
Trellis, very decent of you to say so. I have no idea who you have been talking to but take your word for the "naive" comments you say you have had regarding me.
BTW, well done with your crusade...it must be a labour of love that takes up many precious hours of your time.
Cheers, Crude
I recall an exchange I had with a poster a year or two back.
I questioned whether we could really know that the TE-5 discovery was worth more than 50p per share, thus underpinning the share price, which was by then well below that.
'Yes!' came back his exasperated reply.
It was definite.
It turned out that I was right to be sceptical, but unfortunately I accepted his assurance.
The point you make about profits from production being more valuable - in the long run - is the important one now.
If TE-5 does pay a dividend of 1.4p p.a., then a new discovery of 1 TCF paying out at the same rate would raise the dividend to 5p p.a. and a new discovery of 1.5 TCF would raise the dividend to about 7p p.a.
It really is much better for shareholders who are not in a hurry, to get their share of production profits than maybe a pound per barrel in a one-off payment.
Now, I am not sure whether the 1.4p figure is correct or whether new discoveries would pay dividends at the same rate and would be interested to see any calculations, but provided the deal goes ahead (about which the share price seems to be expressing doubts), wells will be drilled and discoveries could be made, and LTHs could ultimately be rewarded.
Conflict of interest is very important. It is there for a reason. To ensure there is a level playing field for executives of the company, shareholders and employees and people who make loans or payments. It is there because of abuse of trust. It is foolish and naive to ignore it. Be careful about rewriting history.
Trellis just out of interest how are you storing everyone’s date you have collected
Levelup just made the first sensible point I've seen in all this negative sentiment. I did actually believe the "£1.50 per TCF to Sound", which would have underpinned us at 57p for 355 Bcf recoverable. But when I think about it, I probably got that idea from this board not the company. I do remember at some point they moved to clarify it was 57p multiplied by SOU's 47% interest, i.e. 27p per share. Did someone deliberately mislead? Probably not, although it's worth asking the question. All the other stuff about selling golden tickets is without merit. We took a high risk, it didn't work out. There is still plenty of actual discovered gas. In fact, it's worth a lot more when it's actually produced than the NAV calculation used earlier. So even when we only retain 14% it's still worth about 30p per share (but over 16 years or so) plus a shot at further improvement.
Apart from all that, there is absolutely no merit in griping about Marco's conflict of interest -- director's loans are completely legitimate -- or payments to JP et al. which (afaik) are entirely within the directors' remit to set. It's not exactly Disney where Michael Eisner famously drafted in a new president who left after 14 months with $38m in cash and $100m in shares. Even then, after a ten year shareholder lawsuit, the court:
'despite describing Eisner's behavior as falling "far short of what shareholders expect and demand from those entrusted with a fiduciary position..." found in favor of Eisner and the rest of the Disney board because they had not violated the duty of care owed by a corporation's officers and board to its shareholders.'
I've no objection to trellis barking up this tree, he's doing it for no recompense. But I just don't see it going anywhere. My assumption is the company is working hard to get a decent deal over the line, and I look forward to it happening.
someone who deramps a share at 85p but still hold the same share below 2p was not right, they were stupid.
Ffs Crude you have been buying those shares for month now
Indeep, I think everything points to Moroccon control of this project - that has to be a good thing. I am banking the deal goes through & will buy more shares within the next few weeks...but that is just my opinion & my own personal judgement & only I am responsible for my own decisions................
If the deal goes through, not necessarily the 14th, I know I'm locked for years....... however I'd be happy to sit back knowing it just might eventually come good
There is still a big part of me telling myself its all but over..... I hope that part of me is wrong!
Roll on the 14th and a new chapter in this saga
Level. We are underpinned at a certainly higher price than now. Unfortunately we never hit any TCFs to find out the other bit.
Unfortunately for some people an investment means about a month. Longer term here could still turn out Ok. People forget we still have a commercial find and Morocco needs self sufficiency.
It’s really infuriating that people are just willing to brush this off as their own fault or the risk associated with exploration. We were told we were underpinned, it was a lie.
£1.50 per TCF to Sound. That statement alone was criminal.
Lucas
Unless this investigator can find any commercial gas deposits it’s of no use ! The company will be finished. The share price will be finished end of.
What Trellis is trying to do god only knows but any exploration company faces the same issues. Find something or run out of money. He is only aiding and helping certain people who want to destroy this company. A deal and more exploration and gas to market is the only way out of the doo doo for the shareholders. Rant over.
Excellent work Trellis. It would be good to receive clarification of the many queries presented to the Company and raised on this board. As I have previously mentioned, an investigative journalist may be of assistance to the Group in its endeavours to have some of the shareholders concerns answered.
It’s an impressive effort with minimal advertising. 10% would give the ammunition of being able to call an EGM. After the 14th it might be an idea to set up a forum, I’d be happy to help at that point.
Well done Trellis - Your persistence will succeed- it’s a worthy cause to try and stop these upstarts from robbing others with their arrogance and embellishment of the facts for their own ends in SOU and other companies.
K.B.O.
Gasbag
excellent work Trellis, I salute you.
hopefully, you can get up and over 10% that would certainly give a bit more clout!!
Keep up the good work. Trellis.
It's almost wine-o'clock....
"Under the Companies Act 2006 a Director must avoid a situation where a direct or indirect conflict of interest may occur. The Company has in place procedures to deal with any situation where a conflict may be perceived".
Written by Marco Fumagalli, Chairman of the Audit committee.
"Under the Companies Act 2006 a Director must avoid a situation where a direct or indirect conflict of interest may occur. The Company has in place procedures to deal with any situation where a conflict may be perceived".
Taken from the 2018 annual report. So much for legalities. But when has Sound Energy ever bothered with those. The whole company, whether acting CEO,acting Chairman or those who have decided to depart like Mr Parsons, JJ, Brian et al, and the non executive directors who choose to keep quiet should be held in contempt. Are you reading this legal Fred?