Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Qinj, Okay, so tell us and provide some evidence. I think that ALL LTHs on here are open to evidence back information. I notice that you've sent me a 'private message'. sorry, as I'm not a premium member I can't access this feature.
too bad you don't know the whole story
Whilst I would agree that an amalgamation of asserts and a reduction in cost based would be great it would have to have been done in a friendly and cooperative manor. In this particular case I see nothing but a hostile take over attempt with the sole purpose of asset stripping MAGP
According to the NTOG RNS, NTOG *will* (future tense) acquire the MAGP shares but not until the end of this month. However it has been agreed that NTOG has *immediate* control over the voting rights of those shares. See 26 May RNS and I direct you to the last sentence in particular "Nostra Terra also has the option to pay the full consideration in cash should it decide. The receipt of the Magnolia Shares and the issue of the Consideration Shares, should the Company not elect to settle the consideration fully in cash, is anticipated to take place on or before 30 June 2017. A further announcement will be made at that time. Until such point, it has been agreed that Nostra Terra has direction over the voting rights of the Magnolia Shares." Ergo, Snead is doing what NTOG tells him w.r.t. the voting. Note also that Snead and family are the EGM requisitioners, not NTOG (since they are the current beneficial holders of those shares). But Snead has agreed to vote in whatever way NTOG instructs.
I don't really understand how NTOG can be so involved at this stage when the currently do not own any shares in MAGP. Are they just acting as a mouth piece for SS?
Not interested in any deals with NTOG or Snead. No interest in a software company. investment decision was based on MAGP and its business plan.
There's been some speculation that one option might be to combine the oil assets into one vehicle (doesn't really matter which tbh), and leave the second company as a clean shell that can have a different route forward. I can see a merger route whereby all existing MAGP and NTOG shareholders get shares in OilNewCo, plus shares in the shell. [Who runs OilNewCo is a matter for debate] If we step back from the personalities involved, it does seem to make sense to combine two sets of assets under one roof and Board (and reduce the overall headcount accordingly). Both companies have been cash-starved of late so I doubt either is running on 100% management capacity (especially given the roll call of honour that is the MAGP board) As for the shell, this could be a smart move. We've seen one instance with Forte Energy (SP in total free fall these last few years) which is now some software thing called BOS and where the SP is stable and possibly growing a bit. There are times in oil and gas where you just have to accept that $40bbl WTI is going to do nothing other than make you constantly loss-making, and you change tack to something that actually might make money. Now obv the shell would have to have a credible plan and management team. But given the way the oil market seems to be headed by general analyst consensus, this could be a smart move. And everyone would retain their current o&g exposure, albeit hopefully with more attractive cost base.
That doesn't exactly cast Snead in a good light if true. At the end of the day the situation is that this clause is there and is an issue. But it can also be negotiated, everything in life can be negotiated (well except my tax bill!)
I agree, my assumption is that this termination clause was agree with SS when he first took her on as CEO.
The trouble with these situations is both sides end up airing the dirty laundry of the other. Except in this case NTOG know a lot more about MAGP than vice versa because of Snead, who knows where the skeletons are hidden. Not exactly edifying for either side it has to be said. There's a lot to be said for a deal being done in the background to halt the mutual mudslinging.
It's a good point you make regarding the costs of a Rita replacement, and you'd hope that the requisitioners would at least be able to provide some "fag packet" calcs on this. A simple "oh just trust us to do a better job" clearly won't cut the mustard with MAGP shareholders. When I said "negotiating with whom" I was referring to Rita's negotiations regarding her own remuneration package. ("with whom" at least in part involved her talking to herself!). Seriously though, that the Board allowed her to put that $350k break clause in the service contract is quite shocking from a corporate governance perspective, made all the worse by her now using it as a threat to sway voters to let her keep her job. Before it was disclosed in the most recent results, how many shareholders knew that little clause had been put in the contract? (I suspect the answer is "no-one" as service contracts need a SH to visit the registered office to inspect them, which very few people do as part of their DD into a company). A $350k break clause for the CEO of a £2m mcap company is a very material issue.
Ntog recognize magnolias rns yesterday and will respond to there inaccuracies within that rns in the coming days.
Dump them. Spend the £24 on broker fees, sell they lot, move brokers and buy them back.
Okenia, I'm not suggesting that the position with Rita is in the interests of the MAGP shareholders, ideally she'd work for free and MAGP would be able to sack here at any time. If the proposal here was to replace Rita with somebody whom was going to add more value then it may be worth taking the hit and moving on, however the suggested replacements appear to be a all about asset stripping. Do you really think that her two replacements are going to reduce the wage bill? Once they have control they no doubt award themselves very well. WRT 'negotiating with whom' - you'll see in recent RNSs that MAGP have entered into new wells 'at no initial cost', basically the operator is stumping up MAGP's initial share of the drilling costs and MAGP are 'repaying' them later from the monies generated from the well. Okay, so MAGP will probably end up paying a premium (call it interest if you like) on the cost, but the alternative is that MAGP did not take up its percentage holding in the well. On the plus side it de-risks the investment, if the well fails to produce MAGP are not out of pocket but still have access to the drilling information.
That's shocking! Halifax send me paper copies for free with a prepaid reply envelope!
Tell me about it, I could by 22000 shares for that.
What?!? That's taking the ****. See if you can do it online.
Just phoned Jarvis investment management. They want £24 to send my vote.
You should just get a corporate action online to do this but do make sure you've activated that option (I seem to recall TD don't do it automatically, otherwise everyone would be bombarded all the time with AGM resolutions etc)
You'll have to vote twice yes, once via Broker A for XXX shares, once via Broker B for YYY shares. What happens with nominee accs is that the broker (e.g. TD, HL etc) will tot up all the votes and then make a single submission via proxy form to the company. Remember it's one vote per share so hence you can get your voting spread across different accounts. It's not like the general election
email sent to my Broker this morning.
Troy, it depends on which way you will be voting lol
I hold with 2 brokers, any idea if I get to vote twice?
Apologies for that last hugely informative post ha! I was trying to share holdings info from the recently released stats to 31 dec 16. It appears that SOS has fewer than I imagined. The 93m is included in his 204m though he does have warrants of 36m. Not sure how the warrants work ref voting rights. Anybody? It also appears than Mr Wallace has no shares despite website saying to the contrary.
Text HighlightingHomeShare PricesShare ChatFinance NewsReuters NewsSharecast NewsRegulatory NewsProfessional News Spreads / CFDsShare TradingForexBlogsLive PricesShares BookshopFinance ToolsMembersPortfolioWatchlistPremium ServicesWhat’s NewUser SettingsFantasy Share GameLogout Howie Li from Canvas ETF discusses Cybersecurity Latest Share Chat WRN. More on johnjamessite today. HUR. Next stop 30.5- p ish unfortunately.. KIBO. thanks yes i aw that. does this .. HALO. Can buy £- 1k on halifaf at 2... M. GWMO is one of those shares that GWMO. too soon, even for a trader. PREM. THUNDERBIRDS re GO!!! STRAP O.. HALO. Its across th board - they aren'.. JLP. The share pric- e will drop. In oth.. GWMO. too soon. Home :: Regulatory News (RNS) :: Final Results & Notice of AGM Regulatory News Final Results & Notice of AGM Mon, 19th Jun 2017 08:35 Magnolia Petroleum Plc - Final Results & Notice of AGM PR Newswire London, June 19 Magnolia Petroleum Plc / Index: AIM / Epic: MAGP / Sector: Oil & Gas 19 June 2017 Magnolia Petroleum Plc (�Magnolia� or �the Company�) Final Results and Notice of AGM Magnolia Petroleum Plc, the AIM quoted US focused oil and gas exploration and production company, announces�its final results for the year ended 31 December 2016. Overview Interests in 153 producing wells in proven US onshore formations (2015: 213) following:Commencement of production of 15 new wellsDivestment of producing wells with little or no economic valueElected to participate in eight new wells compared to 38 in 2015 as low oil prices reduced drilling activity across the US onshore sectorStrong pick-up in activity seen post period end with Magnolia electing to participate in 28 new wells due to recovery in sentiment and Company�s focus on prolific low cost plays such as the SCOOP and the STACK inOklahomaLong pipeline of new proposals including six low risk, high impact wells to the Bakken and Three Forks Sanish formations in North Dakota � on the same spacing unit as the Company�s best performing well, the Lazy DE 24-7HUpdated reserves report issued post period end included significant increase in Proven Developed Producing (�PDP�) reserves due to new wells commencing production:112% increase in total net PDP oil and condensate reserves to 282.686 Mbbl as at 1 January 2017 (1 July 2016: 133.31 Mbbl)303% increase in total net PDP gas reserves to 2,343.116 MMCF (1 July 2016: 580.67 MMcf)25% increase in the value (�NPV9�) of total net PDP reserves as at April 2017 to US$4,300,000 (1 July 2016:US$3,445,180)Board and management team strengthened following appointment of highly experienced petroleum engineerLeonard Wallace as a