Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Mr MarkyB
Thank you for making the research available.May I ask you-or indeed any technically skilled reader of the research for guidance.As you may appreciate I gain great confidence in this investment because of the likes of yourself and others who comment in highly perceptive terms.
1.Is page 37 of particular significance as it introduces "quench fractures"?
2.Is my reading of the conclusion particularly encouraging?
Any helpful advice you may proffer would be greatly appreciated.
It struck me -reading of possible negativity from Malcy to share an experience.Some 10 years or so ago I owned a company that provided specialised corporate communications to listed (mostly FTSE250) companies which included access to Chairman/Chief Execs/FD's).Inevitably in meetings built up over a number of years trust between myself and my client was absolutely crucial.One(nameless) client met with me one day -ostensibly to continue to advise them-then the next day announced the multi hundred million sale of my client company to one of the countries largest retailers.Inscrutable would be one word I would use.
This experience resonates with MH's current conduct.There is definitely no circumstance where he would "intimate" good news -nor would he allow any conceivable suggestion - let alone to someone who is a highly erudite oil commentator.My recollection is that he and Fiona hosted a previous forum with shareholders and the very next day -to my surprise released interim results.A provocative view is that FM's sudden departure may over time be more comprehensible.As always IMHO.
WT
Many thanks.I certainly concur with your thoughts about additional capital expenditure along the lines of
Schlumberger et. al. What I had also in mind -and here I show my lack of technical knowledge-is the
situation where 1001 results open up an entirely (unforseen) field which would demand additional expenditure and
hence increasing short term revenues.
WT
Forgive me if I have it wrong.I seem to recall that in a number of presentations/shareholder sessions in response
to questions that it was confirmed that there was enough cash to fund one drilling of Tapiake. Now if developing
1001 has resulted in unforseen capital expenditure in the full knowledge of the "relative size" -the I for one would
not complain.If not it does bring into question the underpinning assumptions you have quite reasonably drawn.
In this highly charged and febrile atmosphere often purchases are recorded as sells.My purchase of 40292 @6.175
was recorded as a sell.
telegraphist50
Can I refer you to my post of last week.I take the view that what WT is postulating is fully in accord with my then post. We come from similar conclusions from alternate experiential perspectives.His as an oil professional mine and mine as one who is not. The result is the same.The lack of synchronicity between the true value of a company and the AIM valuation has and no doubt will continually concern investors and Echo in this context is no different.
In a post some 10 days or so I stated that I had no appreciable knowledge of the oil industry and leant on the expertise willingly given by contributors -highlighting a few.Clearly I bow down to their technical appreciation of the issues.Without wishing to be a killjoy I fully expect any RNS to considerably downplay the internal estimates of the board.Here they will be considerably influenced by the new FD -whose background I have considerable respect for.Expect therefore (IMHO) a lot of caveats/qualifications etc. and might I suggest that the board will want to dampen down expectations of the true value of the find.I fully expect -in say 3-6 months -when the production figures are released for them to be considerably in excess of any forecasts on this board.For the moment I am with WT.
Having just read a news article in today's Times (Business) about Ratcliffes' potential bidding for some imminently depleting North Assets for c£3.1bn by Conoco it crossed my mind to reflect on Conoco's future intentions.Let me make it clear -I know absolutely nothing of the technical aspects of oil and gas.I bow down to the massive experiential expertise residing within this board of the likes of WT,Abzzba et al.Thank you for your unremitting analysis.I do hold a few Echo shares (c800k).Hence I look at this investment from another perspective.
Every contact in this field tells me that there is a massive flood of US money allocated to Argentina -and increasingly more when depleted assets are realised. Not only is that money allocated to bidding offshore but also a considerable amount allocated to onshore.This suggests to me that participation in farm outs/acquisitions will become more commonplace.Investors-not traders may appreciate the implications.So the question arises as to what the likes of Conoco will do with their money -and where will it be invested.Just a thought.
Bigideas
Many thanks and from your observations continue to be greatly encouraged.
Taking up Mr MarkyB's observations I checked the May presentation.
On the assumption that the forecasts for Frac D are updated -and are achieved -then the current value of that field would now stand at $111m. Clearly appreciably more than originally anticipated and irrespective of substantial cash reserves nearly accounts for the whole of current value attributed by the market.
Steelwatch on ADVFN has provided a link to their highly impressive analysis.
Thanks
My interpretation is as follows.I may be wrong.The previous NOMAD would have had to be consulted on the award of dividend -when it was made.This is essential to ensure full legal compliance.Clearly they were not advised correctly or they did not fully understand their responsibilities.When it came to light huge embarasment. Happily it did not compromise the financials for growth critically. Subsequently we have seen the following: FD resigning -but keeping his holding with a new highly respected FD. Nomad's being fired and new ones appointed.I do not think that this pressages a fund raising as they seem to have access to required funds They raised last year sufficient funds to semi cover the dividend oversight -and low and behold who paid for most of the required monies -directors -no doubt out of their previous dividend income. These are my views.
Lord Adam The figures I referred to accurately reflect what HL obtained for me.If you go to -as I am sure you will-any of the major sources -Morningstar,HL,LSE etc they will all indicate the buy/sell price for my transaction.I think the whole transaction meant I lost 60 or so shares and the I think I paid a very modest fee for conducting the transaction of around �25.The potential capital gains savings is for me well worth the risk.Unfortunately I only have c130k shares so am not a big player in this share.I can confirm my agreement with you that you are not allowed -save some exceptional circumstances-to simply transfer from one account to another. Regards
Knowbodyyouknow What I have done is go to the broker holding my shares -I use Interactive Investor/Hargreaves/and AJBell.For me the best and most efficient/least expensive has been HL.I understand the technicalities to be -generically called "bed and breakfast" whereby for a very small fee -and virtually no spread (see my buying/selling spread) they sell the shares (in my case held in my trading account) sufficient for them to buy the same shares in my ISA account.If you haven't got one most brokers are only too delighted to set one up for you.I would imagine from what I understand of your holding in TRAK they would be only too delighted to help. Hope this helps.Regards
Knowbodyyouknow It may appear that there is a big order being filled. However this morning HL completed a transfer to my ISA account from my trading account for my full 2018/2019 ISA allowance which would no doubt flatter the reason for the activity.Given that I believe this next year to be one of confirmed spectacular growth a little bit of tax planning may be judicious. Regards