Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Cole is on record as saying no formal offers at the last AGM - so are you saying he was lying? Any proof of that would be interesting - it's exactly the kind of thing that might enable someone to go after them but somehow I expect it's conjecture and nothing more
Drax double-upgraded by Jefferies By StockMarketWire | Tue, 2nd May 2017 - 15:36 Jefferies International has double-upgraded its investment rating on Drax (LON:DRX) and moved straight to buy (from underperform) on the expectation of an 18.5p dividend. The broker said: "We believe Drax will announce a cash flow based dividend policy with a floor dividend of £75m or 18.5p/share at the June CMD. "This dividend delivers a 6% yield and passes stress tests of -20% power prices and additional OCGT capex. "We believe the current valuation places limited value on retail business Haven and the US assets, which have a book value of c.£280m." The price target for the stock was upped to 400p per share from 305p. Meanwhile, equity research analysts at Barclays Capital upgraded their recommendation to overweight (from equal weight), last week, believing the post-results stock weakness was unjustified. The bank pointed out that the shares have fallen 20% since the results in mid-February, which it said was based on little more than disappointment that it didn't 'immediately' announce a new higher dividend policy. Barclays said: "We understand Drax's consultation is a genuine attempt to balance priorities of growth capex and increased returns to shareholders. "We thus see no justification for the scale of Drax's recent share price reversion, and upgrade to OW." Its price target was increased to 410p per share (from 400p). At 3:36pm: (LON:DRX) Drax Group PLC share price was -7.8p at 315.2p
That's the problem with holding that amount of shares!!!!
Too much time spent on this BB. Get back to work!!!!!!!!! A certain large company's shareholders inc the shareholder workforce would be saying more effort required in their direction - pay negotiations an all that!!!!
No the placing shares are made available by expanding the number of shares in issue thus a dilution of everyone's holdings. The shares he is taking are not at the market price but at the placing price i.e discounted
Showing his true colours as a graceless money grubber. I'll bet he is trying to get out with as much and by whatever means All that tosh leaked to the papers about how he was going to resign on the day of the original meeting. He needs another gravy train to pay all those training fees for his horses in the meantime while he is setting it up (and I have no doubt he will) he needs a pay off
Sent you something that may or may not be of interest
Some people get dealt a rotten hand don't they. TBH I was prepared for it to have dropped a lot more at this point but I guess until we know more we won't know the impact. I feel bad for even thinking about the sp and the "impact" of this so I'll leave it now. I trust that HOC will do right by the families although it's no consolation. Best to you too.
Me too I'm keeping an eye on it simply because we have no idea how long the mine will be closed and whether it was in a section of the mine that might allow part of it at least to reopen. I think that with most mines there is always o going tunnel maintenance or areas they look to expand so not really surprised that they were there although obviously sorry that they have lost their lives.
Here you are http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hochschild-min-peru-idUSKBN15F2GO Two workers died when a tunnel caved in at Hochschild Mining Plc's Inmaculada gold and silver mine in southern Peru on Tuesday, a police chief said on local broadcaster RPP. Citing information from the company, Miguel Angel Rivera added that a third worker was wounded in the incident at the mine in the region of Ayacucho. The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
It is a tunnel collapse
Not sure how I missed it when it came our originally but I think it's probably the only time I have seen someone come out and say it like it is As he wryly said it gave them and others a chance to blame something else - I think though that it only works if you ignore the rest. I had hoped that the quality of the asset would get them over the line in spite of rather than because of them but that's when I do think the POO hit and by then the insurmountable hurdle for a depreciated asset was the size of the debt. I don't agree though that we should just castigate ourselves. A certain amount of trust/belief goes into every investment you make regardless.
An O&G analyst with 15 years experience agrees This is well worth a listen, I hadn't heard this before - I think he outlines it as it really is. 4.29 onwards. http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/stocktube/6001/wh-irelands-brendan-long-talks-hurricane-energy-parkmead-jersey-oil-gas-and-xcite-6001.html They broke the cardinal E&P rule Explore via equity Produce with debt They broke another Don't ****h off your Institutional Investors when the quality II's walk away the only replacements you will find will just be seeking to rip your heads off before you try and turn them over. His most telling comment is that the downside in oil and gas allowed them to make a graceful exit. i.e it gives them a handy excuse to sweep any other failings underneath the POO. IMO although the EWT was a success being required was the start of the rot. They could possibly have got around the disappointment re the reserves and sorted that out later as the EPS would have done the job. That was truly the first time that Rupert took on a financial commitment (Rowan Norway) without the means to pay for it - production licence. The bond just followed the WF loan but each time you are perceived to have screwed up the outfit coming in just apply more punitive terms i.e secured over the asset vs unsecured. Global having it written into the agreement that they can short - priors theoretically prohibited
Yeah I was told from the horses mouth that it was better to be looking at the project from the bottom up rather than the top down. i.e If you were doing it when the oil price was at it's highest your profitability could only go down and that this was of comfort to the other partners in the alliance. I was told that this only made their model more robust - this was shortly before Christmas 2015 can't quite remember what the oil price was then
You too Jonjo.
I was baffled as you said the number might be a hoax - but I see you might be talking about the person on the other end. Did you recognise his voice? It's quite distinctive. What else did he say?
(hoax?don't know) Just spoke to him, blames it all on oil price not Rupert. Give it a try. I assume you are being ironic as you'd know it wasn't a hoax if you tried it. As an aside I did and it rang out.
Problem is that Xcite CEO denied that was the case So who is telling the truth. It's a bit like the did OGA comment or not on the commercial model? Someone isn't being as straightforward as they could/should be why is that?
This is what gets me " In the interim, the directors of XEL have elected to commence a marketing process for the sale of XEL’s shares in XER. " Ehh!! isn't that pretty much the same end result as selling the field/company as per the "all options are on the table" type quotes at various AGMS! Thing is though if you read the relevant Q &A you have to ask yourself whether the no offer comment only relates to funding. To me there has increasingly been a question mark over whether RC was part of the problem. What on earth makes him think then that he can sell it now if the option was really on the table and they've failed to do just that for years? The thing that it does clarify is that it was the BH's that pulled out. RC was quite prepared to do a GKP. I suspect that when they actually nailed him down they worked out that they hadn't a cats' chance in hell of spinning the shares back out into the market. As for the keeping on of XER that's pretty much as we all thought
http://www.xcite-energy.com/investors/frequently-asked-questions