Member Info for cbaron

10.20 & 10.22

rfarfa,

Not sure I understand?

Why not concentrate on what the price is doing TODAY, rather than the what a single trade may or may not have been yesterday. Whatever it was, it made no material difference to the SP.

As to release of information, there is a legal obligation on the company to release what may be price sensitive information as soon as it becomes available. This notion of a deliberate delay in release is nonsense.

If the results are good why would the company be concerned at a share spike?

What other information do you suppose they may be expecting to release? We had a release last week in relation to Umiat which, if being cynical, could be interpreted as a sop to ease SP tensions of forthcoming bad news............. The fact is that promised results have not yet materialised, for whatever reason.

This company will not be sold on the basis of ramping private shareholders' aspirational calculations and social media frenzy, it will be sold following detailed due diligence, by hard nosed oil men, when a commercially recoverable find of sufficient magnitude has been proven.

It appears we're some way away from that currently. I, like most here, hope that day will come but no amount of speculation is going to change that.

Interesting exchanges here today about what people know, based on their jobs and backgrounds, arguably bringing into question the former impressions of expertise given by both. At least we now appear to have a more tangible view of who knows what.

The magic Dragon has stated that fundamentals are not the only factor in value. That may be so in share value, but not asset value. As Scot points out, we can hardly count the recent social media frenzy as a genuine and sustained contributor to the latter.

And so, all to play for when the results of Merlin are published. At 21.26 Olderwiser's points are wholly valid, in my opinion, as a amateur investor and nothing more. The basis of my opinion is based on acknowledged issues at the time of the drill, seemingly inconclusive evidence of the results to date and the length of time taken to publish further results. Again, I'm no expert, but you'd think that, by now, the company would have some idea as to the presence of oil in sufficient quantities in targetable horizons for the next drill at the very least.

References to the next 'big thing' does undermine credibility when we haven't even seen results from the last 'big thing'. One at a time chaps, or are you just trying to temper the effects of bad news?

Thanks once again Moda.
6.34 & 6.39

Let's hope we find an Elephant, but balanced warnings about risk and reward. Not for the faint of heart.

10.11

Yet more nonsense. The relative gains and reductions are totally out of kilter as between 88e and PNR for this to have any credibility whatsoever.

Good luck to those that gained yesterday, I know I did.

Look back at the rises and falls over the last few months and you will see a trend which has repeated twice or three times - make the most of it.

For those who don't get it, it's called trading not 'panic selling'.

There will be no sustainable rise and re-rating here until there is a proven, commercially extractable resource. In the meantime there may well be a few spikes. Learn to use them, not get caught on them.

Good luck.

Great to hear.

18.02 & 18.12

Heads screwed on the right way, taking a profit, being content and not being wound up by the many bragardly cross-threads here and abouts.

Well done and good luck!

Great news today, but never definitive in AIM - nothing wrong with taking a profit.

Lots of fingers burned on the last OTC spike and so whilst positive, perhaps not so gung ho today.

17.55
'us seasoned guys' - is that a 70's cult......careful how you pronounce that???!!! In his case, definitely the alternative.......
??

Tradin',

16.58 & 18.05 might have been more pleasantly worded, but this is what you tend to find with some that populate these boards. However, I think the general gist is correct, that you ought to do some research. Otherwise you might as well just put your money on black or red on a Roulette wheel.

To answer your question, I think the underlying resource and therefore value fundamentals here are such that, yes, we will be here again at 64p and quite a way beyond, however that is just my opinion and more research will give you the background to make up your own mind. A good starting point would be the company website and its recent presentations, but also bear in mind that the presenters have a significant vested interest. In short, a minefield, but good luck.

cb.

21.05
Still reading between the lines?

Why not just join up the lines as the geology appears to do?

All for one...........

Wow! Things happening! Currently +18% on hugely increased volumes. Let's hope it translates.

No dissimulation - apparently your favourite word - I am not and never will act under pretence or concealment.
Last Thursday you introduced the new thread of 'Internet Trolls'. you now tell us it is the continuation of a thread of some weeks ago about GB Directors and alleged payments to them. You introduce the new thread by reference to Stephen Nolan and go on to justify it by reference to a case involving one or more Directors of RRR. All this after the original GB issue had been buried by removal by LSE (as you acknowledge) and all manner of other threads on this site referencing share prices, the usual comparisons with our neighbours, etc, etc.

That's all!

I'd love to hear your view on my point, in terms of potentially actionable comments as between anonymous contributors, as I fear this is a real issue in the world of this style of forum as is the matter of those who purport to be 'experts', for example, in areas of the law, when they are not prepared to divulge their credentials.

"forum such as this"

In both instances, Nolan and the Director(s) of RRR, the target was a known individual or small group of easily identifiable individuals and in the latter case presumably the financial motive of a loss in share value was the motive behind the harassment.
It would be interesting to see the view of the courts in a case between two anonymous individuals on a form such as this in a petty squabble. A wholly different risk profile for the plaintiff.

ha ha.....

I'll continue to view from the primeval swamp ;-)

'here', not 'hear'

17.37

...but is there a burden of proof to determine who the allegedly defamed anonymous contributors purport to be?

I think it is fairly clear who Stephen Nolan is, not so some of those hear who purport to have expert knowledge - once again you put yourself on that lofty high ground.

16.37
Dragon,
There you are, you see, a sensible post without a hint of vitriol. Unusual, but............
............you can do it when you try.
Top marks ;-)

Aleric,
Not spooky at all.
Just calling out someone who appears to enjoy calling out others and, not for the first time, tried to sound like some sort of legal hotshot...........that's all.

.........you see, Alaric, that repeated, forensic and highly critical analysis of the contributions of others, when after all it's only a blog, can be tedious and none of us are perfect. Not even you!
Have a nice life.