Member Info for crudehope

Orangutan, I have recently posted my thoughts on Fellrunner...he professes to own Sound shares but you wouldn't know it from his posting. We all have doubts & queries & although you don't here them much from me, other long term holders like Appiamma have always had a reasonable and sceptical viewpoint - although he no longer posts here. But someone like Joe Creed is a LTH & often asks difficult questions & tries to hold the Company to account on things he feels strongly about. Then you come to Fellrunner...a professed holder but I guarantee that if you looked over his posting history 95% would be negative. Is this a natural perspective for someone who has hard earned money invested? Ask the tough questions, as did Appiamma, Joe, trellis and others...but when a poster NEVER has anything positive to post about the Company he professes to own shares in...there has to be doubt as to motive! Fellrunner, I simply don't believe you have a positive, vested interest in OUR Company...you are a fraud!

Good day sir...Crude

Shpunken, he would not comment about why the share price is down if I asked him. You have to figure that private investors are panicked over that 14% & that is why we are down...not because of any perceived leak or bad news. it is a bit of a nightmare but I have to remain confident. I would not sell at these low prices so will KBO, as Winnie used to say!

Fair play trellis...but we did know the strat trap was very high risk. At least the higher risk Paleo seems to have been swapped for the lesser risk 'structural closure'...that seems a sensible move post TE9!

Anyway, I hope I am not singing that Boomtown Rats well known hit - strat trap - we've been caught!

Whilst I am on song...God bless Pete Shelley - you were amazing...another music in a different kitchen!

PS, no alcohol for me...honey and lemon only I'm afraid...Nurse wifey insists!

I have been in touch with JP just now and asked him about the seemingly low COS. Bearing in mind that Appiamma & I sat next to Luca on the TE7 bus I am reminded (by Appiamma as it goes) that the strat trap was always going to be very high risk, low COS. Anyway, James said "it's normal for such a large play Kirk...exploration COS are normally 10-30%".

Anyone reading this bb would think I we have failed already - we have just started drilling what could be a very exciting prospect and I for one am looking forward to the result!

Just a minute Fellrunner...wasn't there a world-wide sell off on markets...no need to start bullsheeting us about leeks! You are such a drama queen!!

I had to look at that 14% COS twice! Jeez they don't get any more likely! Fingers, toes & everything crossed for these two targets!!

Simon, very humorous. In the meantime of course - or between courses - you are making money trading Sound! Any which way you can I always say: trade it, invest it, short it...but don't ever let the AIM get the better of you! AIM should not be your master - you should master AIM!

trellis, quite right, let's get things in perspective. I don't give a fig about Brexit & its connotations - the whole thing is going to be a f-uck up despite best efforts on Brexy side. What really matters to us (some of us) is the oil price; the potential price of our 'prospective portfolio' and any future 'discovered assets' - & what you are reduced to quaff next!
My advise is...never let your standards drop, in spite of what may be obvious or inescapable...KBO...as Winnie often said when the 'Black Dog' appeared............................

Shpunken, so it has nothing to do with Chinese espionage of western technology and spying. But even so China have long been a problem that US Presidents have preferred to avoid. Whether the current President can redress the fiscal imballance between the two countries remains to be seen...but many ordinary citizens in the US have seen the alarming rise in transfer of American Dollars for cheap Chinese goods and services and they gave had enough! The old global trade world order is under pressure for the first time since globalization was even a word!

Eric, that is certainly news to me...but hardly surprising. Let's see how much they intend curtailing production by. Not good for us filing up but hopefully we will see greater dividends when it comes to LE!

The US have their own problems re production and supply: there are bottlenecks in the Texas Permian Basin caused by inadequate pipeline infrastructure but also problems with the sheer volume of water needed to pump into wells. Some states are questioning the whole viability of tracking but President Trump still maintains the US are now the 'swing producer...but maybe they are becoming victims of their own success. It is all too easy to assume the US and their new found shale can continue to be so affective in influencing prices...they have only achieved top status recently and it already looks like a precarious top-spot to hang onto!

Crude

Eric, there hasn't been an OPEC decision yet other than they are not giving a news conference until tomorrow. Hardly surprising the Russians are at the heart of the strategy as they seem to have more influence with OPEC these days.

dave, that's as maybe when it comes to coal in Virginia or Pennsylvania...but higher gasoline price at the pump would be counter-intuitive to President Trump's support (more likely visa versa) of the blue collar workforce in America - that is why he has been furiously tweeting & cajoling OPEC nations to stick to their quotas. But the counter OPEC argument that will hopefully prevail is that lower Crude prices are not a good environment for IOC's & National Oil Companies to invest in future exploration. This of course could still impact on our GSA if it is not already finalised. For once I hope OPEC prevail...despite President Trump's understandable plea to the contrary.

Eric, the likes of RDSA will soon bounce back after the imminent OPEC meeting in Vienna, when the Cartel , along with Russia, agree cutbacks in production, despite President Trump's tweet offensive!

Just to add that the reply I received from JP in April last year James ends with "I hope this explains our thinking"...so you have to assume Brian was in agreement back then and whatever he has said recently contradicts that 'thinking'. James would not have come out with such a statement on value uplift without board consensus. What we want to know is has anything happened to change that rationale?

trellis, what an amusing analogy. You do make me laugh (in a good way) and bring good cheer to the board with your regular wine cellar updates. 'Don't let the bailiffs near your wine cellar' could be the title of your memoirs as a Sound Energy investor!!

Cheers, Crude

Soundingoff, I certainly would not disagree that there is value in the wider license & hope that Brian's remark is not indicative of our situation. I agree with most of what Prudent has been saying but I just wish Brian & JP were singing off the same hymn sheet when it comes to what our unproved volumes are actually worth. if Brian is contradicting himself he should make his mind up either way...investors get hung up on things like prospective value.

Prudent, I think the paradox lies in the two statements from JP & Brian...they seem to be at odds. How can our Chief Exploration Director, on the one hand, state there is no value in a 'prospect portfolio' & our CEO state that "most of the value uplift will come from the seismic". You state "this is not an exploration portfolio" but Brian says otherwise when he referred to it as a "prospect portfolio"....there does seem to be a disparity in their views & one hopes this can be cleared up at the Con Call.

Prudent, appreciate your theory & would certainly not disagree. But at this moment in time no one really knows so it's all just conjecture. I really hope you (& James) are correct but in any case I am still confident of an agreeable outcome for all shareholders.

So when James said "More drilling and re-entries will increase in the proved volumes but actually most of the value uplift will come from the seismic" are we to take it he omitted to say it was contingent on there being more proved volumes than we currently have? There seems to be a paradox here. One key sentence is " The key variable which the seismic helps reduce is the risking of the unproved volumes"...but paradoxically the seismic does not seem to have reduced risking...so far. Of course one can say that every failed well helps to add to our understanding of the hydrocarbon province but there is undeniably some disparity between what JP affirmed early last year & what BM has said only recently. It is certainly worth asking the question at the Con Call but I wouldn't hold my breath for clarity. JP will probably not be drawn as to what a prospective buyer sees as value in our scientific program (in the light of TE9) & BM may well backtrack or just say he isn't sure what value a suitor would assign. If TE-10 is successful then I guess JP's answer on 'value uplift' will prove correct but if not...who knows?