Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Well, latest RNS at 4.29PM says "The original announcement stated that Valkor had been awarded drilling permits covering their Asphalt Ridge site in early May 2023. The corrected announcement below states that the drilling permits are expected to be awarded later in May 2023"
DON: you say "RE: approvals for drilling plan in Utah. It think is just bad phrasing, and likely reflects that this RNS was written a short while ago."
But I find this hard to swallow. FIrstly, it would reflect incredibly poorly if this was the case. But, also, I believe the licence applications that people have been following were rescheduled for the 24th of May, so that is late May and not early May - therefore, whenever it was drafted it should not have contained a reference to early May. Also, the wording "Following the award of drilling permits to Valkor covering their Asphalt Ridge site in early May 2023" is hard to square with your interpretation - as it should have referred to the "expected award". Therefore, that leads to the conclusion that it must be referring to a different licence award which did indeed occur in early May which is not what we have been following (or that the licence award happened early) . At least that is what I would like to think.
Argentina's brief contains a judge claiming that you can only claim damages for breach of contract if you first terminate the contract (and that Petersen had not done so). Looking around, that doesn't seem to be true. See http://www.dlapipercontractlaws.com/system/modules/za.co.heliosdesign.dla.gcl/functions/export.pdf?country=AR
on page 09 "What remedies are available in case of breach of contract?
If there is not any specific provision regarding the case of breach of contract, the complying party shall make a formal request to the other party for the fulfilment of the contract, or claim damages. After that, damages can be claimed in court."
From https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-27/future-shipping-fuels-include-lng-hydrogen-ammonia?srnd=premium-europe
Article headed "Shipping Has Largely Relied on One Fuel. It Now Needs Many: Sparklines"
"The study not surprisingly finds that the single biggest determinant of shipping decarbonization will be what regulators require of the industry.
Still, it will be shipowners and operators who chart the course. China, Korea, and Japan dominate shipbuilding, with companies such as Daewoo, Samsung, Hyundai, and Mitsubishi maintaining global reach. Decisions made by any one of these highly competitive companies would urge others to follow suit. Similarly, ship operators such as Maersk, MSC, or Cosco could also use their clout to make fuel choices that will require their peers to catch up."
I have been refreshing the Boots Eroxon page. Just now, it said there were 100+ purchases in the last 24 hours, then a few seconds later it said "added to basket 52 times in the last 24 hours", earlier it said about 40 times, while also saying 100+purchases. Can someone explain how this can be? Surely adding to the basket is a precondition to buying, so how can it have been sold more than 100 times yet added to the basket on only 40-50 times? Unless people bought about 2 packs each time? But then it would have to have been almost exactly 100 sales. If it had actually been 200 sales then the average person would have had to buy 4 packs each, which is even more unlikely. What's the explanation please?
Abatt1, thanks, I have now also found it on the LSE's own site, not sure why it doesn't appear on IG's list. But anyway you are right so I withdraw my comment, as given that the trade was already public we don't have any proof that JS isn't just making it all up.
Well, indeed a sale of 55,000 shares was reported at the end of the day as having occurred at 8.46AM, and since JS announced his sale of 55,000 shares before this was publicly reported this does imply that he is telling the truth at least on this occasion, otherwise he wouldn't know about the sale of 55,000 shares. Now actually I find this very encouraging. As it tells us that probably a large proportion of the shares being sold and thus a large part of the reason for the depressed share price is actually our one and only JS. Now to put it politely. I believe there are many on this board who don't necessarily hold his judgment in the highest regard. So if you hold this view, the conclusion is that the low share price is actually a result not of sophisticated investors selling, the implication being that in the absence of JS's selling the share price would be somewhat higher, and thus one could hope that once he has finished selling the price will find its way higher, as other investors don't necessarily agree that the fair price is as low as it currently is.
So in a nutshell, if you don't trust JS's judgment then you shouldn't be spooked into selling on the premise that the low price is proof of some problem with the company that you don't know about, as it's actually just JS causing the low price.
Re Axe's post on Friday at 11.52 saying "The rise is de to the conference we are on at weekend/beginning of next week. Good opportunity to pump it and see if a RNS Lands Monday Morning, if it doesn't the sell off will happen rapidly. Deja Vu!"
As I understand it there is no conference this weekend, there are conferences on 4th May and on 20th May as stated on Synairgen's website: https://www.synairgen.com/investors/investor-calendar - but I don't think anyone has pointed out yet to Axe that actually there is no conference this weekend - am I missing something?
Greener, do you have any clear basis to assume that the govt is actually going to bring in an EPL floor - I mean there has been much talk about it but nothing has come of it yet and it seems to have gone quiet - so is there something specific making you confident about this?
I am wondering, let's say the farmout really happens on terms based on which analysts have valued JOG at £8 say - does that mean the price would go very quickly to £8, or would it only get there when production actually starts and if so I wonder what price it should get to in the short term?
Frazerjohn, right, nothing has been added to the fiscal burden, but the point is that it's hard to agree terms when neither party knows what the final tax policy will be - as since we know there could be a loosening of policy then potentially farminees might offer better terms, but they can't do that until they know the final tax position, and similarly JOG doesn't know what terms are reasonable for it to accept, and it knows that it could be worth waiting for a better tax situation in which it could get a better deal - so it's not in shareholders' interests for them to conclude on whatever might be on offer now. It makes a lot of sense and is really not at all the fault of the company that the govt is dithering on finalising its tax policies.
Battery, to be honest I don't know much about other companies that are focused exclusively on the North Sea, I'm not a sector expert but I would imagine each company would have its own individual circumstances - which other companies are you comparing with?
Yes, I think the fall in share price is not because we are near the supposed "deadline" of 31st March as promised by JOG - if so it should happen on Monday - why today more than yesterday? The fall is because no floor was announced for the WFT in the govt announcements. But today was billed as a "Green Day" (before it was renamed - according to the FT, because jokes were made about the name) and only happened because a court mandated the govt to clarify its green policies. So there is actually no logical reason for them to have announced changes to the EPL today. Indeed, they didn't refer at all to oil taxation, or certainly not in detail. Clearly they didn't see it as appropriate to announce all their energy security policies today including oil policies, as this not related to achieving net zero - otherwise they would have raved about how the investment allowance encourages investment in the North Sea. They just didn't talk about it at all as it wasn't relevant for today.
Indeed at https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/uk-government-airbrushes-out-north-sea-oil-and-gas-industry it says:
"But one industry insider suggests news relating to oil and gas has been deliberately pushed back to a later date. There is thought to have been fears their inclusion would give Shadow Secretary of State for Climate Change and Net Zero Ed Miliband a stick to beat ministers with. It is believed that the oil and gas measures are still happening, with an announcement possible next week."
Similarly, Ithaca announced toady "We remain committed to investing in the UK North Sea, however the impact of the revised Energy Profit Levy ("EPL") announced in November 2022, in particular the removal of the sunset clause, is constraining our ability, and that of our JV partners, to invest. With a reduction in borrowing capacity across the sector as a direct result of EPL, the ability of the oil and gas industry to unlock the benefits of investment programmes across the UKCS to provide critical domestic energy security and meet its Net Zero ambitions is under threat. We continue to constructively engage with the UK government in relation to the future fiscal policy in pursuit of the stability required to make these critical investment decisions." - note "We continue to constructively engage with the UK government" - so clearly change may well still be on the agenda.
So I do think all this negativity is out of place. What may be true is that the delay in finalising the policy may cause a further delay in finalsing the farmout, as farminees want to have finality on the tax position, and JOG may well announce as much. So it's just a case of more delay through no fault of the company, nothing to do with incompetence, so all such negativity is just silly.
Actually I suspect that the whole subscription is not because of an immediate need for funds (the company didn't say there was a need for funds) - but because Wickes sees value and wants to buy a large stake. He can't buy that much in the market at anything close to the quoted price, so they arranged this subscription for him. But of course they can't do it just for him as everyone would say it's unfair and possible illegal, especially if eventually it becomes clearer the comany is worth a lot more or there is a takeover etc. - so they make it open to the public but the price is put high enough above the market price that makes it unattractive to anyone without inside knowledge - then no-one can complain as they were also offered the chance to buy. Job done.
Genuinely, if you want to deramp I would suggest you do it under a new ID - you're just looking ridiculous now. By the way, when you talk about being down £150,000, which is based on your claim of having about 1m shares - the day to day movements are of very little relevance to someone with a holding that large as there is no way you could sell that amount at the market price, you are basically depending on a takeover or major news to make it possible to sell that stake, and gambling that will happen rather than a failure in which case you basically lose most of it. (But you know this anyway)