Member Info for dunderhead

Johno this is exactly my point.

Earlier reports from Gonzo was he was making a big deal in cutting back on hc when in reality that hc was f all to do with BC?

Hence to see "non increase" of G&A lauded as an achievement or a strength is just ridiculous and another example of disingenuous irrelevance unless of course, this G&A staffing was for some reason charged to Shell CB asset which would mean it was an identifiable "real" cost saving which I personally don't think it was? All IMHO.

Smasher I did amend to 99% management fault!!

Just as a cheeky reminder if indeed your AIM theory carries any real weight, which, as I wrote earlier, I don't but, who chose us to be listed on (underperforming index, AIM)? I assume it was the "management" but somehow they aren't to be accountable for that decision then?

The Sunday dinner was very much thanks but you guessed it, I thought it was a little expensive and could have been "better"?! All IMHO.

How is "g&a" defined here johno?

I take "g&a" to be costs covered by PCO in relevant cross company charging?

Ie costs that shouldn't be directly borne by the assets, hence I'd be livid if we needed "g&a" support for the CB asset, so why is this a surprise or seen as a "bonus"?

If Gonzo stated no "g&a" was it in the context of no additional manpower "per se" (which I'd find very worrying for a number of factors) or no non attributable "management" costs, as that is what I'd refer to as "g&a" in the context of acquiring an operating asset, IMHO? Because why on Earth would we be picking up such head count, that should stay with Shell?

Serious question.

The market tells me they are inappropriately valued?

Last post from me unless you come out with further absurdity, respectfully but please take the time to actually read my posts, I have said none of what you are quoting, ffs.

The market tells us nothing, except the value we can currently trade the assets at. We may have an opinion the current valuation is wrong but that is all it is, an opinion.

What did the market "tell" you when the share price was 70p or 80p?!! There were a lot of people screaming what amazing value it was (when Casca (finally) comes onstream!! I think I was in a minority of 1 questioning this to much amusement of "experts"!)) and the "market" was "wrong" then?!

Based upon guidance at the time from "management" one "may" have inferred it was good value then as well?

However, because the management did not deliver on this "guidance" the share price dropped.

There is a chance that if the management delivers on their current (albeit in some people's opinion, limited at this stage of acquisition, which may or may not raise concerns) guidances then I'm sure people may buy the share and it will go up in value?!

I have no idea but the (majority) investor profile here is "probably" quite "tired" of this share and hence may take (if lucky enough) earlier profits to safeguard them or "average down" or take reduced losses from holding or just sell to crystallise reduced losses?

I personally have averaged down twice recently (both purchases of which are now in loss!) to reduce the price at which I may or may not sell at. Equally I am expecting (hopefully, lol) to crystallise a large profit elsewhere (in the next quarter) which I will then need to offset losses, against which I am likely to do so here, however have the luxury of doing so, over the next full UK financial tax year.

When these transactions take place, people may infer that I am taking taking "trading" or long term losses?!

These are my personal reasons for continuing to hold. I am sure there are lots of others which will create the "market" in this stock over time. Aligned with that, the best way for the "market" to revalue however, IMHO, is for the management to deliver and let's see if they do.

As ever all IMHO and off now for a well earned Sunday dinner at my local!!

Ok smasher 99% then, lol!!

Had the "management" delivered in line with their OWN guidances, schedules and budgets like other successful AIM e&p companies this would likely be priced at a premium .

It just gets boring when people bleat on about "other " potential reasons why the share price is under performing.

Fundamentally good well managed AIM companies are (rare, lol and) valued appropriately.

The fact that the majority of companies on AIM are not good well managed companies and the fact the whole index represents this, is not a reason or excuse for poor management. It is simply the case that the companies valued in that manner are representative and reflect the general calibre of the index.

But hey, if it helps you to justify the poor share price performance and own the personal responsibility of a poor investment choice then good on you.

Best of luck all and as ever all IMHO.

Stas I hope you're not including me in the group of people who still post negatively yet "quietly" accumulating etc. ? I have always been clear when I have bought shares here but equally am fully aware of the risks involved and not afraid to state these. Your posts are valid of course but I IMHO, do not think, along with the many other similar repetitive positive posts, you adequately highlight the risks, IMHO.

This then prompts other posters to repeat their equally valid concerns without directly criticising you however, you and johno and others seem to think it is okay to criticise personally in response or post about shady ulterior motives. Christ so it's OK for you to post positively as "it's positive" but anything negative is shrouded with people playing their books?!

Just as you find the negative posts tiresome so a lot of people find the rose tinted ones just as tiresome.

Equally I think it must be remembered, as you appear to recognise, it is only really the financials that will prove either way and any posts on here really are an irrelevance in comparison to the BoD who surely are 100% responsible for the share price and not "small" posters or do you genuinely think posters on here are responsible for the long term share decline over past few years? All IMHO.

I personally think the problem is that too many people have over leveraged themselves here and this then impacts their ability to see things in a balanced manner?

I've been saying that literally for last three years about diversification and not doing so just creates positive bias echo chambers. I've often commented I "think" the CB deal is a good one but certainly don't know enough about it and you have to delegate that to relevant "management" for that work. I am a little surprised at the level of information they don't appear to know already (or more probably, are unwilling currently to share) for such a small relatively simple transaction but that's just my opinion!

This is NOT the case here as I do support this acquisition but I thought the PHAR acquisition of Egypt assets at the time, was so bad I had no idea what the justification was but "trusted" the management to know better than me. It transpired I was very wrong in that assumption, lol!!

Each to their own and best of luck all. All IMHO.

Johnoxxx, in recognition of owning the mistakes do you think they could drop the salary packages of the BoD to reflect these and perhaps when they start performing at the standard expected, they could be re visited? I don't mean by piggy backing the excellent standards, processes and procedures purchased from Shell and taking them as their own either, of course!!

What do you think of their salary package, out of interest?

Domus thanks for clarification.

I don't know why Gonzo couldn't have simply answered the question in this manner "we are planning to restart the Casca drilling programme in x weeks. We expect Casca 4 to hit target depth from 2-3 weeks on that well recommencement".

This covers that they may start drilling Casca5 then head back to Casca4 without stating as such but also, doesn't mean that he has specifically said "recommencing Casca 4, hit TD then "skidding" to 5" which was just too much detail, "considering" the reaction since, IMHO.

Again I SHD but even so, if it transpires they hit TD after 2-3 weeks for C4 and it flows well, after, then I'll take that, as embarrassing as the planning and operations for this will have been.

As ever all IMHO.

Hang on SS as I "understand" it, "casca4" will just be drilled after casca5 and it is merely a reallocation of programme?

Hence actually I question why this couldn't be shared by Gonzo as it is just a rescheduling?

Also I'd be personally surprised if he didn't know this rescheduling (if indeed that is all it is) at the last qa as well but "maybe" give him some room for this government "excuse"?

I personally would have just changed my wording to provide better clarification without "giving the game away" but if indeed the well duration timings of 2-3 weeks for cas4 to TD do crystallise as such, does it matter if this is before or after cas5?

In theory as well, they should be able to drill full (new) St in that duration if they were a normal drill team?

I believe he did mention that such wells onshore could conceivably be relatively easily done in 2 weeks if it were not for the "geology". It is of course a shame that such potential issues were not included in the cash flow planning originally of course!!

But such planning is hardly one of TXP strengths is it!?

All IMHO.

I actually had hardolestation on filter however curiosity got the better of me.

Judging by the obvious quality of recent posts, can I arsk, hardy me old mucker, are you actually PB IRL?

Stas exactly my initial point when the placing first came about.

If PE then I would have been worried but as you state we don't even have that current visibility.

Could be a big coincidence but what this is really about, abd one step further than your theory IMHO, is not a TO but "management" protecting their jobs and the private TO is a side issue. IMHO.

How are they going to profit from such a low take out price? Its self protection because they know they're useless and this is why I keep on mentioning to Discord we need to protect the 10% limit.

All worst case and very extreme and importantly IMHO not based on any facts! (Except the uselessness of course, lol).

You're absolutely right alli.

PS thanks to SM for letting LSE board know of his trades, it is much appreciated.

Johno you were the one calling people idiots?!

Exactly same back to you Syas why dont you filter me and Hardolestation, ffs.

I will not be posting that often now anyway, not because I agree with posts but simply got better things to do.

To think any posts on here influence share prices is a joke as well, so just makes me think a few on here have stretched themselves a little too much, lol!!

Again IMHO.

Stas ffs what was that trader reference yesterday "oh I knew he was a trader and thanks for the price impact now"?!

You and johno need to get a grip. It's alright for you two to continually spit off your positive crap all the time but when there are negative views it's criticism galore about boring repetitive crap?!

We are at this low price exactly because of these reasons, and now the investor profile here is full of traders.

That's not their "fault" it's "managements" fault and everyone is entitled to trade on whatever horizons they want.

Who are you two? The divine share gods who dictate what is and isn't right about share performances?!

When I said I was fing busy I was attending a memorial for a dead ex colleague so drop crap snide comments about me gojng qiet implying either I was "trading my book" or worse I couldn't answer some of the points you two were making, seriously, lol!!

All IMHO!!

HLM, how very very dare you to even suggest such a thing. These placees are locked in for 5-10 times gains because other people say so of course, lol!

Maybe it will not fly so well considering the state of the BS and the truly appalling mismanagement here that's been going on for years? V v busy today so best of luck all!!

IMHO.

Lol, ab, are you kidding? TXP didn't realise the (self induced) mess they were in? I'd be even more worried if that were the case, IMHO.

Respectfully I read it as inheriting the balances so feel that was pretty clear IMHO.

Gonzo isn't the brightest puppet but I'm not going to hang him for that. The exchange difference was a bit stupid, though, as this was unequivocally wrong.

Again IMHO!!

Lol who were the twats on here who 1000% assured everyone there would be no placings for CB etc.

Come on guys you put everyone down for suggesting as such. What do you have to say now, lol!!

Wall of cash??!!