Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Afentra, an upstream oil and gas entity with a keen focus on Africa, recently shared insights on its operational strides, particularly regarding its assets on Block 3/05 and 3/05A. The company is jubilant about its production prowess, boasting an impressive combined gross output of approximately 23,700 barrels of oil per day (bopd) up to the end of February 2024, with a net contribution of around 6,995 bopd. The initiation of Light Well Interventions is anticipated to bolster these figures further.
As you can see from the chart mapping the time since my inaugural feature to date, we are currently 12p to the good. However, i am mindful of more fruitful licensing agreements that could further boost the share price. Currently, the share price appears to be undergoing a consolidation period. If it drops around 30p i am likely to buy at this point.
https://twitter.com/LEMMINGINVESTOR/status/1767984342217752631
It is just my opinion, as conspiratorial as it may seem. However, It seems the narrative has been spun to fuel a personal grudge against SA/MR because of the CB facility, particularly as I can't recall Mr Angry levelling comparable accusations at any other firm he's covered that employed the CB facility. This selectivity, along with the curious timing, strikes me as rather odd.
Ponder these, if you will.
Why did TW speculate on "an introductory fee" for the CB?
Why did he choose not to ask before publishing a delicately worded missive that clearly implied an indefensible status for the board if true?
Why TW still states, "I am not sure that this actually answers my question as to whether there was an introductory fee paid."
TW also keeps throwing the 2p figure into discussions; why do you think so?
Pete,
You said: "Elric, if you had a concern that a introductory fee may have been paid, why did you not voice this publicly?"
Please refrain from employing the TW strategy of shifting the blame for misrepresentation onto me by raising an "issue" I neither hinted at nor showed any signs of. The responsibility lies with you. To clarify, at no point did I voice, insinuate, or demonstrate any worries about fees being exchanged by parties linked to the CBs. This notion appears to be a figment of Mr Angry's imagination, concocted to further his personal vendetta against the CB facility and perhaps to soothe his wounded pride from not being consulted for his 34 years of experience in navigating the intricacies of the financial world.
It's implied BS. Read the article. It is plain and simple, oh, and factual.
This is a case of men and their egos getting the better of them, and third parties are collateral damage. Another unconnected investor made this point more than 10 hours before I made a similar point privately to TW. He chose to use this information for other purposes. I have lost all trust and good faith in TW, so I have requested to cancel my subscription. If you wish to hang on every word of an angry bitter man, be my guest.
🚀 Exciting times ahead for #APTA
@AptamerGroup
& #Unilever partnership! 🌟 Successful development of novel #Optimer binders for FMCG innovation is pivotal. With patents in the pipeline, this collaboration is set to redefine consumer goods. 💡🛍️ #Innovation #InvestmentOpportunity
https://twitter.com/LEMMINGINVESTOR/status/1767238145454547226
Waggy, the truth is the first casualty in a vendetta campaign. I cancelled my membership because I am tired of the misinformation warfare. https://lemminginvestor.substack.com/p/skinbiotherapeutics-plc-840
Pete,
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your view " If Croda comes good your still cannot have these two idiots running the company."
I'm closely monitoring the developments surrounding the Dermatonics acquisition and UMG. It's evident the latter was not included in the company/broker forecasts, possibly due to the reasons previously discussed. Despite this oversight in some quarters when the purple mist has descended, it's worth considering whether SA has been subtly signalling market insights that many have overlooked, possibly obscured by confusion or misunderstanding.
I have already voiced my concerns about the CB financing to you, our readers, and SA. While it's not my preferred method, the board's decision to proceed this way suggests they haven't disregarded investor and stakeholder interests. Instead, using CB might be a strategic move to facilitate the Dermatonics acquisition, potentially positioning the company more favourably for future endeavours.
I encourage allowing SA and MR to demonstrate the efficacy of their strategy, countering the scepticism some have shown. Let's remain open to the possibility that their approach may ultimately lead to successful outcomes. I cannot make myself clearer.
Calling them idiots is not helpful. I can assure you that it will not add a few pence to your investment. Mr Angry attempted to draw SOH into trashing the Dermatonics and UMG deals. Well, that did not go how he expected, so I guess SOH did not think SA/MR were idiots for brokering them. That's not to argue that SOH is happy with the CBs.
I accept that recent events have greatly frustrated investors, and I am not different; that cannot be denied. Let us see how the remainder of 2024 develops.
Ignore the agenda being played against SA/MR - Oh, and now myself. Think about this for a few moments!
BP, of course not. It was a hypothetical argument the sceptics might use if the exec bought meaningful tranches of shares because SBTX couldn't possibly be a good investment.
BP, there's a lot of truth in that short statement. At least this time, the exce's have a reasonable excuse for them taking their sweet time. If they manage to update the forecasts for UMG and the expansion of Dermatonics in the USA, it may well be worth the wait. Yes, the market would welcome SA/MR buys, but I do suspect it would be frowned upon if they did so in a closed period, especially if it was meaningful. However, some of the sceptics would likely argue any meaningful buying was to throw us off the scent of a profit warning. Dam!
Pete, I appreciate your perspective, and I want you to know I've shared my own views in the comments, in my reporting, and with SA, including relaying concerns others have expressed to me. My aim is straightforward: maintaining an objective mindset, as you've rightly emphasised. I tend to leave the over-the-top reactions to others, who seem to have completely overlooked the executive board's commendable achievements with the UMG deal.
You seem torn between defending SA/MR and suggesting I should at least attempt to do so. I must admit, this back-and-forth is a bit puzzling. It takes me back to my teenage years, trying to decipher the cryptic messages from someone I fancied—only to realize I was a bit of a late bloomer in making sense of it all. Make your mind up. Do you want me to defend them or not? I guess you really want me to be a TW cheerleader, bashing the execs you mention. As I have said before, it is not my role. I keep my ego in check as much as I can. I prefer to beaver away in the background, lest my fan club accuse me of allowing my ego to get the better of me.
pg, tw is not lying about the "wealth destruction" comment. i accused tw of this during a rather irate email exchange last night. he hasn't lied. however, it does appear he is stretching the truth regarding the abuse on x. he implied my readers have been encouraged to abuse him on x. it's possible i have missed them. i trawled through to 27.02.2024. not only could i not find a single interaction to any of his x posts, but i could not see any abuse via his sp account.
elrico to tom winnifrith
despite you declaring you have said your piece, you double down seemingly without a care for the wealth destruction you leave in your wake. yes, i get the ceo/cfo have greatly assisted. they have listened to complaints from you and me and acted. that's a bl**dy victory.
a promise not to use any more cbs. another victory.
you can take the financial hit that most of your readers cannot.
as for my banter, that's all it is, knowing i'm playing with a loaded deck, allowing you to make a f*cking ****** of me. no problem, it's a bit of fun. what came next from you was sadly typical of your propensity to overreact.
have your fun, i'm ok with it. i allowed myself to be set up.
Tom has always argued he does not censor people on his boards. Yet, he has censored me at least three times, the most recent being a response to: cuthbert
"Ashman and Robin have persuaded Lemming Investor that the Modi deal was not included in the Cavendish report."
My response: Manprit has given the nod – my theory was spot on. Turns out, the UMG deal didn't make it into the Cavendish report, and yes, for the very reasons I outlined during what seemed like my brief flirtation with lunacy.
Eagerly anticipating the SOH interview. Fingers crossed, it doesn't dwell overly on any schemes to topple SA and Manprit.
I should add, I really do not care if I never record another podcast with any exec. I find them terrifying, they are not natural to me and I do not have the skills to required to do justice. I am far happier with a few questions sent via email and sharing the response with a sprinkling of analytical POV.
PG,
I've been in talks with SA about bringing back our bite-sized podcasts. The NOMAD may warm up to the idea if I made them freely available. Securing a sponsor could really open the doors to making them freely available. Like any sane person, I believe in fair compensation for the hard work put in by myself and our team. You'd be surprised to learn how many hours we put into what we do. Not everyone will see the value in what we offer, and that's alright – it's all part of the diverse marketplace of products and opinions. Yesterday's events should serve as a reminder to naysayers about the potential benefits our efforts can provide to investors.
While interviewing SA directly is off the table for now, it doesn't stop me or anyone else from posing questions, provided they aren't market-sensitive. Having this platform might just grease the wheels for quicker answers. But let's be real, bombarding any exec with an avalanche of questions is bound to leave many unanswered – expecting otherwise is simply unrealistic. Even I, despite my undeniable charm, often find myself on the receiving end of silence.
I make it a point to respond to all emails, whether you're a member or not. Just make sure to include your pseudonym or real name in your email, so I know who I'm chatting with. As for Alex, good luck getting through – he's not exactly Mr. Congeniality, something Aquae can vouch for!
Al, are a unicorn in a field of donkeys – rare because you're man enough to own up to your blunders. Sure, some of your remarks might seem like you're taking a jab at me, but I take it all in stride, knowing it's all in the spirit of constructive criticism, not spite – though we can't say the same for everyone, can we?
I try to be a conduit for our investor pals, and yeah, I catch some heat for it. But hey, that's the price of sticking your neck on the block, right? And unlike my "good friend," Mr Angry, who thinks he's always right, I'm no stranger to the occasional facepalm moment. He's wrong, BTW!
But mark my words; this chubby little hobbit will soon be marching out of helms deep, friend.
I do hope I have the correct spelling this time! :)