Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
IIdisagree. I welcome LH comments. It stops this becoming a church of the converted and brings a critical viewpoint, essnetial to help avoid groupthink and confirmation bias. I see he has alraedy commented, this time in a broadly positive way.
I hope so, RB84, but be careful with certainty.
Imv it is very likely so, but things can go wrong in the markets, as many of us know to our cost in early stage miners/oilies who looked every bit as convincing as EEE. So mb keep hold of your granny a little longer.
Notrex
" The 'pressure' is from four ideologically biased minority Democrat member of a sub-committee".
Mb. All politicians are "ideologically biased".
The point is the Co is attracting political interest, never a good thing.
TM1 The posting history point was not aimed at you.
The reason I won't engage is your agenda seems more political than investment focused. I know politics inevitably has an inpact, perhaps more here than at many O&G, cos, but the nub of the problem is the funding model and assumptions over well life/production, retirement costs/timetabling, etc.
Those issues are well documemted in the short attack, and of course have some congruence with the Congressional letter. The co has addressed many of these i its reply, of course, but it bseems the market is unconvinced.
Either this co is the biggest steal on the market, or it is approaching worthless and will implode in the next year or so. I don't think i have the tools to assess that comfortably.
If you think you have, fine, but just spare us the politics.
Clued
"Genghis15, TerryM1 very well knows this is an Investmemt Forum and has been here posting for a long while before you appeared !! "
you seem to be under the impression a long posting history gives privileges, and newcomers should tread carefully. i disagree,
As for TM1, it's no good getting irritable with me cos I won't engage in your agenda. Forget the party *olitics, focus on the issues, market, etc. The Congrssional pressure isn't going away, nor are market dioubts over the financial model..
"actually an organic growth story but the market just doesn’t get it because it is shying away from all things London post Brexit" Quite.
But hedgies and PE look thru that, expect more US raids on FTSE cos this year bith from listed cos and PE. PHNX would be a handy morsel, I'm sure.
TerryM1
Precisely why I challenged your post. You are swerving off into a political arena due to your beliefs, irrelevant to the investment case.
DEC has a unique finance modeland unique acquisition & disposal strategy that relies on assumptions about production, wel life, emission levels and well plugging costs that are way outside industry norms. It was inevitable at some point that regulatory attention would be attracted, even in a fairly lax emissions jurisdiction such as USA. Just as it was that the finance model would be questioned.
Leave your politics at the door, this is an investment forum.
" your post below could basically cover every Gas and Oil producer in the world today"
i can look at oilco accounts and see +ve EPS, +ve net current assets, etc, etc. DEc, I'm sorry to say, shows +ves.
Yes, I know it's affected by the accounting treatments of hedges etc, but over time that should even out.
Mb I'm weong and DEC will come thru and prove healthy on all counts, but the busdiness model gives doubters, adthe shorters you imagine behind every post, plenty of scope. Jeez lol all you like, but " every Gas and Oil producer in the world today" does not have these problems.
TM1
It seems to me odd to blame Democrats. the congressional letter appeared to me to raise valid points and nothing wrong with that ; potentially leaky wells are a scourge, and it is up to DEC to demonstrate they are 100% compliant here.
The real issue is that the business model here of substantial and rolling debt, rolling hedging, acquisition & disposal, makes it hard to analyse the accounts without a week to spare and access to supporting docs.
Add to that the very real issue of DEC's hugely lower assunptions on well costs than industry norms, and much higher extimates of future production, and the SP will, I suspect, remain vulnerable for a considerable time now.
No, it isn't. It's a relatively normal drift down on an early stage explorer whilst we wait for more news, more progress.
The usual pattern is for weakness following a strong run up, small spikes on news that is good but expected, then more weakness until genuinely game changing news. That game changing news could come tomorrow, later this year, or even next. in the meantime, drift and spike, drift and spike.
Every situation, every share is different, however, so that's not a prediction, merely the usual pattern.
ML
May i point out 1. Mineral sands are not hard rock deposits. No comparison.
2. Whilst LH does not answer all your Qs, neither do you answer all his. There IS rather a lot of "trust SB" in there, which is not the point. I have no reason to doubt his honesty (tho let me say that with AIM CEOs it is often best to) but no investor should assessing early stage exploration on the words of the CEO or BoD.
Trust, but verify, as Reagan had it.
I can well remember the multi TCf at SOU as touted by James Parsons as "golden tickets" which turned to dust (or sand). Wa he wrong, misled, or misleading us, or possiblY all 3 at different stages?
Or Robert Trice at HUR, who I believe to have been above board but just wrong.
Now, I'm not saying either of those situations appies here. Just that treating any CEO or BoD words, no matter how firmly and honestly held, as certainty is a dangerous game.
Reagan had it ; trust, but verify.
" faint praise heavily offset by doomsday scenarios"
Not at all. I outlined the upside/downside both ofthe central expectation, and of left field scenarios. I didn't assign probabilities to any of them, that's for everyone to judge.
The point is, capital is more at risk early than it is later. The potential rewards are greater, too.
If I seen weighted towards the negative, perhaps that's bcos the +ve is the default assumption by most here, so there is little point labouring it, while the inherent risks get ignored.
Aimgambler123
" you'll be loading up at a much higher price, which makes capital preservation more risky than loading up at the lows"
nobody knows where the sp goes from here. Yes, you could be right. Equally, Sp could fall back to single figs b4 news, and not spike above previous highs until much later. Not an uncommon path for early stage explorers with a discivery that is a long way from development, and only partly proven.
Or something big could come out of left field, a bid at 50p, say, or a disappointing drill/assay/mineralogy result could crater the SP completely. We don't know.
But if you think loading up on an early stage explorer is capital preservation, your understanding of the term is at odds with that of the rest of the investment universe.
I've no idea if LH is a manipulative trader or honest broker, and to some degree don't care.
Imv he offers up some usefuk questions that deserve proper consideration, and well founded technical rebuttal if invalid.
I know many on BBs think it shoul;d be full of cheerleaders only, but I welcome the doubters, challengers, and awkward questions.
AIM is a casino, mre people lose money than make it, and caveat emptor should be the dictum.
Fwiw i remain invested here, tho in smaller size than a week ago. At some pointlikely after mineralogical analysis, I may be loading up again. But if I miss the train, so be it. Capital preservation is rule no 1.
Has anyone here receved responses when emailing the company? i used the online form on EEE website twice last year, but received no response. TBH I can't even remember what I asked, bcos the form doesn't save my Q and there appears to be no way to message direct from my email provider so i can keep a record.
There is an email listed for info@stbridespartners.co.uk has anyone used this for responses?
Thanks in advance!
" I now start to wonder if the finance is a bigger problem than perceived?"
Depends who's doing the perceiving. The faithful here think it's no problem at all, point only to promised production ramp up and projecteed revenues.
These BBs are always a church of the conveted so you will see much more of that view than the opposite, which i have voiced many times, that until cash is sorted, clearly, unequivocally, and with a clear runway to operational cash +vitiy. and preferably net profitability, this share is best avoided.
And so it remains ; every effort at raising cash is too little, too late, to restore investor confidence.
I begin to think that such appareent ineptitude cannot be ; and that mb there is a plan to somehow take the co private at investor expense. Hopefully that's not the case, but only time will tell.