We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Not sure that environmental stewardship and crypto mining sit well together
Maybe I am old fashioned, but I find it a great pity that some contributors appear unable to debate a subject without becoming lewd and abusive.
Maybe the problem in all this is timescales. Yes, we know there is plenty of oil and gas in the ground, and we have confidence that it can be brought out. But over what timescale? The price of gas and oil is very high at present, but as the world tries to move to zero carbon, supply may exceed demand, and prices plummet.
To me, that is the missing element. When will the company be generating substantial cash and in a position to start paying dividends? To my knowledge, no one has given us an estimate.
Third time lucky, not quite sure how you work out that the share price has been let go. More to the point though, I am still waiting for someone to explain the mechanics of the alleged management. In other words, if demand exceeds supply at a given price, where do the shares come from to meet the excess demand?
Well Mr Cautious, I suppose it all depends on when you bought Rose shares. I bought in October 2018 (3.67p) and April 2019 (1.13p), so I am quite happy with performance so far
Kennymac
Thanks for that info, and I do like the sarcasm of referring to Bhoys as my friend!
Thinking about it, perhaps my main point was why oh why only give us 24 hours? I have never before seen a placement with such a restriction. Was this a limitation put on by zephyr or by turner pope, or for some reason an agreement between them.
The other question your post raises I suppose is how come turner pope could offer you an account directly, when the RNs said they couldn't (or wouldn't?)?
Interactive Investor have not had dealings with them either, and said they could not deal with it in the timescale.
This seems a very strange way to make a shareholder placement, not very helpful at all. Why couldn't Zephyr do it in the normal way?
I did say that I would not post again, but sorry, I could not resist this one. Two quotes today from the Bhoys
"We are all entitled to our opinions"
"The best thing you can do is filter this geezer"
Many thanks for your support, Kennymac, and to the others who "liked" my post
What a pity that one cannot have a discussion on this site without certain parties resorting to abusive language. I fully admitted in my post that I may be completely wrong. Did I get anyone pointing out where I was wrong,, and what a more accurate figure should be? No, I did not, I got a load of abuse instead. There are a number of posters on this site bemoaning how low the price is, but just say "do the maths". If they have done the maths for themselves, they certainly have not published it on here. And Tom111, if you want to know where the figures come from, look no further than the latest update on the producing well for the NPV.
There is no need for anyone to filter me since I have now given up attempting an honest debate on this site, and will post no more. That will obviously be good news for some of you who want to live in your own little world. If only for the sake of my own not inconsiderable investment, I do hope that one day it does not come crashing down about your ears.
Northern Magic, please forgive me if I have got this totally wrong. The share price really depends on estimates of future earnings, and the reliability of such estimates. We are told that the well being tested and set up has an estimated net present value of 12.5 million US dollars. That would seem to be less than a penny per share in value. Therefore in terms of the current share price, we are already assuming many more equivalent wells being exploited This looks eminently possible but obviously not without risk. So is it rather early to be talking about multiples of the current share price, or am I missing something fundamental?
A rise to drag in buyers?? Could you possibly explain why a higher price will persuade people to buy?
Theyknowitall, what we definitely do not need on this forum are condescending posters who are not open to considering or discussing views with which they do not immediately agree .
If you consider that I am clogging up the forum, then your best bet would be to give me the "green box" so you will not have to put up with me any longer, and others will not have to put up with your responses.
Papaduke, RNSs do not make a SP, although they can of course influence it. What will primarily determine it is anticipated future earnings, discounting any risk attached to achieving those earnings
I have yet to see anywhere a calculation of what the share is worth based on a reasonable assessment of future earnings. If I have not seen it, then perhaps others have not. Without such information, we do not know whether the share is already fully valued.
Believe it if you want to, I obviously can't stop you.
Yes, OK deskstand, but can anyone do the actual sums to prove a value of "10p and way beyond"? And how far beyond based on what assumptions?
Do we have any mathematicians / accountants on this board with enough understanding of potential future earnings, who could work out what a share price would be, based on such future earnings for a range of scenarios.?
It seems to me that everyone is saying the share price should be higher than it is, but it would be nice to see some sums indicating where that price perhaps ought to be.
Setanta, if there is "no shortage of available shares", where do you think they are coming from, if not from holders selling?
As has been noted many times before on this forum, shares reported as buys or sells are unreliable because they are simply based on whether the trade is nearer the bid or offer price.
Jaytee, I assume you mean panic selling!
As I have said before, price goes down BECAUSE holders sell, not holders selling because price goes down.
If there was a lack of shares MMs would push the price UP
There is quite a lot about this subject in the corporate update of 25th January 2021.