Just observed from the SOU share chat board that RGM will now have the benefit of more of his expertise.
It may just be bitterness on my part because he contributed to me losing a large proportion of my investment in SOU (if not all) but I think not. It is more to do with the manner in which he made statements and promises to the shareholders about the value of their shares. This is not an allegation of his actions there is a great deal of evidence on this either on the LSE site or on records shareholders have retained.
Worryingly, for RGM shareholders, is the image that this chap has of his abilities and the reality. He clearly stated that SOU was worth a price of well above 50p and that he, as a champion deal maker would make this a reality.
He walked away from SOU (going to RGM) with a share price of less than 2p.
I am sure all of this has been posted by other SOU shareholders, some of whom I understand are looking to involve the regulatory authorities but I was just moved to make my own comment following the news he had finally formally left SOU.
Just to avoid doubt, it is not an issue to fail to hit oil/gas in this game - investors know and anticipate that - the issue here is the manner that the concept of a bottom level foundation of value was promoted by Mr Parsons.
Make your own mind up about what he is going to bring to this business...……….
Not posted for a while as waiting for things to come to a conclusion.
We are where we are now but I don't think JP understood the level of upset with the PI's - I was quite surprised his comment about his desire only to represent shareholders that are pleasant (or words to that effect). Can I make it clear here that I don't agree with physical threats and most certainly not death threats.
However, we do have a reason to be upset as we were given assurances that went above and beyond 'marketing'. The comments around the SP being supported by the value of the business at various times was proven not to be the case. There were examples of exaggeration of a very high order. Many investors would probably have bailed out much earlier were they not previously told that the SP was worth a £1 or much more and that it was underpinned at 43p, which then became 23p which then vanished. If it was reasonable to tell investors that the SP could be four digits then I think it would have been equally fair to warn them that it was unlikely they could get 10p in the deal he could negotiate. We all know that O&G is a high risk game but it is not as high a risk game when you are being told that you have an asset worth a significant amount of money.
What is my point - my point is that he has not behaved in a way that is fit and proper as should the Director of a Company and therefore that he should not be a Director of a Company in the UK.
Having a read of the complaints process now.
Picked up a few more SOU today but not sure that I think that purchases in the 50, 60k level are signs of great support.
The story is out there and people will make their choices - mine is that the story remains strong.
Really odd to see posters such as Gaspunter popping up at this late stage with puerile comments - it just highlights the weakness of the internet that anyone on a whim can have input on a matter of which they know little and whose motives are difficult to determine - are they just some sad individual with time to waste or do they think they can manipulate the markets?
Personally I am quietly excited about where we are now while understanding that deals of this nature take a great deal of time. I was involved in a meeting yesterday where the person I was talking with was pleased that they had just achieved funding for their project of £2m after two years of effort. We are looking for many hundreds of millions and into the billions potentially so we should be sure that this will not be a box ticking exercise by the purchaser.......
All in my opinion
Excellent! Well worth the effort to illustrate the inconsistencies.
You couldn't actually make this up as a story if you wanted to but someone out there actually thinks and talks like this. Very odd. Why they do might be another question.
Not sure why but you came out of my filter automatically - I will rectify that now.
However, will respond while passing!
JP just met everyone recently and said a great deal about what was going on. Also, a post recently quoted JP where he explained what was going on with the testing. Nowhere has there been an indication of issues.
There is only so much hand holding that can go on while they are doing their job so maybe best to let them do it.
If you have been in employment either as an employee or as a manager then you will be aware that micro management is a painful and unproductive experience.
You will hear something soon - it may range from extremely good to extremely poor (or somewhere in between) but you may as well accept that.
As a final point, if Sound told you that the reason for the delay was that they were working on other priorities would that help or would we just see a whole host of posts about mismanagement and conspiracy theories?
Hope everyone enjoys your response if you give one as I wont as you are filtered again because I think your posts are illogical and manic. Oh, and I still have a feeling of sick when I think back to your gloating when other shareholders were losing money as the price went down to 11p.
Sorry, I know that this is a BB to share discussion and thoughts but your comment is just so obvious it is a little odd that you would post it thus my question.
I think we all hope that TE10 will flow commercially but that then is to be expected.
If I had no confidence that it was likely to flow commercially (and I am not sure of your reasons for that) then I don't think I would remain invested.
As we have been told a number of times this is a high risk./high reward venture and the choices that are made to stay in or get out will be linked to what information is available to us and from where we can make the decision about quite where that risk/reward balance is. I don't think we have that yet for TE10.
More generally the whole Tendrara project has clearly moved over time from the potential Supergiant to where we are now and that is part of the risk/reward element. Is there still enough gas there to go at and that can be extracted commercially.
I hope so (pun intended)
Shed - SOU share information and then that information is picked to pieces. Even the sparse RNS yesterday which was clearly intended to calm jittery investors was criticised.
Phrases such as mobilisation and procurement can mean anything you want them to mean without the planning documents that go with them and with the 'real' on the ground plans rather than the desires of us investors. I say again that there may be other variables that decide how hard things are pushed to obtain timelines when other things are going on from a business and negotiation perspective.
I worked on a project where we could have 'gone live' in the January but it was much more neficial to do this (for various reasons) in May. It didxnt please everyone to do this and there were reasons that couldnt be shared for the delay but thats business/life.
I dont work in IT (and apologies to any that do) but I have been involved in enough IT projects that sail happily past deadline after deadline because of the complexities involved, I may be wrong but operating in the middle of nowhere with very sophisticated equipment (including said IT systems) then the scope for delay seems significant.
Anyway, that is enough of being the apologist for Sound. It is what it is and some people will never have enough answers or the answers they want. Tell us nothing but the final result seems the easiest option for Sound.
And what level of detail do you think should be shared? I have worked on many, many projects and the level of detail you are requesting would just not get escalated to senior management (never mind shareholders) unless it was critical. I suspect that the timescales that are being followed meant that this is something that is following the plan. To look at the comments you and others make there is a suggestion that the management of Sound are lying to us. Fair enough, this is Aim and it isn't the 'cleanest' placed to invest but much more importantly (in my view) they would also therefore have to be lying to and misleading SLB. I find that highly unlikely not least because they are so close to the operational side of things. You deserve to be told nothing except the final results in my opinion as you cant take the information you are being given without knitting it into a conspiracy theory.
Just my opinion of course.
Does seem that the conversation is similar in many ways to that prior to us getting to 11p.
There was no reason for it then and there is no reason for it now.
It is odd that when there is a difficult period the most useful thing some people can think of doing is fighting amongst themselves. Really odd.
This is a chat board so people should put forward their theories for consideration. I suppose part of the issue is that when someone proposes a theory they then seem to want that to be the 'right' one and will then fight for it. Obviously most of these theories are proved to be wrong but as this is an informal debating hall there is no mechanism to go back and tally up who got most right or wrong over the longer term.
And then of course you get 'theories' that are just intended to create a stir. Usually with no factual information involved they predict an outcome such as the FCA will be involved by June. It is difficult to see what this brings to the debate.
Anyhow, the sentiment will rage on for a while and then we will get the facts which will be the real ultimate driver of the value.
Agreed PNE. I tell my kids all the time to stop whining (therapeutic parenting they call it) - if you can do something about the problem then do it. If you cant do something about the problem then don't worry about it and don't moan about it.