Member Info for IAmNotAnAnalyst

Great article, thanks for the link

It sounds like what MrsP is more interested in is a pure play on gas prices. Not sure why they wouldn't just trade the commodity direct if they believe to know the direction and timing of gas price trades.

There's a lot more going on with KIST than just gas price. The recent high prices were a bonus and I'm pretty sure the market wasn't pricing in a maintenance of 120 and significant disparity with the cost per unit energy with oil.

Predicting the actions of Putin/Russia is a bit of a fools errand.

Maybe you were right investor95. Immediat appointment of a new, joint, corporate broker suggests an increase in workload.

Presumably part of the 'underpricing' is the disconnect between gas and oil prices per unit energy. As AA of KIST said in his interview yesterday he expects them to converge again (gas down and oil up). However, nothing is a given and at the moment it seems a lot easier for oil to be in surplus than for gas to...maybe hence the disconnect in unit energy prices...

Just my 2p

Cyan - he cleary knows what the proposals are and has not responded directly to any of them.

Both are gas produces, broadly in the same ballpark market cap wise. Both are looking to 'expand' or buy assets .
Prior to KIST, RRE with AA as CEO were similar to SQZ with a fair amount of cash on hand and seemingly undervalued by the market. I think the feeling is the companies are too small to be valued appropriately and are vulnerable to a hostile take over, so maybe stronger together is the thesis.

I agree - the due diligence argument also doesn't make sense when there is international law protecting investments. That's the whole basis of the lawsuit, if your due diligence is telling you Italy may not follow international law as a rogue state and not respect it then they might as well say you can't trust anything or anyone or any contract.

I agree with the point about dividend as income considering the source of most revenues not actually being part of the long term income of the company.

I guess our key difference lies in what you say at the start - you're happy to compound whereas I'm jittery and fairly close to ready to sell and I'd like to see my investment stay the same but with payouts to deploy elsewhere In the meantime because the risk feels too high for me.

PUTUP, I appreciate the response and do understand what you're saying (at least I think I do). It may well be a difference of philosophy or maybe financial means. I see investments as putting up capital to earn a return. Therefore, the expectation is that the capital stays as is and a return (by dividend) is earned. Your perspective is first that you want to be tax efficient (not an issue for me) and that you want to grow your capital invested as a defaul rather than to earn a return.

I guess you're more venture capital style whereas in more steady as she goes boring investment style. I hope you understand my perspective and I may be naive but I don't think I'm thick...

I think it's a matter of perspective PUTUP. I do believe you're correct from an academic perspective and all is true if there is a perfect market. I'm not one to go to conspiracy but I do think there are imperfections in market pricing and can work for or against us. Paying a dividend negates all that because the share price has no influence at all over what you get in your dividend. Any temporary price changes do impact the outcome of a buyback, as we've all seen.

Put up the bit you neglect to mention is that the share price is variable as we all know. Also a buyback is typicall announced which may invite some to buy the share in advance and then sell during the buyback period. In that scenario the dividend would have been better for shareholders.

If the company spend $50m on a buyback and got 1m shares Vs 0.5m shares, in which scenario am I better off as a holder? According to you both of these are equal, but they are not.

They did say they would RNS on the first spud.

My thoughts exactly Horse regarding awaiting permission to invest capital. The KRG have a route to generate investment in their neighbourhood but they need to sort it out.

Another thought I had was why don't the KRG buy shares in GKP, it would be the cheapest way for them to increase their % return on any oil sold...also the fair would make the GKP share price skyrocket. It's probably pie in the sky thinking but makes sense to me if they had £100m or so to spare they'd get a good chunk of it back pretty quickly.

They just mentioned buybacks too, but divi more efficient for now. It's under regular review though.

I thought that article was going to compare us to HUR for a moment, which would have been apt.

Trying to pass off the test failure as a success is a bit too much for me. I sold today at a significant loss proportionally, I'm glad I didnt invest more. I had a lot of hope for WN but now I'm done with it. I hope it does come to fruition though.

Good luck to all holders optimist or pessimist. Beware the deluded on here, it's a very unhealthy board and as always do your own research and be realistic about the level of risk.

Fingers crossed!

Cloves, I'm curious. From your statement am I right in understanding that you believe a planning application, if we assume it is approved, results in the delivery of whatever is in that application 100% of the time?

Watty your logic is flawed. And actually facts are not really needed to refute it, just logic and a bit of extrapolation.

Applying for planning permission does not guarantee WN is commercial.

There are three broad outcomes possible, with many shades in between:
WN not commerical - in this scenario the planning permission will quietly be dropped and RBD will move on to focus on other, smaller prospects.
WN borderline commerical - the planning permission will absolutely be needed and will probably need to be delivered on (i.e. drills) long before any asset sale is completed.
WN easily commerical - the planning permission will be helpful in either proving up more production (which would be less necessary) or in accelerating development for a new owner (hence making the asset more valuable).

The problem is that as the EWT drags on the final possibility looks less and less likely and even the middle possibility looks less likely also. You would spend extra time on the EWT to try to take the asset from none commerical to borderline commercial and salvage something from the asset. That is where I believe we are, but I may be wrong. However, we're almost certainly not looking at an asset which is easily made commercial.

It's just an error on this site. I can assure you the price is down 17% today

Many here were saying BMD was reliable (and that's from the optimistic side of the debate)...
However, please note I think he says no oil or condensate flowing...not completely specific about gas though.

However he does use the duster word. A bit disengenous thought if he's saying it's dry gas.

Surely RBD will have to RNS something after this. If is amazing that some tweet can have such an impact.