Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Great post 3CB I don't normally bother to post but your perceptive analysis has spurred me on. The fact that, as you point out, Starmer was involved in the WMD dossier so early on before he was a memer of the shadow cabinet or even an MP (2015?) maye even before he declared himself a memer of the Labour party shows just how deep the conspiracy goes and how well you understand these things. The only thing missing in your analysis surprises me a bit, and that is what we all know. None of this is ever reported in the officially controllled press/media and that is how we can be certain that it is true.
The number of shares at consolidation was about 4 billion which was reduced to about 100 million by a 40 to 1 consolidation. The number of share at any time before that was never less than hundreds of millions which means a £100 sp at any time would value the company at tens of billions of pounds. If anyone thinks that is possible then good luck to them, but as I have already said have a look at the market cap of other companies eg Tesco the biggest UK supermarket with a market cap of 20 billion, would a small exploration co in Africa have a comparable value? And of course before consolidation they were hardly selling any gas and certainly no gas to power . As I have pointed out several times the £104 sp figure come from multiplying the post consolidation sp of 240p by 40 instead of dividing by 40 to get the equivalent pre consolidation sp of 6p so the £104 figure is out by a factor of 1600 (40 x 40). The sp has never been £104 or anywhere near that figure the highest was about £3 and that was after consolidation not before.
One last attempt to convince you. You say
"The all time high was £2.72 and you cannot compare that to 14p because the £2.72 is for one share and the 14p is for forty of the old shares.
You have to compare the £2.72 V the 0.35p."
The 2.72 is for one new share or 40 old shares, and the 14p is for one new share or 40 old shares. If you want to compare then
compare 1 new share at 240p with current price for 1 new share of 13p (95% drop),
or compare 1 old share at 6p with 1 old share now at .325 (95% drop),
or compare 40 old shares at 6p with 1 new share now at 13p (95% drop)
What does not make sense is to compare 1 new share at 240p with one old share now at 0.325 because you are ignoring the consolidation. You either need to divide the 240p by 40 (ie 6p compared to 0.325) or you need to multiply 0.325 by 40 (ie 240p compared to 13p)
Yes as 3cardbrag says how many shares were there when the sp was £100 and what was the market cap. Even at 100 million shares ( and there have never been fewer shares than that) that means a market cap of 10 billion pounds for a small Oil and Gas company. Compare that top some other company market caps and you will see how bonkers that is.You cannot compare the sp in the way you have done. Either compare the pre consolidation sp which was about 6p at consolidation so would now be an equivalent 0.325 *13/40) as you have calculated , or compare the post consolidation sp ie 240p at consolidation and 13p now. I agree that is a big decrease. The figures you have from Yahoo or wherever are just wrong. The share price has never been above about £3 and the market cap has never been more than about £300 million. To answer 3card the number of share in circulation before consolidation was billions it was a much greater number not a smaller one. Taking the post consolidation sp of 240p and multi[plying by 40 doe give the figure of £104 which you quoted but that is a totally meaningless figure because you need to divide by 40 not multiply, because the consolidation was 40 to 1 not 1 to 40. I wish the sp had got to£100 I would have tens of millions in the bank.
Sorry I have not explained myself well enough. The sp was at 240 but that was after consolidation at 40 to 1 so the corresponding sp before consolidation was 240/40 ie 6p.. The comparison should be between current sp of 13p and post consolidation sp of 240p. The figure of £104 has been arrived at by mulitplying 240p by 40 instead of dividing.. I hope that explains it simply enough.
Can you mark my homework for me please Keith.
Fact: This gets us a further 3.9% of the Horse Hill license area (0.04 x 0.65).
No it isn't