We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
I mean that investors here criticise Art's character and motives. So that he doesn't have to.
Anyway, thankyou for your thoughts dougb189. Let's hope the results from the Dakota speak for themselves too, in a good way, I mean!
We don't lose cuda by paying more for it. I suppose there is a risk of being outbid.
But strategically the best course of action is always to make ones position secure before attempting to acquire an asset.
The Sun Tsu stuff about concealing strength only applies if you do not have the option of achieving sufficient strength not to need to conceal it.
Exactly.
I've only seen a couple of interviews, but Art strikes me as, and this is the kind version because I am a kind man, a well-meaning, enthusiast-optimist who tends to handwave away his own doubts and the doubts of others, and therefore thinks big and neglects detail. And his personality is projected onto this board, which collectively resembles his psyche and occasionally as with dougb189, takes the form of his superego.
Then the share price would inevitably slide, a further placing for cuda would have to involve greater dilution, there would be less money for developing the Federal Deep and so on.
We are coming round to my earlier, admittedly shoddy theory, of how shareholders could ultimately lose out despite the company being successful.
I did not think that was possible, and it sounds like something any investor would be exceptionally gullible to believe.
Surely he has to report the gas injection levels so how would he explain to investors if he decided to reduce them?
I have looked at the numbers and I remember that they looked fine at the time, you are right that I don't concentrate on them; I know that the numbers are always something of a work of fiction and always work on paper.
The point I'm making is that I've also seen other companies go round the block developing promising assets and end up successful without rewarding shareholders. You have to factor in problems arising, and they have here right off the bat. With high debt involved, there's less margin for error here.
It's gone from treble your money on relist to maybe get half your money back by Christmas. But if two things happen 1. Dakota well produces and recovers the millions spent and 2. most importantly we get unassailable confirmation of the incline curve then I'll be confident going forward.
I'm just tired of best case scenarios presented as likely, they so seldom are.
We'd be making about 1.4 million a month roughly at present, is that a fair guess? And the debt repayments from March are significantly more, plus we're drilling and doing workovers, plus there was an equipment upgrade. The WTI is approaching the hedged price at the moment and could go lower.
Ok, I'd guess about a year if production doesn't increase, but then the debt repayments increase because we take on more debt?
Noob, that is my worry.
What I fear following the placing and gas and upgrade delay, and the problems with the federal deep sands, are that we go on as we began with further delays or operational or exploration failures which take this down to 10-15p. Then it languishes, more placings are required to fund drilling as cash is short following operational delays, equipment failure and downtime, and well and exploration failures. These things always seem to happen in oil companies so you need slack, you need to get in at a good price.
Market cap holds up but the sp is now 7 or 8p following the dilution. Cuda is eventually acquired at a highish price requiring another 3 or 4 million raise, the sp is now 5p. Eventually the company turns itself around, the predicted increases take hold, in a year or two the market cap is several hundred million and the sp is around 30-35p.
I'm not saying this is likely. I'm saying we need to see some success now to stave off this narrative.
So do we now need a just under 80 million market cap for people who bought at 40p to see profit?
Is that realistic in the near term or medium term, i.e. this year or early next?
And for the most conservative accepted 1p prediction on relist, we need a 200 million market cap?
Is this something that could be achieved next year?
Thanks dougb189, that was a very helpful post.
'Competitive reasons'... I hope this means hiding success to keep the cuda price low, because it could equally mean hiding a lack of success in order to gather funding for cuda!