Member Info for LONGWAIT

Remember the conspiracy theory that the real reason for the non-arrival of APEC's cheque was that they were hoping to acquire 50 percent of Barryroe for nothing?

Then we had the conspiracy theory that the consortium did not exist and the fact that they had not been identified was deemed to be confirmation of that.

There was also the conspiracy theory - still alive, it seems - that the oil in Barryroe doesn't exist.

No-one would argue with you, Mamms, that there has been one setback after another, but the idea that everyone involved is a conman really is too far-fetched.

TOR said that there is nothing wrong with Barryroe; Linn described it as a world-class asset.
The consortium, whose existence has actually been doubted by some posters, obviously thinks likewise.

No-one has produced any evidence that anyone has been conspiring to defraud shareholders.

As for the Greens, all the indications are that provided the finance is forthcoming, the project will be allowed to proceed.

So the latest conspiracy theory is that 'the currency' is publishing false information about Larry Goodman's dealings at the behest of SpotOn or that SpotOn have somehow fooled 'the currency' into believing the story.

Three points to consider: the currency has published many stories about Larry Goodman over the years; is it likely that they would get this one so badly wrong?

Larry Goodman has not denied the story.
If it's not true, why would he stay silent?

Why would SpotOn sell their stake?
In real life, people don't take stakes in companies as a joke.
If, as they said, they saw so much potential in PVR's assets, why would they sell their recently-acquired stake in them?

First, we were told that it was all a con by SpotOn to try to get control of the company.

Now we are being told that, having failed to do so, they are trying to trick the market into getting the share price to rise.

Ridiculously far-fetched.

If I understand this correctly, even if someone bid for FOG's Australian assets, that would not mean a takeover of the company because it would still have possibilities in South Africa.

I bought three lots for about 55p and then, as an afterthought, one more for 70p - intending for once in my life to sell it at a profit rather than hold.

My plan was to sell for 105p, at a profit of 50 percent, but it sailed through and I decided to hold for 100 percent.
When it had slumped from 150p almost all the way back to 70p, I was kicking myself, and when it slumped from 250p to where it is now, I realise I missed a chance to take a profit of more than 250 percent.

We old-timers remember the price collapsing from 399p to 50p a few years ago, and more recently, Richard Griffiths driving the price down from a previous peak of 250p to the 60s, while desperately trying to offload shares.

Those of us who believe in JOG think that all these movements will seem much less significant when the big news lands.

The news of Larry Goodman's purchase of one percent of PVR's shares suggests that 0.5p is not coming.

It's interesting that the two earlier investments mentioned in the article were held until a takeover of the company.

The profits he made, of 34 percent and six percent, would if replicated with PVR mean takeover prices of about 4p and 3.2p.

Somehow, I don't think he's expecting an offer to be pitched that low.

His investment suggests four things: (1) he thinks Linn will obtain the necessary financing (2) he thinks 3p per share is a bargain (3) he thinks PVR will eventually be taken over and (4) he doesn't believe the prediction of a recent poster (who fortunately has cleared off) that the share price would fall to 1p after the SpotOn deal failed.

My point is that it would have to be less than 80 percent if the consortium's share has been renegotiated.

By the way, you may have noticed the exercise of warrants issued 11 months ago.

I've seen it happen many times with smaller company shares after they have been hyped up.

When the price soars, LSE members talk of the sky being the limit, and then the slide starts.

It's completely normal.

Many people actually sell at a loss, having overpaid, declaring that they have lost faith in the company.

But if the consortium's share has been renegotiated, why is Linn saying that PVR have 80 percent?

You could be proven right, Spindler, but uncharacteristically - on the strength of all the warnings made by members, echoing dire broker share price forecasts - I have sold a chunk of TUI shares, having previously decided that I would sell at £7.50.

The higher the price goes, the more likely it is that you have got it wrong, just as I got it wrong when I said that a share price was ridiculously undervalued but it continued to collapse.

As indicated by BFB, PS, SpotOn would have received only a share of the 50 percent, presumably as commission for having set up the whole thing.

It seems that by removing SpotOn, Linn has removed the percentage concessions to the other parties too, which suggests that the consortium were not even demanding them, but being offered them as part of SpotOn's deal, which seems strange.

Although PVR may be better off without SpotOn's continued involvement, I can't help wondering why Linn thinks he can do better than they in securing the necessary finance.

Brent was $102.20 on the day EOG peaked at 40.26p on 18 February 2011.

These shares were priced at 40p ten years ago.

Does anyone have any idea why?

Correction:

' ... particularly on the exploration acreage we have, we've got interested parties coming in to look at our exploration... ConocoPhillips has just come into Morocco and taken acreage right next to ours... we'll certainly consider farm-ins but it has to be a good deal for SOU shareholders.'

At about 13:30 in this interview, GL said: ' ... particularly on the exploration acreage we have, we've got interested parties coming in to look at our exploration... ConocoPhillips has just come into Morocco and taken acreage next to ours... we'll certainly consider farm-ins but it has t be a good deal for SOU shareholders.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjn1kx-sepo

Maybe it has something to do with this: there is a consensus that the previous management, which claimed there were prospects of 34 TCF, was incompetent - with many alleging that JP is a crook.

Although similar claims have been made about GL, they look completely discredited in the light of recent developments.

It is also now clear that the possibility of SOU going under, as a result of the previous mismanagement, seems remote.

The new management has reiterated the previous management's claim that SOU has prospects of 34 TCF.

That means that SOU's potential - in terms of making discoveries - was not exaggerated by JP.
That means that although the share price has collapsed, there is everything to play for.

The cost of developing the Barryroe oil and gas field for Providence Resources is set to rise, after the group announced last week that it had terminated a financing agreement with SpotOn Energy, a Norwegian exploration company.

The loss of SpotOn Energy as a partner means Providence will be unable to access $45 million as part of a Norwegian export credit facility, which has very attractive interest rates of just 2 per cent to 3...

https://www.businesspost.ie/companies/providence-forced-into-bond-issue-after-norwegian-deal-falls-through-0ad9fc17

'quite frankly, if my wife told me to buy XYZ shares, I'd strongly suspect she'd been sleeping with a stockbroker behind my back!'

If the price then moved up strongly, that would be a strong indication that she hadn't been sleeping with a stockbroker.

GL said that he couldn't promise to get the share price back up to the previous high, which I recall as being 102p.

If 1 TCF is worth 25p per share to SOU, all it needs is a total of 4 TCF to be worth about 100p per share.

It may not happen, but it would be easier than finding 34 TCF.