Member Info for Love_You

Tranter this has already happened .... interest rates gone down to 0.5% - the economic system got broken many years ago and ever since it has been a train wreck with government borrowing out of control yet most of society becoming poorer/getting less of the economy they wanted.

Tranter this has already happened .... why have interest rates gone down to 0.5% - it's because the people who overborrowed were bankrupt and yet the government decided to end capitalism and to let them keep their businesses and properties instead offoreclosing and allowing the people who had saved for decades to buy these properties and businesses.

Anyone who has behaved responsibly over the decades - who has done a job, saved their money, taken a low-risk and sensible approach, has been financially punished ever since 2009.

I think it's a sense of anger amongst the masses that has led to people voting for Brexit. The financiers are part of a system that changes the rules as they see fit (without wider debate) to suit a very small minority of society. I think the rest of society could well be very angry about this - or how else do you explain Brexit because it seems unlikely that if people weren't already angry they would vote for: (1) to become poorer, (2) to endanger their holidays to Europe.

I used to think that Barryoe was a good prospect for development because with 340 million barrels of 2P oil it would be hugely profitable even if 50-60 wells were required to extract all of that oil (if this field had a thicker reservoir then only 8 - 25 wells would be needed (as in the case of Premier Oil's catcher development or the massive Johan Sverdrup development - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-equinor-crude-north-sea/equinor-says-sverdrup-oilfield-may-start-crude-shipments-ahead-of-schedule-idUSKCN1VK16B?rpc=401& ) .

However, sadly we don't have the Pope invested in PVR's shares, nor David Cameron, nor Boris Johnson, nor the pension of the average family from Cork, nor the finances of the NHS or Social Services, nor the large landowners and estates.

I imagine the NHS and Social Services would be a lot more financially self-sufficient in future if they did invest in the Barryoe development. But until you see tens of thousands of teachers, nurses, and social workers protesting about the issue that Barryoe is not going to be developed then I wouldn't hold our breaths .....sad when society would prefer to live in poverty rather then to do the sensible thing and to proceed with Barryoe.

Sad when society would prefer to live in poverty rather then to do the sensible thing and to proceed with Barryoe. I think this is the point ...we live in a society .... and this oil would have a net positive benefit to Ireland.....

This is not a deal for a new car. Unfortunately i have found from ten years experience that much of what directors say never comes true, much of what companies do is highly irrational from a purely financial basis, and strategies are deeply intertwined with personal friendships and politics, and the PR people fudge/dress up all of this nonsense to try and make it as palatable as possible to the mugs they think the shareholders are.

He might well be ruined once mams is through with him. If you tell lies and you cost people money I doubt he can have peace of mind - always will have to watch his back - his life is ruined by his own incompetence and lies.

Perhaps the directors all died in 2018 and ever since then the caretaker has been filing the RNS's with the LSE and bouncing a few emails back and forth to APEC.

It would explain why there has been no progress on this project since 2012 despite the directors earning tens of millions between them in remuneration.

Perhaps they all knew they were going to all die in 2018 and so from 2012 to 2018 they just decided to tell the market a load of lies and spend taxpayers money sitting on a beach somewhere having a kick-a-bout and going to nice restaurants for dinner.

This company, along with the Irish government, is enough to make any normal taxpayer tear their hair out and to wish the directors would do the same and show some urgency. No morals amongst the lot of them just to be taking the money from the Irish people whilst doing nothing of service in terms of getting the oil out of the ground and into people's cars and trucks!

How could the FED expand its balance sheet to $4,000,000,000,000 (that's $4 Trillion) whilst PMO is currently only valued at $750 million?

Why was this stock in favour in 2011 when it was obvious the debts were increasing far faster than the future production volumes.

The market is truly useless about warning of upcoming problems .... the problems were apparent in the PMO financial statements in 2011 - yet the market kept moving the share price higher, all the way up to £5 per share.

It's not logical that a company which is clearly overspending gets rewarded by the market with a rising share price.

Some people must have made out like bandits in 2011, completely wrong about the fundamentals, clearly not qualified to assess sound economics if they were long here, and yet by being long here they would of earned huge amounts of money. No wonder society is broken when complete incompetence can earn you a fortune and as long as the market was going in your favour some people will just say well you can't have been incompetent then - even though you bloody well were!

So Sainsbury's is going to start offering Ferraris for half the price of the Italian version?

I hope so .... I really hope so ....cheque book at the ready to scoop up a Sainsbury's made Ferrari for £65,000 rather than having to pay €150,000 for one made in Italy.

An exhaust is pretty much an exhaust - it's metal shaped by a machine. Only, bought from Ferrari it could cost £5,000. However, an identical exhaust could be made in the UK for £500.

You say Sainsbury's should sell what customers want. Well a lot of people want a car that has a loud V-8 engine which roars (e.g. a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche etc.). However, car manufacturers seem to be trying to promote electric cars which are silent and therefore more dangerous. Perhaps Sainsbury's should look to go against this dangerous trend? In five years time it may look very smart to have pointed out some of the dangers of electric cars in 2019.

Is Sainsbury's about to listen to what its customers want? Myself, I want food which is free of any palm oil. Who agrees or disagrees with palm oil being put in their food by Sainsbury's?

So Sainsbury's is going to start offering Ferraris for half the price of the Italian version?

I hope so .... I really hope so ....cheque book at the ready to scoop up a Sainsbury's made Ferrari for £65,000 rather than having to pay €150,000 for one made in Italy.

An exhaust is pretty much an exhaust - it's metal shaped by a machine. Only, bought from Ferrari it could cost £5,000.

However, the same exhaust could be made in the UK for £500.



You say Sainsbury should sell what people want. Well a lot of people want a car that has a V-8 engine and roars (e.g. a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche etc). However, the government is trying to promote electric cars which are silent and therefore more dangerous.

Is this a communist country or is Sainsbury actually finally going to listen to what its customers want? Personally I don't want any palm oil to be used in my food. Who agrees or disagrees with this request for Sainsburys to stop using palm oil?

So Sainsbury's is going to start offering Ferraris for half the price of the Italian versions?

I hope so .... I really hope so ....cheque book at the ready to scoop up a Sainsbury made Ferrari for £65,000 rather than having to pay Euro150,000 for one made in Italy.

I mean an exhaust is pretty much an exhaust - it's just some metal shaped in a certain way by a machine. It's just when you but it from Ferrari it costs £5,000 but the same exhaust could be made in the UK for the cost of the metal plus the labour, i.e. maybe £495 per exhaust?

You haven't considered the possibility that the demand for copper could drop in the future.

What is the electric revolution is a dud?

Exxon Mobil is ploughing ahead with opening up swathes of new oil fields just discovered offshore Guyana.

Many people prefer the sound of cars with combustion engines.

People who can afford an electric car can also afford a convertible combustion-engine sports car for weekend fun.

Lorries and heavy machinery are still years away from having electric solutions to replace their combustion-engine models (even if there was the demand to do this and considering the number of mechanics trained to work on combustion engines that it would put out of work it would disrupt the whole economy).

Personally I'm not convinced that it's sensible just to assume that the future global demand for copper is a straight upward trend. What risk factor ought to be applied to such an assumption?

At Oxford it is called Politics, Economics and Philosophy (PPE). You very good people talk about the politics everyday which is very interesting. However, let's bring in the economics and the philosophy which underpin the politics: (and yes it is that way around because without the economy you wouldn't have enough time on your hands to talk politics all day).

I'm not convinced Central Bankers have found the right answers for the economy yet. They haven't publicly addressed the issue that they don't have the power to make people spend money. Hence if the economy doesn't offer enough goods to cause people to want to spend then money will become hoarded within the banking system, further increasing the recession, and causing a negative economic spiral which would feed off itself in becoming worse and worse. In effect this is pretty much what has happened since 2009. Most of the quality shops and hotels have closed - prices at leisure centres have increased massively - the service offered by the NHS is far worse than it ought to be: as is the education system. What are we left with now: an economy based around unhealthy food being offered by chains such as Greggs, a poorly-functioning NHS, fuel prices way too high so that it costs over £180 to drive from London to Scotland and back in a normal family car. Most of the nicer hotels and B&B's have closed down because families can't afford the petrol to drive from London to Cornwall anymore. It really is all very sand and the government should be very embarrassed.

If you want to look at history it was twice gone to £4 per share in the past 12 years. Maybe £5 per share a bit expensive when it did a rights issue at around £3 per share in 2008, and then in 2016 it traded at £4 per share.

Even if you assume that the value of the business is increasing linearly with time then would suggest the best time to buy would be if you could buy at £4.25 per share late this year. Or £4.33 per share in 2020. Or £4.41 per share in 2021. Or £4.49 per share in 2022. Or £4.57 per share in 2023, etc.

Moving to the big picture. Prior to 2007 it took hundreds of years for governments and central banks to accumulate their debt levels - since 2007 it has taken just another 12 years to more than double their debt levels - does no one think this represents a broken system?

But politics is not separate from the financial system. Yet politicians don't seem to wish to publicly talk about the role that central banks are playing in the rolling economic crisis since voodoo economics first started to mess up the global economy in the late 1990s.

How much did the FED have to inject after the last financial crisis, was it about $4,000,000,000,000.

The debt of the US government has more than doubled since 2007.

The UK government's debt has more than doubled since 2007?

Since 2009 the Bank of England has printed £425 Billion in new money (called Quantitative Easing).

Yet if people hoard money instead of spending what they have made/saved then the economy will eventually end up with lower growth (a deeper recession) than the one which occurred in 2007/08.

So I'm not convinced Central Bankers have found the answer yet. They haven't publicly addressed the issue that they don't have the power to make people spend money. Hence if the economy doesn't offer enough goods to cause people to want to spend then money will become hoarded within the banking system, further increasing the recession, and causing a negative economic spiral which would feed off itself in becoming worse and worse. In effect this is pretty much what has happened since 2009. Most of the quality shops and hotels have closed - prices at leisure centres have increased massively - the service offered by the NHS is far worse than it ought to be: as is the education system. What are we left with now: an economy based around unhealthy food being offered by chains such as Greggs, a poorly-functioning NHS, fuel prices way too high so that it costs over £180 to drive from London to Scotland and back in a normal family car. Most of the nicer hotels and B&B's have closed down because families can't afford the petrol to drive from London to Cornwall anymore. It really is all very sand and the government should be very embarrassed.

But politics is not separate from the financial system. If Boris wants to be a good PM he needs to understand the role that central banks are playing in the rolling economic crisis since voodoo economics first started to mess up the global economy in the late 1990s.

How much did the FED have to inject after the last financial crisis, was it about $4,000,000,000,000.

Has the debt of the US government more than doubled since 2007?

Has the debt of the UK government more than doubled since 2007?

Prior to 2007 it took hundreds of years for governments and central banks to accumulate their debt levels - since 2007 it has taken just another 12 years to more than double their debt levels - does no one think this represents a broken system?

But why close the branches when they provide jobs. If you don't pay people then people can't buy things in shops and then you will have to write down your loans to both the product companies and the property companies.

Hence by sacking staff you cut costs but you lose more than double as you will have to write down the value of both your commercial enterprises and also of any land/property that you have lent money to.

But politics is not separate from the financial system. If Boris wants to be a good PM he needs to understand the role that central banks are playing in the rolling economic crisis since voodoo economics first started to mess up the global economy in the late 1990s.

How much did the FED have to inject after the last financial crisis, was it about $4,000,000,000,000.

Has the debt of the US government more than doubled since 2007?

Has the debt of the UK government more than doubled since 2007?

Prior to 2007 it took hundreds of years for governments and central banks to accumulate their debt levels - since 2007 it has taken just another 12 years to more than double their debt levels - does no one think this represents a broken system?

Exactly Manyana - it just shows the market is corrupt - Providence is in a similar position to Tullow was back in 2007.

Tullow were able to borrow $4.8 billion. Providence has less oil than Tullow had (maybe only a quarter of the amount) but Tullow were working in deep-water and needed very expensive equipment. You can't really say just because a company is in the FTSE250 that it is automatically credit worthy. The point is that PVR deserve to be able to borrow at least $1.2 Billion to develop Barryoe.

And Tullow should probably have more pressure put on them to stop spending money and to start reducing their debt levels, at $3.2 Billion the debts of Tullow are still way above an acceptable level - Tullow is one of the many companies that are in danger of blowing up the banking system if anyone actually cared about the ludicrous amounts that Central Banks are having to print in new money to prevent the next financial crisis.

How much did the FED have to inject after the last financial crisis, was it about $4,000,000,000,000.

Has the debt of the US government more than doubled since 2007?

Has the debt of the UK government more than doubled since 2007?

Prior to 2007 it took hundreds of years for governments and central banks to accumulate their debt levels - since 2007 it has taken just another 12 years to more than double their debt levels - does no one think this represents a broken system?

It's not necessarily greedy to hold onto an investment. Even when PVR had a share price of 650p it only had a market capitalisation of £600 million.

Considering there are 340 million barrels of oil in Barryone (2P basis) and potentially up to 800 million if the deeper levels also hold oil (3P basis) - and Providence owned it all back then (before they gave half of it away to the Chinese for a bird-poo valuation) - then what would a realistic sale price have been back then. Take a base case of 300 million barrels valued at $10 per barrel in the ground (North Sea crude was selling for $16 per barrel in the ground back in 2014 when oil was trading around $100 per barrel) and you get a value for PVR of $3.2 billion. The exchange rate was around 1.6 back then. So the base case value of Providence, assuming it was to be sold to a bigger oil company for development at a fair market value, was £2 billion.

Hence if PVR could reasonable have been sold to Total, Exxon, BP etc. for £2 billion then it was not necessarily that bad a decision to keep hold of the shares when the market capitalisation of PVR was £0.6 billion. Allowing a 70% discount for the risk of the oil not being completely straightforward to develop would of been seen as reasonable at the time. The price assumptions were also reasonable given it is in shallow water and only 50kms offshore. Allowing a 50% discount to the valuation of deals being done in the North Sea was actually a huge financial incentive for someone to come in and buy PVR at a very cheap valuation of about £14 per share - so why would a reasonable person sell the shares at £6 per share?

For example if they bought 1% of the shares of Kaz Minerals at 410p per share then they would have paid approximately £18,000,0000.

However, if someone bought 1% of the shares of Premier Oil at 75p per share then they would of paid approximately £6,000,000.

Hence it only costs one third to own 1% of Premier Oil compared to the cost of owning 1% of Kaz Minerals.

Which is the more useful company? Do you need oil or copper more? How about all the food you eat - would that take oil to produce and to transport? Every time you eat a loaf of bread the combine harvester which harvested the wheat needed to be fuelled.

No wonder the market is enough to make intelligent people tear their hair out. It is run by people who only see the small picture and don't understand the chaos that irrational stock prices cause amongst investors who are trying to understand the full value chain which their investments relate to in terms of what products and services they contribute to the UK economy.

Thing is no one could argue that PMO shouldn't be valued just as much as Kaz Minerals - if anything due to the lower debt of Premier Oil it ought to have a higher market valuation. But the irrational things is that if someone bets £10,000,000 on the PMO share price, and then the share price does return to a sensible/realistic valuation, of 250 pence per share, then that person would walk away with a profit of about £27,000,000. Considering an MP has a salary of about £72,000 per annum then they could use their money from the market to buy off every MP in parliament for a year. No wonder capitalism is dead - money buys political power which can then be used to distort markets and make even more money. Hesus - what a system - what a mess.

If he paid 410 pence to buy Kaz Minerals then he would currently be in profit of £1,800,000,000.

The market value of Kaz Minerals (excluding their £2,500,000,000 of debt) is £1,800,000,000.

When stating the price of shares it doesn't make sense unless you also state the percentage of the shares which you have bought at that price.