Member Info for MrMagic

Stuy - "I think many investors view and compare NCT to many AIM listers and hold no longer than a few months then move on" That's probably because it has recently displayed many of the attributes of many typical AIM listers. It posted a significant loss in the end of year accounts recently published, expended $millions in "Other Administrative Expenses", increased the share issue from approx 7bn to over 10bn so far in 2016 and presided over share price destructuion from approx 0.07p to todays 0,0285p again so far in 2016, Newsflow has also been late and lacking sufficient detail imo and in that of others. So yes, if you think investors compare this to many other typical AIM outfits then if you are being rational and objective, you have to see their point, A good AIM company doesn't need to be pumped on a daily basis, it stands on its own fundamentals, It doesn't need to have people posting "wink wink nudge nudge" sound bites and spreading silly rumours, in fact such posters do the company a disservice in this respect making it look all the more like a typical AIM offering.

Sure I can do some tricks but nothing like the size and scale of the tricks RC can do here. He managed to take 7 billion shares and with a flick of the wrist (or rather the flick of the placing pen and cheque book) he turned that into over 10 billion shares in just a month ! Hard to compete with that. I suspect we will be graced with another of those performances pretty soon.

I note that quite a few large round trades have been going through recently, many of them sells: 20-Jul 0.0281p 3,500,000 20-Jul 0.0309p 3,000,000 20-Jul 0.0286p 4,000,000 19-Jul 0.0286p 5,000,000 19-Jul 0.029p 20,000,000 19-Jul 0.030p 41,000,000 19-Jul 0.031p 2,500,000 18-Jul 0.029p 15,000,000 18-Jul 0.0283p 20,000,000 15-Jul 0.0285p 2,500,000 15-Jul 0.0277p 8,600,000 15-Jul 0.0277p 3,000,000 14-Jul 0.0285p 25,000,000 14-Jul 0.0277p 20,000,000 14-Jul 0.0275p 20,000,000 14-Jul 0.0273p 3,000,000 Just sayin

"Mr M won't like it as the summary uses that word "potential" which ain't in his vocabulary" There is nothing at all wrong with potential as I highlighted to you in previous posts. Where there becomes an issue with investing for potential. is when a company does not generate enough revenue to cover it's expenditures leading it to constantly fund via share issues and dilution. In such circumstances investing early for that future potential leaves your holding exposed to those dilutions. Are you gong to give readers here an idea of the current cash position of the company and your view on when the next discounted placing is likely to be should there be one?

DD77 - What's the cash burn? Is SC cash positive? What funding is needed for MX projects? Sound, important questions any real poster would ask and want answers to. It shall therefore be dutifully ignored by the regs here.

That's the very defiition of denial Stuy. Inability to accept what has happened, why it has happened and what the root causes were. You may as well believe that gravity, a force which perpetually pulls things downwards, has reached the bottom and will soon start throwing things upwards. Some simple questions to consider: What was the size of the company loss reported to Feb 2016? How much was expended in "Administration" ? How much went to directors in remunerations? How many shares were in issue at the start of the year? How many shares were in issue at the end of the year? How much revenue is NCT earning in comparison to all those costs?

Indeed nipknot. Last Aug the SP was around 0.16p By Xmas it had plummeted to around 0.07p After 2 discounted placings in Mar/Apr it is now about 0.028p Awful value destruction

"the latest production RNS was very trimmed and contained very little depth or detail, a market calmer! Some may disagree in favour that; hey that's just the continual company trend,nothing new" Yep. Failing to put salient detail in an RNS is likely to be viewed by any serious investor as avoidance, hiding something, lack of transparency, imo. Not traits a company wants to be associated with. The lack of news concerning LM#20 quite obviously, imo, indicated that there was bad news. Yet it seems to have taken months for the RNS to drop to confirm actual production rate which has now been stated as a mere 100 bopd vs the 200-225 bopd previously intended. The LM#21/22 wells were supposed to have been drilled late 2015/early 2016 but never happened, then we were told May 16th, again never happened, then we were told that various problems have been rectified and that the wells are now top priority. Then we get an RNS all about "new kid on the block" LM#14 and it's test results. What happened to LM#21/22? What this highlights to me personally is a total lack of continuity in news release. The company should have very clear strategies and plans and those plans should be RNS'd to the markets continually. Not one day LM#20, next day LM#14, next day LM#21/22. These are all project wells. So there should be REGULAR updates which cover ALL of those wells. Those updates should imo contain ALL the detail including production rates, volume, sales, costs and profits. So every Shoats Creek update should as a minimum state: - This is where we are with LM#20 - This is where we are with LM#21/22 - This is where we are with LM#14 - This is where we are with old wells and should do so consistently, every update. Updates which have no such continuity and essentially say "ooh look, we're doing a bit of this and a bit of that" but which don't provide any actuals tend to come across as rather desperate imo.

"Note for Mr M - $380K placing money raised spent on RP finalisation; more shareholder money wasted then?lol" Well let's pause and consider that then. Placing was £500,000, The $380,000 is approx £288,000 which left £212,000 for good ol' working capital (and some "flexibility" !). I guess you can never have too many paper clips and post-it notes eh? Let's also conside rthe cost to shareholders. SP before that placing was approx 0.05p. The SP tanked after the placing (as always happens) and now it is approx half of that value. So holders see the SP decimated 50% before we even get close to the project realising value. There is more though. The placing the month before (23rd Mar) had done a similar thing. Raised £450,000 in part for working capital, with SP at about 0.062p beforehand, which then plummeted to about 0.048p so about a 20% loss in value there. Therein lies the rub with companies willing to dilute shareholders. Yes there is future potential, it can't be denied, but if you have to suffer huge losses of SP value before that future potential can be realised then where is the incentive to invest early? It's a mugs game imo. It just puts you in an immediate "catch-up" position and then find you are endlessly waiting for that jam to materialise to get you back to break even and/or throw more money at it to keep averaging down. Bottom line. Does the company making a profit or a loss? Can it generate enough money from projects to cover its expenditures, admin, expenses and salaries?

"Nicola Duke is followed by 30,000" But how heavily is she invested in NCT? That wasn't mentioned but suspect she is invested so I treat her PR with a pinch of salt, same as anyone else. "So LM14, RNS thoughts?" Already stated my thoughts. It's another potential revenue stream but as yet we have no idea of actual production rates, volumes, or production costs. Without the facts one can not make an informed decision and as you rightly point out, LM#20 has taught us not to get overly excited about early test results. LM#14 could be good, but I shall wait until that is confirmed thanks. "there might be very good (field development) reasons for reducing [LM#20 flow]" Yes there might but those reasons don't affect the impact to shareholders. It's being run at just 100 bopd currently. That's the botom line and that dictates the monthly income that comes from it which is what potential investors want to know. As we both agree, cash is king, so the amount of cash generated by LM#20 vs its costs is all that matters. You are always swift to highlight the slightest incling of possible future substance but you never talk about the likelihood of the next fund raise. I've already highlighted that RC took £$283,000 in remunerations last year and all the directors together took $808,000 last year. So how does LM#20 or LM#14 stack up in terms of those kind of costs? NCT needs to be generating profits of $67,333 PER MONTH just to cover those director remunerations. Then there are the total Administrative costs to consider. Last year, (to Feb 2016) there were $4.3m expended in "Other Administrative Expenses". Can you explain where that kind of money is going to come from? I think most potential investors can guess, which imo is why volume here is abysmal.

So where in all these "technicals" is the evaluation of how much cash the company has, and how much it needs? Equally where in the technicals is the evaluation or consideration of future increase in total share issue? It is the cash situation that will determine if another cash call is coming. Cash is king. I prefer to deal in reality not sound bites.

@Blingy There was no accusation of wrongdoing towards you sir. I was highlighting that the RNS appears not to be truthful because you clearly breached 3% on 28th June, as you posted, and I believe you. It's simple incompetence by the nomad. GL with your holding.

States date of transaction as 7th July yet Blingy was posting that he had 3% on 28th June over a week earlier. Hey ho.

So what is your view on the way it has been reported on this LSE site? The time is stated as 10:22, price 0.0285p, range 0.027-0.03. Is the LSE incorrect or is your L2 incorrect?

Once again Was that 25m trade a buy or a sell given it's time was actually 10:22 ?

Orslega you omitted to comment on that 25m trade. Do you now concede that it was a sell given the trade was at 10:22 and not "on the bell" as you posted?

The 25M trades was late reported. Take a look at the time, 10:22. Buys in that time range were at 0.03p so it looks very much like a sell. Aside from that I note you ignore as ever the steady stream of sells there have been in the 0.026p range over past 2-3 weeks. You place merit in volume of buys vs sells but place no merit in a significant number of large sell trades that must surely be losing money.

Your speculations may be right Labratt bt the point is that shareholders should be informed of the detail. Equally why weren't they informed of the 100 bopd production rate way before yesterday? The well has been producing since February. Keeping shareholders in the dark simply breeds mistrust imo.

I agree with Noli that shareholders are not being given enough detailed information nor it the information given regular enough. As I said in earlier posts, imo, no serious investor is going to touch this if there are not regular production reports showing production rates, volume sold, production costs, gross sales and revenue/profit. The RNS yesterday was all "jam tomorrow" imo save for the bad news slipped in that LM#20 is only producing at 100 bopd when previous RNSs said it reached 325 bopd in tests. It's somewhat surprising then that the RNS then states test figures for LM#14 for oil and gas and presumably expects preople to get excited about those figures. If nothing else, the LM#20 situation suggests that it would be wiser to wait and base decisions on actual production figures rather than test figures. As for the rumour being peddled about RC's position I find that a red herring. What matters to investors imo is the CASH position of the company. Investors need to know whether another massive placing is on the cards so that they can make informed decisions. The amount of cash available is the same regardless of who is running the show though I concede that if RC were to be replaced, the new CEO might choose not to take the $283,000 in remunerations that RC did last year. If the entire board could be replaced with people who would take salary in shares until the company turned a profit then we could save $808,000 in remunerations ! Unlikely to happen though imo.

Helpful - "There is no point in producing at a higher level if it results in a poor water/oil ratio. We only have so much SWD capacity and if it is being trucked out it costs money." But such factors would already be known so why tell investors back in March that the operator intended to produce at 200-225 bopd if they already knew that would create water issues? Doesn't wash as an excuse.