Member Info for nastid

You'd think the RNS was negative based on the sp reaction!

I don't know how they calculated the amount but an accepted equation goes something like this heat content times * carbon coefficient * fraction oxidized * a ratio of molecular weight of carbon dioxide to carbon (44/12). 5.80 mmbtu/barrel × 20.31 kg C/mmbtu × 44 kg CO2/12 kg C × 1 metric ton/1,000 kg = 0.43 metric tons CO2/barrel Therefore 33,000,000litre/159litre = 207547.1 barrels per year 207547.1 * 0.43 = 89245.2 tonnes of Co2 emission. I don't know where the credits will be sold. The Californian market has a current price just above $12 http://calcarbondash.org/ I think it will be no more than $5 but even with Trump in office, I believe the trend is for the floor to be raised (by one means or another) as the years progress.in the various markets worldwide Shame the credits are not near the peaks had only a few years back but I can see with future expansion, the credits could be a decent revenue stream... especially in locations where the carbon credits are set to be much higher than $5

reaffirms 4p target. I wonder at the recent price action, no trade days, late entries etc and then an announcement of the need for significant step change... As to margins, an 11c increase, equates to a gross increase of $3ml+ in revenue. I guess the co2 credits might already be included in the average margins but if not, it's another useful addition. If they can continue to increase the Supeerfine sales mix, another 10c should be eminently achievable. Reaching a further 10c would need some way to go before that could be hit.

... the price seems stubbornly stuck in concrete... and trades are oddly still being entered as late. Maybe interest has moved on for now, or people are still weary of the Aviva overhang, although we haven't had a TR1 for months

afoot. Clearly there is some outreaching to potential strategic partners. It could be nothing or far more detailed than the RNS suggests. My own reading of the RNS is that they are on the look out for potentially a third party with funds + some raising from Hydrodec's side with a clear plan to use that money to increase current footprint (maybe even as a new entity). It's all pure speculation and I'm cautious as it's likely to means holders giving up some value now, for greater gains later. The operational performance is great, the transformer sales mix is significantly increasing margins. As posted previously, the gross profit for 2016 was no where near historic norms. Based on current output, and if costs remain the same, I'd penned in the need for a 20c margin increase to get near previous gross profits... which I thought would also give a path to at least break even (not 2017)

this RNS doesn't cause a rise, I don't know what will

volume. No trades and then a couple of days with trades going through only as late.

Anyone planning on going?

Well it's nice to see the price go in a different direction, even if transitory. Mr Black doesn't run the company, he's a non executive director, or do you mean with his large holding he exerts pressure on the board to do his bidding?

I've mentioned before but the recent final results showed great operational performance, held back by presumably poor margins (averaged). The gross profit was nowhere near previous pre-fire years. I assume this was due to the tail end of a very bad oil market, recovery stage, and historically lower ratio between Superfine and baseoil sales. On both counts, margins + ratio, the trend is up. I'm almost sure 2017 will produce a much better gross profit, we will have to see by how much. Maybe not this year but if you take a previous achieved gross profit of 6.5m+, and set it against this years costs (minus the one off charge) it actually breaks even, and not just at the EBITDA level (which would be positive). Meaning there remains much more room to improve. I just don't like not knowing where the consistent sells (and then often corresponding buys) have come from. If it was Aviva, then by now we should've received a TR1 for the next 1% increment, otherwise notification is being held back to the detriment of the pi. So assuming that is not the case, it's the broker/mm, filling middle man status for some such play.

And the drops seem to just correspond to the persistent selling, rather than an issue we haven't heard about yet, as some have suggested.(can't recall if that was here, or on another site).

no TR1. It may be a little boring posting about the same thing but if Aviva has continued to sell, then they would've easily pushed past one of the % triggers. So without further info, it may not have been Aviva. I don't know whether the MM/Broker is facilitating a trade strategy for a third party but it's another possibility. With the OPEC deal crude prices have firmed on the upside, and may do enough even with shale output. The market seems to be very tight with good orders from US/Mexico and international, what I don't know is the prices of upstream vs downstream.

Not that I don't have similar concerns but I would think the price of the sp, apart from Mr Black making an offer himself, being used as a direct excuse for a forced private purchase, would be rather underhand in this situation? In this case the sp moving around has no impact on the operating performance, it's whether they can generate cash this year and next?

But at least with the delayed sell just popping up, we know why the movement this morning on low vol.

think they'd be finished selling by now but even at 2-3 million a week, that would still take some time with the 60 million or so from the last TR1.

would seem the seller is not holding back. I'm pretty sure there has been some corresponding buys but maybe Aviva are upping the pace? Hi Youtubeanalysis, you posted a small comment at the last RNS, that wasn't in favour of the working capital facility? Why was that?

Mr Black can add a few but he is close to the 30% rule. I'm hopeful they can return a gross profit nearer to pre-fire days but now combined with the great reduction in costs.

Obviously I'm not privy to the info but it's safe to say he didn't jump ship. With the board deciding the UK strategy should be shelved with a nominal sale, Ian sadly couldn't really continue.

People might not remember but in previous years before the fire, gross profits were considerably more than current but they had much higher costs. If you look at this years revenue vs cost of sales, it proves they still have a lot of room to improve. Margins are obviously not back to normal, and the Superfine vs baseoil sales ratio, should see good changes to the bottom line.

I'd have to agree with you as to the price action and this range. For a long while now it 'seems' the price is engineered to suit two parties and mms nice commission. The only fly in the ointment of that theory, is why not just buy a chunk at the agreed price, I do not know