Member Info for nicktheglobe

No mention of Magnus then in the correction as below. I suspect many analysts don't understand the complexities of the deal so just ignore it!

There's been increased interest in ZNG (Group 11) the last week. This is quoted on the Toronto SE ZNG is a partner with CON in one prospect and a larger player generally in the Irish Zn scene. It's risen from 10c to 17c in a week though wide spreads cloud the issue as to what exactly is going on!

Yes there is a negative influence in the PIK as the value of the coupon for institutions and for investors who sell the PIK is the market value of the bonds paid. So if ENQ1 is 70 in the market and PIK applies, then the value is 3.5*0.70 or 2.45% each 6 months, reducing the yield. Of course if you plan to hold to maturity in 2022, and the bond is redeemed at par, then PIK does not make so much difference: you're getting compound interest of 3.5% per half-year on the nominal amount.

Don't see the PIK being exercised next February though. Brent averaged $77.48 from August-October and at a guess is around $67 for November, so Brent would need to average c$45 over the next 2 months to trigger the PIK: perish the thought!

Go on then, talk about the loss of current jobs through the mine development!

I think you're right Romaron. The real slide started when the MMs stopped adding accrued interest to buys and sells of the bonds. Presumably this acted as a trigger to some of the dividend funds that rely on day-to-day calculations of interest earned. So the bonds now trade dirty!

I think the actual line is:

If the quoted price of Brent (not amount received) averages below $65 a barrel from 1/8-31/1, then the coupon will be PIK (paid in kind, in bonds, not cash).

"No it's no! For the benefit of everyone. No toxicity anywhere, just put Portugal, the environment and the public health into the equation and, that's it."
There's a lot of inconsistencies here. I thought Podemos stood for reduction in use of fossil fuels. Use of uranium as a fuel is carbon-free, therefore contributing to the fight against climate change. Indeed because uranium power stations provide a constant output, they are complementary to the unreliable renewable sources of energy that are also carbon-free.

Just out -- all placed at 28p each. So that's a relief in that the overhang has gone!

Turnover today was very high at 20m, including some large after-hours deals, one trade of 3m and at least 2 of 1m. It's possible that some of the rump was sold on the open market and some placed. If say JPM were offered 28p for placements then they may have felt bound to sell some at a higher price in the market even if it made things a little disorderly. We may know tomorrow morning. Brent was steady today in $ terms so up in terms of £.

2 enormous sales of 1m each just completed; they may be selling some of the rump in the market. I'm adding a few!

I thought the last accounts said $22 per barrel operating cost and a further $22 for depreciation and other sustainability costs.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-uranium-berkeley-energia-exclus/exclusive-spain-rejects-berkeley-uranium-mine-in-confidential-report-idUKKCN1MR1W1?feedType=RSS&feedName=GCA-GoogleNewsUK

Reuters's reporting is not consistent. Yesterday they said the mine was opposed by local sources, now they say the local authority is to be discouraged from granting the permit by the government. The headline is also not backed up by the content, which suggests that some negotiation may still be possible. IMHO Reuters are being sensational while very difficult discussions continue i.e. irresponsible.

One of the reasons that the strong performance in EBITDA is not translating into a drop in debt is the continuing high capital expenditure on Kraken and other facilities. FCF is important but so is the ratio Debt:EBITDA which could be around 2 in 2019, well within the 4 that is normally regarded as a danger signal.

Well II say:
"should have fully settled cash available in the correct currency before the Response Required Deadline date of the rights issue".
So would need to raise the cash today to meet deadline of 16/10.

There could be a lot of technical factors today. It's crunch time for many investors as to whether (and how) they're going to pay for their rights as they need cleared funds by 16/10, recommended last subscription date.

Suspect it's leverage. The % gain will be greater on the nil-paid shares over the next 2 weeks (if they rise!).

There's a full Bloomberg article available now on these problems at

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-29/drowning-in-dirty-water-permian-seeks-a-22-billion-lifeline

Drowning in Dirty Water, Permian Seeks $22 Billion Lifeline

Wall Street largely unaware of growing challenge for producers
Disposal costs could hike basin breakevens $6 a barrel by 2025

From today's Bloomberg Close email:

Drowning in dirty water, America's most prolific oil play needs a $22 billion lifeline. The problem in the dry, dusty Permian Basin isn't too little water, it's too much—enormous volumes of a toxic brew that includes salt, sand and chemicals from the fracking wells. The mix could devastate farmland if released on the surface, and with as many as four barrels of water produced for every barrel of oil, it’s a disposal nightmare.

Brent's been doing well today in face of very strong $ and poor markets everywhere. ENQ has revenue in $ and many expenses in £ so the exchange rate changes over the last month give a better position for the company than it appears on the surface.

I prefer to look at the drilling activity on the ground and the very recent presentation on the Connemara web site for Oldcastle value!