Member Info for ps200306

I wouldn't make any guesses about short term market sentiment. Covid has the potential to drive oil prices, and stocks in general, much lower. I'm here for the long term so don't really care about short term moves.

Timeframe is highly unpredictable and could be looking at >2 years, but if PVR retain 40% the resource is worth $1 per share. That's after all warrants are exercised and using a conservative NPV, though at a higher oil price. Just my layman's opinion, but using two different methods that produce similar prices -- one stolen from a broker note, the other from Linn's comments at the AGM. Eventually, if reserves are proven and with the likelihood of volume upgrades, I could easily see twice that price or more. I'm certainly treating now as a good time to top up.

Ditto. Good to hear the farm out hasn't hit any roadblocks going into the last month of the exclusivity arrangement.

"From June when this share was 1.192 it is now 1.5 a rise of 25.838% in 3 months."

I'm flabbergasted that anyone can be that delusional. Even if I cherrypick the lowest closing price in June I can't find anything lower than 1.2. But that's hardly the point. We had some moderately good news in June, from which point it is down 75%. (Ask Sharetrader123 -- that's when he bought in). We are massively down. The overall trajectory is down.

Judicial review window closed today. Could be just exuberance but 11m traded Dublin and London. That's a lot of exuberance.

Unrealisable assets. Unless they raise all that money.

Just to reiterate what SOU needs to do to survive:

* Cancel or defer the tax bill ($14m)
* Roll over the debt (c. $20m)
* Raise money to keep the lights on for a minimum of 12 months (c. $6m)
* Raise the finance for micro-LNG implementation (c. $20m)

Current market cap: $18m.
But we have a plan of action. Call me when the "action" part kicks in :-/

ST123, the 4p was a bunch of traders piling in on a glimmer of good news to trap the unwary. They have left with their profits.

ST123: "I point out again that if the tax issue is sorted then little has really changed with the plan so patience is clearly needed "

And I point out again that SOU was in deep doodoo *before* the tax bill arrived, and that a plan on its own won't save it. Do you still think the SP is "holding up"? ... on current trajectory it will be sub-1p again by the weekend. Makes you wonder where the money is coming from to even keep the lights on next year. An equity raise would obliterate current holders even if the company survives. But thank heavens there's a "plan" :-/

Another day, another -7% hammering. What a dog!

Something afoot? Big trades on both Dublin and London and a 10% hike.

ST123: "what a fickle bunch you doomsayers are. You must watch every downward turn of the share price and use it to further fuel your misery."

Even if one felt elation at every upward turn of the share price, there have been twice as many downs as ups since the June 29th RNS. You obviously feel elated about being down 70%, but I suggest you're probably a special case.

ST123: "We have the gas, we have a board with a plan and thats all that is needed."

Uh, no, and you can't possibly be deluded enough to think so. We have the gas, we have a board who SAY they have a plan (but haven't told us what it is), and we have none of the money needed to execute the plan or develop the gas. And to even get to the point of trying to raise the finance for infrastructure, we first have to navigate between the Scylla of debt repayments falling due and the Charybdis of the Moroccan tax authorities. Each of those is roughly the same order of magnitude as our current market cap.

I know being 70% down on your investment can bring on fits of wishful thinking -- we all do it. But there's wishful thinking and then there's full-on willfully delusional.

"we know how quickly this can bounce back so no panic"

Yeah, DON'T PANIC MR. MAINWARING. Only down another 7% today, well below a penny ha'penny at this stage. Glorious buying opportunity. Got to wonder where this turkey will be by Christmas :-/

Sharetrader123: "The share price is holding up relatively well given the disputed tax demand. "

Uh, wot? You could call a 25% drop "holding up reasonable well". But that's only because the price had already dropped 50% between the LNG Heads of Terms RNS and the Tax Bill RNS. Maybe we need a *really* bad RNS as, the better the news, the more the price seems to fall.

The irony is that Sharetrader is now down by around 70% on his own investment.

I hope I'm wrong, but I've been wondering when the penny will drop about the likelihood of a deep, deep recession in the offing. Oil prices are certainly starting to drift in apparent anticipation. I also think there is a chance of a huge stock market sell-off this side of Christmas.

But there you go, 1cagney, you're suggesting that nuclear is something to be afraid of rather than the safest form of energy in existence. And you say "all other options" without acknowledging that there ARE no other widely applicable options for low carbon energy. (Ireland is a regional exception because of its plentiful windpower, but even that depends on being able to trade nuclear electrons with the UK, as well as large grid enhancements).

(continued from below...)

That is where politics enters the fray. Nuclear power is massively unpopular. Green parties and lobby groups want some magical solution that depends only on renewables (unachievable), shuns nuclear (the most dependable low-carbon energy), and cancels fossils (which, whatever about electricity generation, powers essentially all transport and most heating). This is just unrealistic. As one author puts it by way of illustration, we use more than a *cubic mile* of oil every year. If we converted coal and gas to oil equivalent, it would be an additional 1.5 cubic miles. All other sources of energy -- nuclear, hydro, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar -- add up to just half a cubic mile. It is sobering when you realise just how fossil dependent we are.

So what is to be done? Well, nothing will be achieved by stamping our feet and demanding a Green utopia that can never be implemented. We need to get a lot less hypocritical about nuclear if we are truly concerned about carbon emissions. But we also need to re-examine our premises about climate change. There is a lunatic fringe, and a gullible subset of the public who listen to them, who claim the world is effectively going to burst into flames in ten years. They literally believe we will go extinct. Obviously if you believe that, then decarbonisation has to be top priority, even if it means scuppering the economy forever. Tragically, I believe that is the surest way to kill tens of millions of people. That is why I maintain that Green fundamentalists are actually evil. Even without killing the economy, they are killing the mental health of the young generation. I remember what it was like in the 1970s to believe that the world was under imminent threat of nuclear annihilation.

Somebody needs to start spreading the word about the *actual* cost of climate change. The IMF in collaboration with two universities produced a paper on it last year. They concluded that world GDP per capita would be reduced by 7% by 2100. First, that means they don't think we're going extinct anytime soon. Second, that 7% is so negligible as to be not worth worrying about. It amounts to less than 0.01% per year (actually closer to half that in the IMF paper). World GDP per capita growth has been 1 to 3% over the long term. Our great grand children in 2100 will be more than three times better off (i.e. > 300%) than we are today. The reduction due to climate change is not much more than a rounding error. What's more, a richer economy is much better placed to pay for climate change mitigation. Destroying the economy now is the surest way to kill people *and* ensure that we cannot cope with climate change when it occurs anyway.

So yes, roll on Barryroe and energy security.

(End).

Pippa, you should read up on wind turbine technology. They are giant windmills. They don't need starting or restarting, any more than a Dutch windmill for pumping water did a thousand years ago. In fact the main thing they need is a brake, to lock them in place when you don't want them to turn. The blades are also feathered to reduce the torque when the wind gets too high. Starting them is just a matter of releasing the brake, unfeathering the blades, and letting the wind turn them. All of that is done automatically by the turbine mechanism itself. There's a weather vane and anemometer to measure wind direction and speed, and the crown of the turbine is automatically pointed into the wind. There's remote monitoring and control for any other functions. The generator is a straightforward mechanism. The whole turbine is just an electric fan in reverse. There is a large gearbox to convert the slow rotor speed into a high generator shaft speed. There's an oil sump to lubricate the whole thing.

The rotors aren't made of steel, but of glass or carbon fibre, resin, and glue. However, the supporting structure is made of steel and amounts to about 80% of the total weight, not including foundations. A 2.5 MW turbine with a 120m rotor diameter needs about 200 tons of steel, and perhaps 2,000 tons of concrete for the foundations. The latest generation of giant turbines are 10 MW with 220m rotors and use correspondingly more materials. Operational lifetime is about 25 years. Life cycle cost analysis is used to determine the total cost of materials, construction, maintenance and eventual decommissioning.

Wind power is a mature technology. The latest projects are being built without subsidies. So the people who commission, build and operate them have a handle on the costs, including the cost of financing. However, as the video I posted pointed out, the cost of integrating the generated power into the grid is an external cost that is not counted toward the wind turbine. That has to be accommodated by alternative baseload power when the wind doesn't blow, and load following for when it fluctuates. This means other energy sources are used less efficiently. Integrated energy markets allow power to be exported and imported when needed. But that gets more challenging for a large economy beyond a certain level of renewables penetration.

All that said, I agree with you about the need for plentiful cheap energy to maintain standards of living and to improve them for poorer nations. Other things being equal, world demand for energy will double by 2050. Renewables are not going to come close to satisfying that demand. If we want to decarbonise the economy then not only is CCS needed but a massive buildout of nuclear power also.

(continued above...)