Member Info for RichTheNewbie

Well you can believe that if you want......although I think you'll probably be the only one. I think the simple reality is they're producing PG10 as much as they believe they can safely.

jester16 - No they can't just "turn up PG10". They're not sitting there producing tiny amounts when they could really produce lots more! That would be bonkers ;) CH has also said loans for development are basically a no-go hence the strategic review.

No I've not bought and probably 90% likely I won't. Never say never though. Might get a windfall from other shares coming good out of the blue and decide to have a punt (probably won't though as I say).

Looks like a fair few big rollovers today judging by the paired trades. Start of the month/quarter so I suppose it's unsurprising.

I know....was joking hence the wink :p

You really need to get that h fixed on your keyboard scott ;)

Who knows. Probably just trying to drum up a bit of interest. If they don't get much buying though they'll probably have to drop it through the support around 0.8p in order to stir up some more trading.

That very nicely sums up how people like Trump get elected. Mind boggling.

Seriously, can you not understand the point I'm making, you don't need a brain the size of a planet, a pea should be enough. Are you really that thick that you can't see that not everyone will share your Brexit view and therefore using it as an analogy is divisive and unhelpful to illustrate your case? I guess the answer is yes.

I know what you were doing. My point what using Brexit is unhelpful because you immediate divide opinion by using it. You have a VIEW on the way "we are being treated by the EU 'negotiators'" - it's not necessarily right (I don't think it is right and nor do half the country probably - perhaps more these days - it's our own government that's shambolic).

thing=think

Bringing Brexit into an argument never helps stockdale ;) Half the population wish to remain therefore will immediate thing the opposite to whatever Brexit analogy you use. Personally I think Barnier and co have been too nice to the UK government so far. If I was them I'd be negotiating much more strongly as they hold virtually all the cards. :p

Fact is that's not being realistic or reasonable. The simple fact is if there's a high chance of this being sold for much more than the current share price then the share price would be higher. Nobody would pass up that golden opportunity if it existed. It doesn't really exist though and could just as easily go badly from here as it could well. "The company has received significant interest, and from the number of companies that are looking at the asset at the minute, the company is hopeful it will get a good outcome for share holders" There is no way of knowing this. It's just as likely (I'd say most likely) they're just telling you what you want to hear (whether they get a deal or not). Either way, nothing that's said on here (or anywhere else) will make any difference now, they'll get some sort of good deal or they won't.

That's nearly two months old FX_Wizard.....we know it's since been suspected.

Can someone remind me: was the RPS Energy report on Petisovci made public? Can't remember if I've read it or not (can only see a PDC one from a quick Google).

You're welcome.

Perhaps you should refrain from trying to pointlessly explain an NPV10, in a condescending manner, and doing it badly because you don't know what you're talking about. You then get all upset by the suggestion you're missing the point, which you are, and start your usual tantrum, rather than discussing the actual point (the one you missed repeatedly).

I give up. You're incapable of rational discussion.

Monarch you keep missing the point. I know exactly what an NPV10 calculation is and everything I said still stands. If you want to see the detail it's based on that's fine.....but to what level of detail do you want? For example, are you going to assume every assumption of flow rate, recoverability, cost, timescale is correct? I would suggest you're going to find it very hard to judge whether he's right or wrong without being an expert in the field and having direct access to their well/field data.

It doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong either but it's dangerous to rely on it. You'd be hard pressed to find an AIM resources project not touting some lovely sounding NPV numbers. Often reality is very different though.