Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Mizuno, one can only assume you have a large short in play given you posts. It is now in the investor interests to let the management get on with their jobs of finding gas and if they can't find gas, of monetising what we have and selling it. I do not like where we are, I do not like many of the things on the journey, but I do realise the best chance of success isis to step back and let them get on with the job in hand. The nonsense being spouted here is incredible in many ways and will leave to a different investor approach from the company if they continue to get the kind of abuse we are seeing. Good day all.
Mizuno, you need to appreciate that much of this is being twisted by investors who have lost money, have not researched or have not understood things.There are several things I disagree with the company over but there is a way to deal with that, ask questions, seek explanations etc. Some of the stuff on this board is becoming a joke.
Fellrunner, whilst I agree with some of your points, some I do not, you and a couple of other high profile and high volume posters are stirring up a frenzy and I genuinely think investors will suffer more if we continue in this manner.
Fellrunner, the £1.50 figure already includes the discount. The original figure is £3.50. Re-listen to the Norwich presentation where JJ sets this out including the sensitivity of both the GSA and the discount.
And just for clarity for all, JJ stated the TCF for Sound on 6th December 2017 at the TPI presentation when he first said £1.50 per TCF.
I think everybody should also remember that this is a guidance of value. Once we have the GSA (December/January) and the FEED (January./February) - I have added on additional month to each given timelines are usually missed here - the company will then provide clarity on the core NAV. Until then we should all just accept that the value will be someway higher than where we currently are. We may be presently surprised.
Prudent, I have often admired your posts, this one being no exception. I would go as far as suggesting you top and tail it and send to James for his response to your points which are very well made, well worded and valid.
FR75, I am indeed warming to you and appreciate both the detail and manner of your post. In no way am I looking to insult investors about their understanding of risk and reward but reading some of the posts it does need to be said. I fully agree, I am more annoyed about the run of dry holes than TE-9 in isolation. I also agree it is key to address with the team in a constructive way. I see little construction in some of the posts today, hence perhaps my fuse has blown.
We can disagree on Brian's shares but can agree on regard and risk Whilst not intending to slap down, I, like you, invested far more based upon hype and timelines.
It is a painful time and I do not intend to slap down, other than a few who are clearly revelling in it or point scoring. I have spoken with the NOMAD this week, I have a set of targeted questions prepared for tomorrow and I will continue to do my due diligence, whilst also recognising the human side of the team that I have invested heavily in.
That all aside, like SoundingOff earlier this morning, I would welcome to discuss further your thoughts and details on trading patterns.
What fun. Good evening all.
FFS some of the posting, vindictiveness, ranting and raving is really quick distasteful and much more prone to Twitter. I fairness, many many new names who have popped up, many genuine. Before people jump on me, I have lost a large sum of money as well. However, there is absolutely no place for the personal attacks on here or towards the company. Do you really think they are sat there happy with what has happened. The team has worked tirelessly and whilst TE-9 has failed (I will come to that in a minute), think about the human side, they are hurting (and do not give me the Brian has no share line, absolute nonsense, Brian is not a share dealer, he is a geologist. He does however have a significant number of reward options, the top tier of the company do as well - listen to the Tendrara Q&A for details and read the RNSs).
I am actually more angry at many of the posters on this board than I am about TE-9, get a grip, it is YOUR investment decision. This is O&G it is HIGH RISK and HIGH REWARD. If you are a widow or orphan I apologise.
Now that you have got a grip, we are where we are. Like many of you I will ask a number of key and strategic questions tomorrow, not poisoning fingers but questions designed to learn more and understand the way forward. Read Trellis excellent post below on approaching the FSC, much sense there!
Serious questions have to be asked, serious answers received, serious thought given. This is however a time to think and plan not bash and moan. I may post more on my thoughts on TE9, TE10 and the overall strategy, I do have a lot, for now, I will end my rant.. and wish you good evening!
N4APound, I would also like a CC however I also think that investors will be more inclined and able to ask a much broader and detailed set of questions via a FSC, and can then re-read answers at leisure as well. Personally I ask over 10 at each FSC, I have a significant number now, like many of us do, however if it is a voice cc, it will not be possible to ask many questions given the numbers of attendees. In fairness many questions will be very similar.
apologies, I missed out saying that all casing RNSs have stated the geological formation at that point. I have done a lot of reading about mudstones since but of course this is just where the TD was, it does not say anything about what the drill encountered prior to this formation.
Hi Tapper, while the RNS was released via REACH, so not regulatory/drill results, it still followed a similar format as previous and in line with the AIM Oil & Gas requirements which includes
• depth of zone tested
• rock formation encountered
• any liquids/gases recovered.
We will await the formal completion which will include all three elements. And as Exploration highlights well, the RNS last week was total depth and did not state completion of drilling or final depth. Interesting and exciting week ahead.
Rampus and Luckman, my understanding is that the secondary target/ Paleo was going into the top of the Devonian in an area where the Carboniferous was not present (although close to where they thought it was). Roger at the Deep dive showed an image of this but with a question mark against the Devonian position and highlighted that they do not fully know. It indeed looks like the well finished in the upper Carboniferous. Carboniferous is where Fastnet/ONHYM proposed a large unconventional shale gas play. The source rocks of our license area have been traced to Devonian age. In terms of mudstones and sandstones, the frasnian mudstones would be a sourcerock, sandstones would form a reservoir I believe. We of course do not know what they have found or what they drilled through before the upper carboniforous mudstones stated in the RNS. Hope that helps.