Member Info for rossannan

Hedging does seem a strange decision right now when the stars appear to be aligned for copper.

Shadowboxer

I take it from your post that you’re not a Chas and Dave fan. They were right though, there ain’t no pleasin’ some folk...

Gavster-NBC

Well said!

Too quiet!

JJ

Hopefully everything will align, but NASDAQ will provide the spotlight. Some nonsense figures are thrown around but a bag by the end of Q1? Why not?

Spoke too soon. One day...

NicetoMichu

Thank you, I appreciate that. Managed not to take too significant a hit on BLVN but I found the old BoD frustrating to say the least. In profit on paper, having started again here last year, but my all time BLVN average is probably higher than yours. Hopefully all will be forgiven and forgotten soon!

Hopefully they’ll use Prime for the next Amazon shipment.

Yes but it’s not Capstone any more - it is how Minto (and PERE for that matter) is financed and what it owes that we don’t know enough about, IMO. Then there is the CAPEX necessary to extend the life of the mine etc.

More fool me if there is a problem because I’ve just bought another 5,125 (reported as a sell), which takes me to a total of 98,712. The tax relief on the SIPP contribution that funded today’s purchase will hopefully allow me to round this up to 100,000 in due course. Then I’m done.

darientaylor

Haven’t looked into it in detail but isn’t that the large chunk that they decided to crystallise? I don’t think there’s a problem.

Still not a lot of information in that update. It might be worth researching Minto’s financials independently of what PERE deigns to share with the market.

NicetoMichu

Probably more like a 1.5p bad case scenario nowadays, but there is certainly substantial upside if the license is renewed.

Looking healthier today. Our time will come.

RPStock

Even better, news AND the NASDAQ listing.

What is it going to spur retail interest? In some ways TRIN is almost too solid a proposition for retail investors.

ShareScare

“and have always been in for results”

That certainly seems to be the only game in town now.

Today’s RNS is a sustained and very detailed (but not necessarily successful) exercise in self-justification.

And as I have said to you before, the guarantee details still seem a little unclear, at least to me. It looks to me as if the original tranche of death spiral funding still has to be sold sharpish and that it is arguably only this new tranche (and any shares issued as a result of the death spiral funder doubling up) that has an extended 16 April guarantee.

Some on here (including yourself?) seem to think that all of the death spiral funding is now covered by an extended 16 April guarantee, but I am not convinced by that interpretation. Unfortunately I never heard back from BPC to settle the matter.

Anyway, this further tranche of death spiral funding really has killed the trade for me. I made a modest profit trading the pre-spud excitement and remained open to the possibility of trading any pre-drill result excitement, but all this dilution is why I would argue that gambling on the drill result is now the only game in town.

That is a game that is of no interest to me as I do not see the balance of risk and reward as being in my favour, particularly when it has become less and less clear what a commercial find would be worth to BPC (with all the legal/political developments) and given the likelihood on such a find of the death spiral funder selling into, and therefore limiting, any PI-driven spike.

When it comes down to it, this is all about whether you believe the local rampers when they imply (and sometimes more than imply) that the real odds here are substantially better than the stated odds. The stated odds are a 35% chance of oil and, it follows, a significantly smaller chance of commercial oil.

Good luck if you choose to believe the local rampers over the stated odds. If your bet comes in you may never know whether the local rampers had superior judgement or you just got lucky. Just bear in mind that the local rampers don’t offer refunds, so don’t bet more than you can afford to lose.

CC

I believe that they will do the right thing and not share that information in any way, so the funder also will have to try and figure out BPC if they do take the funding (given that the funder then has to decide whether or not to double up).

If there is no significant oil when BPC take the funding, it gives them a hedge against that continuing to be the case (because in the event of no commercial oil being found they will be unable to raise money at 1p, let alone 2p). But then there is the significant potential liability to the funder under the guarantee (although after that recent RNS I am still unclear what exact the terms of that guarantee now are).

I would very broadly see taking the funding as a negative and not taking it as possibly a positive, but with neither being in any way conclusive. Crucially though, I am unclear whether BPC have the funds right now to do everything they could reasonably want to do with the well.

CC

Again, absolutely not. I am simply calling this as I see it. I would not buy it at 2p because the balance of risk and reward doesn’t work for me. If it went sharply lower to 1p or thereabouts, that would in theory make the balance of risk and reward more attractive but I would be wary unless I was clear that the dip could be attributed to the death spiral funder unloading. Even then, of course, there is the liability that such a process would rack up. It’s a bit of a mess.

CC

“Ross I think has a few shares”

Absolutely not.