The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
1. That ZPHR has drilled two very promising wells so far.
2. That it has has hardly sold a barrel of it's own drilled oil during the past couple of years. Nor any gas ,for the lack of a pipeline.
3. That the greater market finds that uninexpiring. So not much trading , just one institutional ,and very few US investors in a market besotted by oil.
4. That posters here ,(invested on not), went into a frenzy last week (sp 20p,30p,a buy out etc.,}, only for the market to knock the froth off as usual.
5. The trading slowed down and the sp reduced. The speculation began
Until ZPHR begins to produce and sell it't own oil the market won't do anything spectacular with the bit that matters to me : THE SHARE PRICE. It will happen. (so let it happen and the sooner the better).
We had some brilliant news last week and surely we'll have some more quite soon. but folk are entitled to express an opinion and it is quite clear ,(and it has been for the past year and a half). that the markets take an equivocal view of ZPHR. The last splendid news gave us two day with 45m and 19m shares traded and since then we're back to ultra low trading and a fallback in the share price. And ZPHR still has the same number of institutional investors,( one), and very few US investors. So that is how the market is reacting now.
But posters should be allowed to comment as they see fit without incurring the ire of many posters here. I have still got a very big holding here but I certainly believe that market reaction,whether good or bad should be encouraged.
what's written before you. I speculated that there might be an additional delay with 36 -2 and that if that were so the company should bring the market and the shareholders up to date. I suspect that most of the madmen posting their invective don't have a lot invested in ZPHR.
Clearly there has been a problem of some sort. We know that it is not financial and we can infer that it soes not relate to State 16-2 except insofar as the infrastructure related to an adequate gas pipeline is still not available to pump the oil.
That just leaves the real possibility of a problem with State 36-2 which is now almost a month overdue. The problem may be weather related, or it may be something more serious, but a months delay for whatever reason should be explained to the market and investors here.
Hi The Chain, the sp seems to be livening up a bit but the MMs are makinng sure it stays subdued by maintaining the spread. As for the stake building rumour you read on another BB. Like you I'd take that with a very big pinch of salt.
But I think we're getting close to something decisive. My time may be close. I hope!
1. Alxo. ZPHR does have a listing on the US market. It trades on the OTCQB Venture Market. The listing was aimed at attracting private and instirutional US investors and to increase the share's liquidity.It doesn't appear to have achieved it's objective.
2. BP Energy was the counterparty to the hedging programme. It matched the buyers to the sellers ,(ZPHR). It is an energy trading company and there is no evidence it was acting for BP plc .
If you were the creator of the Resume on ZPHR then you have done a really good job. It is clear that the information you collated was already available but it hasn't been available in a unified form until now. I for one have copied it to use it as an easy reference point.
Aposter here has criticised your contention that ZPHR would benefit from having a more experienced oil related director. Nothing wrong with that. The board is made up of finance and accounting personnel. CH,(the only member we know really), is a first class CEO but his expertise is finance related and I'm sure he would benefit from the presence of hands on oiler.
Well done you.
I hope, (a lot more than you do) that I get my exit price soon. And it's not quite 12p.
I also hope that people on here are allowed to express their opinions respectfully and knowledgebly without snide interference from people like you.
Which parts CH found such fault with. Or you could say "well he would wouldn't he"!
It is certainly the best attempt at a measured critique of Zephyr that I have seen up to now.It deals with all the activity for the past couple of years. And it is neither damning nor ,(malcy like), over exuberant with no real facts to back the claims.
I'll take it until something better researched and more provably is produced. The fact that the information is sequential and verifiable from the RNS'S is very useful.
First class ,and as well as collecting all the existing informtion in one place it raises some very important questions such as the adequacy of the team, (without questioning their abilities), and the desirability of the company being listed in the USA. Plus a lot more well examined possibilities.
As directors they must declare their shareholdings, however small ,and they have done so. And they must declare any changes to those holdings. They have declared their Origin Creek shares also.It's not negativity. It's just a matter of fact.
is a good mark,elland. I was certainly pleased to see it. But what I find hard to understand is why four of the directors hold less than 1% of the equity between them and why none of them bought any this year. Purchases on their part would have given an important signal to the market.