Member Info for shareaction

But today's more efficient technology is also available to BP hence my argument. But perhaps BP already sold this field to someone else decades ago ....

You surely mean 70 ‰ ? If this field has had too high extraction cost wouldn't it also me too high for UJO & Co? Could it simply be that somehow this finding has always been too peripheral for the giant BP to start appraisal and development work on, or it simply never has fitted into their strategy?

When can Celamin take over TMS's 49% stake in CPSA as part-payment towards TMS's liabilities under the arbitration decision?? This is such a clear-cut case but still it takes a ridiculously long time to conclude.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/polo-resources-ltd--pol-/rns/celamin-holdings-ltd---investment-update/201901071019173699M/

adv11, Haven't looked at this before now. My SIPP received THE FULL 2.8cent/share dividends on the DGOC shares. My ISA received 2.38 cent dividends, i.e. after 15% withholding tax deducted. My limited company also received 2.38cent/share dividends, i.e. net of 15% withholding tax. ( Not with I-web/Halifax/Lloyds)

Vista, an annual salary is something we all can relate to whether we are millionaires or below minimum wage. However I'm beginning to regret what I wrote so I should add that at my stage in life now I am extremely modest when it comes to future income/"salary" expectations. I wasn't bragging but only trying to explain the effect my high concentration in a company like DGOC has. I don't believe in spreading my investments too thinly over many companies; that way I know from experience I am guaranteed low overall growth as best case. Conventional portfolio theory isn't for me. I also buy and hold... and hold... so brokers don't get much commission.

Indeed, lignum! When I started accumulating DGOC I had a vision of a turbo charged, perpetual pension generator. This vision has now come true. Today's RNS increases this monster machine's output (dividends alone) to a half annual salary per year for me. And judging from past performance, there could be future capital (and dividend) growth here!

Yes, I suppose it makes sense to let one shareholder "go" rather than having a disgruntled owner onboard who probably had been enthusiastically told by brokers that the share price would rise significantly after the sale.

However if DGOC did waive conditions of the agreement one could easily argue that the company in a very specific way WAS "a party to the Placing" and that the concluding sentence of today's RNS therefore was incorrect, since without DGOC's part there would have been no placing at all.

How was it possible for Trive Capital to sell these shares which are subject to the lock-in agreements? The lawyers just come up with some kind of legal technicality?

He has to watch himself or he may soon have to give a compulsory offer for the lot!

Who has been selling??

The update is very good. However on point I don't understand:

Edison used in their October research paper $4.52 as the base Lease Operating Expense per BOE.

DGOC themselves gave us in this latest trading update $6.42 in October and $7.14 in the 10 months to 30 Oct.

In other words the October costs are 40% higher than Edison's base figure.

Why this big difference? Where did Edison get their figure from?

Isn't he 58 shares short of 3%? (hehehe)

Have POLO then received the approx. £3m repayment??

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02045856

There is no mention in PAN ASIA's news item of any of release of POLO's charge over the TCM Coal project and repayment of the SGD5mill + 3 years interest at 15% p.a. by Universal Coal Resources to Polo.

These are the sort of things Sensyne should come up with (from fiercebiotech), not messing about with apps for tiny patient groups:

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/newly-discovered-link-between-appendix-and-parkinson-s-disease-could-point-to-way-to

I'm in a similar situation, RS, and was thinking of averaging down. HOWEVER, the trouble is the marketcap is still astronomical £77m and it will take years before profits will justify such a high price. Yes, a high P/E is natural for a growth company but the "E" in Bango's P/E is not even positive, so meaningless! Thats probably why they use other ratios instead, like P/EBITDA or P/S - to make the case look palatable... And there are always these fantastic bolt-on this-and-that opportunities that only pushes the end of the rainbow, where the profits are supposed to be, further and further away. But that of course apparently only makes this case better and better!

I really had a very weak moment when I read IC and bought on their recommendation. Perhaps with a sick-note from my psychiatrist I could get a refund.

If the ex-CFO acted alone he was in effect committing IDENTITY FRAUD by pretending to be Patisserie, who therefore should not be bound by these fraudulent overdraft agreements. Why should innocent victims suffer? The banks would only have themselves to thank for sloppy adherence to their otherwise strict underwriting criteria.

This article in IC (access subject to subscription but perhaps there are some free articles)

investorschronicle.co.uk/comment/2018/09/06/taxing-times

indicates that refund of foreign withholding tax is available in theory but...

"...the refunded tax [cannot] go into an ISA account.
In other words, that little slice of dividend income
would lose its tax-free wrapper forever..."

But better than not receiving the refund at all!

You also rely on the ISA manager to do this refund job and their cooperation may not be guaranteed for all countries, except US and Canada where such refunds apparently has become a more or less automated process since the W-8BEN form is a prerequisite for investing there.

Yes, I get the same answer from the ISA providers but it does conflict with HL's own ISA guide on tax which as far as I can see says there is zero% tax on dividends in an ISA:

http://i.imgur.com/Mawi2pP.png

Is it normal for banks to lend (grant a credit limit of) £10m to a plc based on one sole signature from the CFO? If I were a bank I would have required some sort of minuted resolution or even a counter signature demonstrating wider awareness of the transaction. That is not too much to ask and very simple for an honest CFO to provide.

This otherwise simple, apparently, case of a straight forward resignation is not being handled very well.