Member Info for Spikeyj

that's a bingo.

presumably, mxo won't be able to keep using panoro dispute to avoid revealing more information about the current economics of production from the aje field.

[good spot, jim]

that sure should give a boost to the share price tomorrow. looks like the partners have agreed they will try to play nice, lol: "No Aje JV Partners will require any other Aje JV Partners to withdraw from OML 113" next step, more figures about flow rates & current costs of production? ... still sounds like panoro would like to sell. (bermondsey, maybe your call to the nomad finally made 'em all come to their senses?)

that was a nice slow-burner today.

that particular analyst seems to have completely missed the story that emma walmsley is thinking of emptying out the piggy bank to buy a chunk of pfizer. that would strongly imply dividend cuts, not growth.

tlw, i don't think smaller investors make a company the size of gsk move that much.

if gsk had fallen 25%, 30%, 40%, then yeah, i'd expect ftse BoD to comment. but 10-15%? - not really. equity is risk, just name of the game.

c'mon, it's not like the kind of drop carillon or provident financial had, eh? sure, doesn't make it particularly nice for any pis who might have big %s of their portfolio in here, but it is hardly the sort of move that demands a BoD statement.

? another way of looking at gsk, emma is now busy trying to sort the mess that witty managed to leave behind; a company steadily over-paying on divis, that hasn't been investing sufficiently in its R&D pipelines, that had failed to push forward vaccine dept enough, and has become over-reliant on cash from the consumer division, at a point in the global cycle when such margins under pressure (cf unilever). emma w is fairly new still in post; she has both the task, but also the opportunity, of kitchen-sinking witty's errors. witty managed to get some good PR as a bit of a philanthropist, & he softened gsk's image as an evil big pharma, at least in relation to its activities in the third world. but had he lost real sharp business edge?

well done. power to your elbow.

a sliver to top up some pru, but remaining happily long.

: )

it would be a lot more convincing if they renounced some or all of their renumeration altogether ( - not simply "deferring"!) given the appalling performance to date, & put a chunky amount of additional money out of their own pockets into buying additional shares (money where mouth is).

putting it bluntly, this is not just about the share price performance, but about cash running out with no-one else very keen to step up to the plate. the warning in the final results RNS is very clear: "The Group requires additional funding to meet its daily working capital needs, to settle its outstanding liabilities and in order to fund the development of its projects. As additional funding is required in order to settle outstanding liabilities, to meet on going working capital needs and to raise finance to fund project development there can be no assurance that the Group�s projects will be developed in accordance with current plans or completed on time or to budget. Therefore future work on the development of the Group�s projects and financial returns arising therefrom may be adversely affected by factors outside the control of the Group which are inherently linked to the availability of funding for the Group. The Directors remain confident that the potential income stream from the development of its independent power projects and its agreements to develop projects under two consortiums, the continued deferral of remuneration by the Directors and senior consultants, together with the Directors historic ability to raise additional funds will enable the Group to settle its outstanding liabilities, finance its future working capital and fund the development cost requirements of its projects beyond the period of twelve months from the date of approval of this report. However, there are no confirmed funding arrangements in place at present; as such there can be no guarantee that the required funds to settle current liabilities, meet future working capital requirements and fund future development costs will be available to the Group within the necessary timeframe. Consequently a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Group�s ability to fund this cash shortfall and therefore be able to meet its commitments and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business for a period not less than twelve months from the date of approval of these financial statements. The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the Group were unable to continue in operation."

patch: "... employees and consultants happy to defer payments - not great but not a sign if going bust .." don't be so sure, patch - see 12:26. are they 'happy' to do so, or have no real choice as company case runs out? my guess, they are will be standing well before you and other ordinary holders in the queue for ADL assets to claim those payments if it goes kabung. the patient has had too much blood leeched; the blood-suckers stepping back might allow a brief recovery for another quick slurp, but the patient's overall prognosis looks pretty bleak.

it would be interesting to know what the agreement is within the small print about where ADL's liability to pay outstanding renumeration to directors would rank in relation to ordinary shareholders if/when this goes bust.

"The Company�s principal cost is its people..."

perhaps also ask re mxo's mayan stake? i.e what obligations/expectations there should be in connection with mxo's initial position taken there? - & re TR1's etc for any subsequent changes in mxo's holding in mayan? (that 3 months lock-in expires soon) gl.

today, but still meandering in the lower half of that gently rising channel from nov 2016. bad news if it busts 199/200p downside, but still no signs of break out of the 230s. c'mon liberty, get your schtick together.