Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
As I set out, delays were warned as a potential earlier. By the prospectus in June, a view was taken of how much delay would occur. However, as BDT has said, the T&T website is a useful resource. Note:
New curfew powers made on 30 June 2021: https://health.gov.tt/legal-notice-no-189-vol-60-no-103-1st-july-2021
New Covid requirement regulations made 18 July 2021: https://health.gov.tt/ln-195-public-health-regulations-chapter-12-no-18-updated-18th-july-2021
PRD notify us in an RNS on 19 July that the timetable is affected after all. Please everybody, use some rational common sense and stop being so melodramatic. Life is not binary. It is not all true or all utter tosh. Things change and plans adjust as times move on. I assume you are all grown ups and should know this.
Come on chancers, you are being naïve or obtuse here:
RNS 1 June 2020: confirms the CO2 injection as per that podcast
RNS 20 October 2020: the injection continued despite the public health emergency
RNS 27 October 2020: matters progressing despite covid 19 constraints. Note that by this time, reference is being made to some constraints that are not yet significantly affecting the process.
RNS 20 January 2021: Notes that there have been regulatory delays due to covid 19. Also confirms the timing of well workovers will depend on covid 19 delays for the import of packers for downhole completion.
RNS 24 May 2021: Confirms that even the co2 injection has now been restricted due to Covid 19 restrictions and 'recently introduced' lockdown curfew
RNS 4 June 2021: CO2 injection continuing despite covid, but no reference to the reduced rate from May having been removed. So continuing, but more slowly than originally planned.
RNS 19 July 2021: Timing of well workers confirmed as effected by Covid as warned in January 2021.
Covid 19 has caused projects and governments to change what they think can happen across the world, but none of this was hidden from us. It was all set out for the diligent investor to consider.
Great interview indeed. It also answers all the doubters that assert that a company "just wouldn't" issue an RNS in the terms it did. PG openly states he would be surprised if many people actually understood the RNS that had been issued then. That sentiment is likely stronger in relation to the 6 July RNS as many in the market have not understood the good news it contained.
Some really substantial buys going in today as the bashers rally around. You can see from the figures that quite a few off the chunky 'sells' were buys. Someone(s) clearly recognises these prospects and is accumulating as swiftly as possible. Lots of small sells from PIs scared out of their shares being hoovered up.
Hi GRH,
I did look, 53 connections if I found the right one? Your connections are hidden unless we connect though.
That said, not someone I think I have actually crossed paths with albeit the same world.
Sorry wrong link
https://www.dropbox.com/s/294fflc0hc81dof/cpr-report-pathfinder.pdf?dl=0
wasn't the unexpected element, not confirming the bright spot was there, but unexpectedly validating the theory that it was a part of MOU-4 target rather than a separate target.
i.e. it was like finding that it wasn't X marks the spot, but the entire word Exciting.
This is getting a little lost in the noise at the moment, but on re-reading this I agree with you. This looks like more significant news than I appreciated at first.
Consolidation with potential acquirers of a producing gas asset in Ireland. What does that mean? This is saying that one or more parties want to acquire a currently producing asset in Ireland (and there are not many of those). For it to be a consolidation, it appears that we can be a part of that. Is this what the placing for potential future acquisitions was for all along? Take a portion of a JV that will entrench PRD's position in Ireland and to its energy security to lend weight to our LNG plans?
If you consider the waters to be so toxic, why are you swimming in them? You have no interest in the company yet spend your time posting impassioned pleas for others to agree with you?
There is no rationale basis for this beyond trolling.
thechancers, you have been around a long time and I remember the days when you were one of the positive crowd on here. I understand that you were disillusioned and you are entitled to be negative on a stock that you are clearly disappointed in. I might disagree with you, but the only posters here who are being derided are the newcomers with no apparent history in the stock and no apparent agenda other than to sow FUD.
There have been posters who have posted reasoned negative views. Where that happens they are welcome because balance and counterpoints are required. However, you have that, there needs to be substance to the post.
In relation to Ron, the error would be assuming that his actions are solely those of a rational investor with no other influences. I cannot discount this is a possibility, but nor do I see any reason to suppose it is more likely than other scenarios. For example: He is leaving for health (physical or mental) reasons because he cannot continue and needs the money to support retirement. He simply needs the money now for financial reasons and has no choice but to sell. He may have been pushed and has acted irrationally and emotionally by selling up as an act of revenge. Any of these are possible, but we dont have the evidence to know why. Yes he got out for a reason, that goes without saying because few people truly do anything for no reason. However, we do not know that reason is some hidden negative or nefarious event which will effect the value of this company. That is pure speculation.
As to the Arato deal - there has been no substantiated allegation that any person behind PRD in any way benefited from that. I did post earlier, that there has not yet been very significant money made. Arato poured money into PRD, they got shares cheaply and they made perhaps 20-40% (pure speculation from placing prices) by flipping those shares. It is highly unlikely that any person behind PRD would have got a sufficiently large proportion of that to cover the diluting effect on their own PRD shareholding. All the while that money which poured into PRD has enabled us to obtain and explore Morocco. I am someone who thinks Morocco has shown very good promise because I have taken the time to try to understand the data published, very much helped by other researchers on this board. I believe Arato, whilst painful, were net beneficial to this company whilst allegations of shady arrangements appear improbable.
As to Theseus, it was neither hidden away nor unusual in its arrangement. It was declared in the original prospectus and confirms that PG has more skin in the game and alignment with PRD shareholders than his shares alone demonstrate.
There has been no material impact on the likely BOPD production at T&T. What has happened is a pause in activities as a result of Covid. This isn't the first time, and last time it negatively affected the shareholding I piled in bringing my avg down by purchases and
Its useful to note that yesterday we had a nice peaceful board full of sensible discussions whilst it was the bashers' day off. Today, there are some particularly large buys going through all the while the team has got together to try and hammer the price down whilst that occurs. This is hardly coincidence.
Nowhere near a market?? Have you not even done ten minutes research? Its in a market where gas is more valuable then most others in the world!
And you still don't understand what a dry well is either. Honestly, there is no helping some people... Nobody completes and plans to test a dry well for commerciality. There is no announcement of this being a dry well and the data published indicates an awful lot more than gas shows.
Interesting Matt, why do you think the RNS implies less T&T efficiency? I read that as restating the earlier RNS telling us Covid restrictions had slowed down its process. I don't see anything there implying the results are expected to be any less than previously thought.
Because uninformed or deliberately disruptive people such as yourself spread unfounded widespread panic. I would have thought that was quite obvious. But then you never returned after I pointed out how many of your "serious questions" had been answered in detail and in full without your follow up participation. Then up you trot asking "innocent" questions again. It isn't rocket science.
Of course its not coincidence... sorry this will teach me for posting whilst focusing on another task. if you increase the base figure or its double by the same percentage you will end up with the same 2:1 relationship between them. If someone else wants to consider this whilst I go back to work...
Absolutely arbitrary, it was on the basis that it was not certain and fell broadly in between .57 and 1.0 to reflect increased confidence from new data without certainty.
On the scale, if the low to high was based on depth then one would assume a 5BCF per metre range (being 50BCF if covering 10m). That would suggest that the high estimate ought to have been 275 BCF rather than 138. That would imply that the estimate was not linear in accordance with the area and there were other factors at play. If so, then the top estimate would not grow with the same proportion as the depth found.
Very roughly, 138 was half of the top liner figure of 275, so it is possible one might reach a correct figure by doing (275*136%)/2 which coincidentally also gives 187BCF. I suspect that isn't an accurate reflection of the interaction between depth and volume estimated though.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that the new estimate is likely in the scale of 68-187 though.