Member Info for TT-T

Because at that stage there was only an opinion of (admittedly experienced) management that there was likely to be gas present in the licence. Now, we know there to be gas present, and whilst we need to test for commercial flow rates, that is a huge potential uncertainty that has been removed. When measured against the upside potential, the difference between 1.5p and 10p is not very significant. To that end, it is a better, more reliable investment now at this price. A better risk/reward ratio.

My understanding was that the proximity to the pipeline was only ever a selling point for the assets to others. PRD itself was always clear that we were not intending to go into large scale production of that nature. The proposal for small scale CNG was a new proposal to engage in some production which may help facilitate other work.

Sorry, auto correct, that should have read "trolls" or people with agendas. Such is the way of the internet.

I feel almost proud, like a right of passage has been passed. I think that's the first time I have been accused of being someone else on this board.

I would not say it's necessarily just a case of ambiguity. The market, being as capricious and Ill informed a group as it is, has a tendancy to jump to the conclusion that it's negative unless gushing ordinary language is used. I.e. delighted to report, exceeded expectations - even immediate, premature declaration of commercial success as soon as the flow test begins. There will be troops or people with agendas who will be shouting 'duster' irrespective of any technical information without such language.

The clearer heads amongst us will either be delighted with clear language used and share price re-rating upwards, or we can take advantage of those selling in fear. Either way we win. No matter how the market reacts to any one RNS, if the gas is there and flowing at commercial rates for sufficiently long periods, the market will eventually catch up. I can be patient and/or take advantage of that.

Helpful to guard against hostile takeovers by increasing potential management percentages

Not sure I understand the reason they scaled back the broker offer. People have posted on here that they were scaled back 50% or so, as existing shareholders. That seems strange or was the offer never £2.5m??

Anyone understand why this had to be RNS'd again today? The RNS on 12 October gave the same figures and surely counts as the required "within 30 days" market notification.

*isn't worse* that should have been

I am struggling to see how this placing is worse than just defaulting on the loan and letting Riverfort convert the outstanding debt to shares at a 20% discount. The issued shares, for a much larger sum, are issued at that same discount whilst carrying with it additional or amended warrants to crazily low prices. How is this better?

Well, Muggins would have us believe there is only one dishonest individual or "conman" as he puts it connected to DVRG. I'm afraid I don't believe a word he says, and being accidently right when having a major axe to grind is no achievement to speak of.

So Muggins. What's your position now? Did you EVER heed your own warning and sell down the significant shareholding you claimed to hold all through that drop?

There is no defense of GB there, but Muggins, who claims to have been right, does not seem like someone who should cast the first stone.

Either he didn't have the courage of his convictions, bought and held knowing it was a con that would fail. Or he never bought Amy shares but pretended he did in order to troll a BB for whatever reason.

I don't see other likely options there, and Muggins refuses to face it.

Meanwhile Muggins own actions remain wholly unexplained. He refuses to explain why he claimed to be a significant shareholder whilst 'warning' everyone this huge drop was coming and GB was a 'conman'. Makes no more sense after this drop than it did before.

I don't know whether we faced a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether leaks were always accurate. If there was a raise attempt going on which got leaked and TW decided to predict the price would be 3p, then as we see the market will sell down to that price. TW has long standing public grief with GB, I recall they have clashed before. I have no idea what price they were trying to achieve in this equity raise or why, but I cannot help wonder if this has been pushed down further than sentiment alone would have achieved with whatever GB et al were thinking.

Okay Muggins, so why did you buy shares from someone you consider a conman, and why did you repeatedly state you had not sold out over your years of "warnings"?
Eg:
"mugginsthedog

Posted in: DVRG

Posts: 904

Price: 13.75

No Opinion

RE: Tempted to add28 Apr 2022 10:34
Paulcon - I am disappointed to be right each time as I am a significant shareholder. However, I see significant downside risk here"

No Muggins, I am trying to work out if you were a fool, or a deliberate disrupter that got luckier than you ever expected.

Stopped clocks get no congratulations for the twice a day they are right. So genuine question. Did you ever sell out, or are you still holding the many shares you professed to own all along?

Muggins at every stage you have shouted doom and gloom whilst also insisting you remained invested. That destroyed your credibility. You either looked like a fool for ignoring yourself, or a deliberate disrupter.

I accept this is a farce, but what did you do? Did you continue ignoring yourself?

No problem BDT - that was more focused on the troll that was trying to leap to negative inferences from the exercise of the option now not later without any basis for doing so.

Why assume they will be sold immediately? Once the option is used and shares purchased, those shares wont expire.

The flag to sign up the mou for the CNG equipment and gas sales before the drilling and testing certainly telegraphs confidence in the outcome.