Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Geowiz, unless you are going to comment on any of the actual real world comparators of the results to the gas logs, what you think they will do is entirely unpersuasive.
Why didn't you come on and comment on the gas log results in the 2019 presentation from GRF1? Why haven't you commented on the comparison to the gas logs in Anchois 1? In both cases PRD have announced 10 times the saturation. That and the clear decision to go on and test contradicts your repeated assertion that this is dry. Give it a rest or back up your... "thoughts".
I wouldn't bother Androcles, I've tried giving him the benefit of the doubt and answered his questions. He's only ever responded with comments such as "great post" yet there my name is too.
His agenda is not only clear, he has told us. He wants to encourage the so to fall to 3.5p in order to join us for the ride. Frankly if that happens I'll up my stake too, but it's clear no one can take his posts seriously now (if it wasn't before)
Given how many variables are unknown, and given the decision to move ahead with testing, all the figures can reliably tell us is "potentially commercial quantities". Beyond that would largely be speculation... That's all I would expect at this stage before further testing though.
Pastabelly - part of the problem is even now, there is no clear statement of mass appeasement. When they tell us they have completed the well, and when they tell us they are testing for commerciality, then any ordinary person would conclude that means the analysis supports the possibility, if not probability of a decent find.
To get more information you need to be quite technical. You have to do work to find out if 2-3% of a gas is good. You have to know what mud weighting means and what increased pressure may tell you. Many on here have shared their understanding of those and it supports a bright future, but the average investor won't look that deeply. In effect, once a share price has gone into a tail-spin like this does, there is mass fear. You get PI's simply looking at the graph and thinking no thank you. There is also real doubt as to the motivation of a director's sells which, if you don't analyse the technical data, might have been a signal of doubt in PRD's future.
When in a situation like this, you would expect the share price to stagnate until (a) there is concrete news or (b) a time scale for some concrete piece of action is in place so that the masses start pushing up the price with more crowd thinking and FOMO etc... Smart money will be getting in now as the risk:reward is really quite something and there is sign of that in the trading. There have been some really substantial buys in recent weeks with a large proportion of the sells being small. Yes there are chunky sells too, but it seems the bigger bets are more in favour of buy vs sell. That points to the fear amongst the crowd too.
What utter nonsense. Share price is a terrible indicator of company health - did you really think Gamestop was in that great a shape?
Share price is an indicator of mass sentiment, something which is heavily susceptible to herd mentality and both positive or negative hysteria. It is only sometimes reflective of the underlying value of a company, but even on the most widely traded and solid blue chip companies it is only a reflection of expectation and the market is replete with examples of those expectations being spectacularly wrong.
I do think there is a distinction between "has been established" which indicates a degree of certainty and what has been set out in the RNS. The Company is confirming that the data supports an interpretation that MOU-1 is part of the MOU-4 structure, i.e. it may be saying it is more likely than not to be the case. It is not saying its beyond reasonable doubt.
For those wondering - Chesh made a simple post of a smiley face in another BB I've followed for some years (where Chesh is normally positive... probably) and I was blown away!
Lol Chesh, that is the single clearest post I have ever seen you make!
I understood the 6 July RNS to suggest that MOU-4 was connected to various other reservoirs akin to the way MOU-1 seems to be. I had read GRH's msg below as suggesting that MOU-1 might not just be connected to MOU-4 but to others. I'm not sure I see how that is a good thing if correct as would not not lessen the de-risking of MOU-4 as that may be filled up more significantly by other connections instead?
If you want the simplest explanation that is that he needed money.
He had shares, they were exchanged for money, the simplest reason to explain that transaction is that he had a need for that money.
Anything else, good or bad, requires more complicated supposition as to motive. That includes an apparent disbelief in future prospects.
Selling 5m shares is not a great fit to a belief that the shares will never be worth that much again. Selling all the shares would demonstrate that, but if you held that opinion, why leave any behind? A fit of pique is also not a great fit, but it's slightly better as selling a large percentage makes a point almost as well as selling all.
We just don't know, and any who assert that Ron just would not do X y or z are failing to recognise that. It's all opinion with very little to go on.
Answered your own 'innocent' question there Geo. They don't test mere gas shows. They are testing, ergo you incorrectly interpreted the results as only gas traces.
Whether it is commercial volume remains to be proven, but the wire logs have established that it may be.
I do expect a climb pre-spud (assuming no other good news before then) as that is the nature of people, they will speculate. however, i agree it may be more muted and closer to it. That said, I would also expect news on T&T or testing on MOU1 before then which means the sp may be either much higher or much lower dependent on outcomes. I am accumulating and holding for the former, but I am also taking the opportunity to buy a larger chunk with a mind to help de-risking sooner than I otherwise would. If there is no climb, I wont de-risk and just play for results.
In simple terms, it has reduced the probability that MOU-4 has nothing significant to find for the drill.
It hasn't entirely removed the risk, but the results of MOU-1, as well as potentially being commercial in its own right, increased the prospects of success at MOU 4.
Honestly at this stage I would not be convinced that would be great. A takeover, even at 200% of current share price would be a fraction of the true value of the company. If I didn't think otherwise I'd have sold out entirely above 10p.
It would be possible for a takeover to be offered at true value, but I don't think we have enough data yet to demand that. Ultimately takeover, or selling on the subsidiaries with the projects, is the plan. But at the right time.
Right now, I'd take a hell of a lot of convincing to vote for one. I'm not sure how things stand post shake up, but historically many lth's on this board have held a sizeable percentage. Combined with Pg and the teams, we are unlikely to be bounced into one.
Negative posters that can point to sensible sources and outline a reasonable argument are more than welcome.
Wanderers that have stumbled in from their intellectual desert ranting and raving from the delirium of logical dehydration however, are another issue altogether.