Member Info for Villa01

Imho it may well be that politics will end up being the denominating factor in "do we, don't we" go ahead and produce. Awareness is growing that fossile extraction will continue for quite some time, and recent suggestions of Biden's reign seeing an uplift of external purchase won't go down too well. It could well be a case for Congress that allowing construction of a delivery system through environmentally delicate areas would be "in the nation's interests", and imo I wouldn't be surprised if it was the case. The hard bit is estimating when they will smell the fresh coffee....

A bit dated, but maybe some use as a guide?

https://www.gem.wiki/Oil_and_Gas_Pipeline_Construction_Costs

Will be interesting to see how the US markets react this afternoon....?

I hope the seller's decision wasn't forced by the news release that refers to a totally different company.....

Now there's a company that has dilemmas.... it will go to appeal I'm sure.
Hard to believe when geographically less than 50% of the island is covered by grid, meaning the more remote areas need delivery of LPG or fuel-oil to heat. (Unless electric). 2 new gas mains layed across the Solent and Fawley a short trip away....

Hi Redirons
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, points noted.
I too have been around this share for a while, and I most certainly will not let one poster's thoughts impact or influence my decisions whether buying or selling. I can most certainly make my own decisions there, and any failing would be of my own making.
I continue to be open minded regarding Scot's posts, as I do imo feel that his writings do contain facts that are generated from knowledgeable research. I do also question the motive, as it seems a lot of effort goes into his narrative opposed to some derampers that have frequented the board in the past, throwing laughable reasons into the pool on the odd chance of it causing a ripple. That's quite a sad, sorry thing to do when they know full well it will be dismissed by most. Most dissappear, but I don't think Scot126 will...
It's been an interesting few days with a broad range of opinions shared, and that's democracy I suppose. I think it has run its course now, and I'm not going to spend anymore time banging on about it as I have drawn my own conclusions.
There's still money to be made with 88 in the next few months and I'm having some of it!
Good luck to you and all by return!

Post the company directly....
Ok then. The last presentation by Ashley. Beautiful. His dulcet tones delivering a newly adopted PR that would put David Cameron's spin-doctors to shame. To ask them of the future would only deliver what they want you to hear, cmon!
DW's dealings?
Who in their right mind would not take up the chance of some sort of share opotunity built in to a long service severance? Imo fair play to him. I can't be arsed to question it as its done, but who on here is that bothered to question it thinking it will make a difference to the share price when it is generally presumed all undertakings by 88 energy are legal.
Why won't anybody challenge Scot's synopsis?

Redirons what answers would the board of 88 provide me? I asked the question of an independent, social media driven bb why they can't answer Scot's questions. I can't, and have on umpteen occasions admitted that I am not knowledgeable enough to do so. Perhaps my humility may strike a note with those that are...?
I have my doubts...

23.48
I do agree that Scot's posts can be a tad long-winded, but what makes you feel he is a con-man?

I don't even subscribe to LSE so no private message, if it helps.

Just one more note, before some pass comment.
I am not advocating Scot's theory, but merely asking the board why somebody can't answer his questions.
I am not on twitter or ADVFN following Scot, I do not know him or have any association whatsoever.
I'm just a bloke that has the audacity to raise an opinion.
Regards
Villa

Eileen
I'm not asking for posters to give Scot the time of day, but to prove him wrong.
Why do I do that? I will tell you. I have been invested in 88 for a while, made my mistakes but held on and consolidated with it in the red for a number of years. Now I'm in the blue to the tune of @ 70%, I really don't worry that much about waiting for the winter. What I do worry about is the ethical reasons that could be prominent in a share that has been hyped on social media beyond comprehension. Forget the big players, let's dwell on those that can subscribe to a trading portal in circa 5 mins. And decide to invest in a share that is trading globally, across all the hemispheres of the planet close to 20 hrs a day.
Do you want to see those investors not seeing the truth? Do you want them to loose their money because Scot's theory is correct? F$%k the corporates, they can afford it. I can't.....

Scot
Purely and simply down to the fact that somebodies misadvertant or innocuous wording could be misconstrued by those that cannot or do not understand the bigger picture. I reitterate that it is without malice toward Turnstone, and wish them well.
Villa.

I can't quite understand this. The 88e BB on LSE has a number of prolific, educated and financially savvy posters that share their views and learnings on a regular basis, but nobody seems to be inclined to challenge Scot's view with a controlled, factual response.
As we run into the winter we all know that the hype and media will increase, but *if*, and it's a big if, Scot's theory is correct it could send a sunami through the share and potentially bring it to its knees. It is public knowledge that Scot has his opinion, but it seems nobody wants to disproove him or productively demonstrate he is wrong. Why? Why doesn't anybody answer his questions logically and factually? Is it the case that he is right? If he's wrong, and you can proove it then post it, because in my honest opinion it is not going away any time soon.
The more this goes on, the more publicity it will attract and then, ultimately become potentially price sensitive on a share that we are invested in.
I am not taking sides. I am genuinely looking at my holding in 88 and thinking "does Scot know something that could cost me a loss"....
A genuine request to those that know a great deal more than me;
Can you prove him wrong? Then please do so.
Regards to all
Villa.

19.27
"Most but not all" is certainly the case. I'm sure you will agree that this, and related by association threads are being scutinised by a potentionally huge audience. Entering a few key words into Google will lead you to threads on LSE, but not allow you to fully read the whole thread or access the site. It might come across as pedantic, but I don't think he has actually said that.
No malice intended, Turnstone.

08.21
Hi Turnstone
I might be wrong, but at no point have I read any of Scot's posts containing a "warning not to invest in this share". Please correct me if you can demonstrate that?

Seahawk
In your opinion do you think a takeover by one or several majors would also target the neighbours next door? Is it a fantastical notion that a major might consider that huge area as one investment?

This clip springs to mind...

https://youtu.be/n9y2qtaopbE

Scott
Mulling over your question again, I think that perhaps your fundamental model is to some extent being ignored or dismissed as it could potentially cause a ripple effect on those that choose to read it. There may well be some that feel your scenario would undermine the strength that holds or binds "true 88ers" together, and that your opinion is too outspoken to be discussed logically for fear of opinion swing.
Have I answered your question, Scott? Obviously based on my own opinions and somewhat limited knowledge of the subject compared to some.