Jump to content

finicky

Member
  • Posts

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

finicky's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. yeah, I forgot BUR's net revenue interest is only about 30% in these wells so the rough guess of revenue to BUR when the two new wells are connected would only be in the area of only $1,700/day. That's based on the Dec readings released, and before any refraccing, and not counting any condensate sales. That is: 1.3 mmcf/day is worth about 1,300 mmBtu x $4.35 = $5,655/day gross revenue x 0.3 = $1,697/day net revenue to BUR at this early stage. Would be right roughly?
  2. So where's the enthusiastic commentary from LCZEL and tcisboss? How much is 1.3 mmcf/d gas going to sell for, if it gets no better? Plus 20 or so barrels of condensate/day, haha. Sounds like chickenfeed.The NYMEX spot price closed at $4.35, but I am bewildered as to how to convert the results into revenue terms; the more so when when I believe payment is actually based on some Henry Hub spot price denominated in $/million Btu. My guess is their results would look pathetic against the preceding hype if expressed in terms of $revenue, net of costs. Best guess is that: 1.3 mmcf = 1.3 x 1,000 = 1,300 mmBtu [link (2)] NYMEX NatGas contract is in $ per million Btu (mmBtu)? [link (1)] Price per NatGas contract is $4.35 So, 1.3 mmcf/day is worth about 1,300 mmBtu x $4.35 = $5,655/day gross revenue before remediation and not including the dribbles of condensate. That's from 2 wells, but one they said was mainly put down as some sort of confirmatory or study well I think. Anyway, I could be out by a negative factor of 10 for all i know. Might be $565/day, and I'm not sure about the Henry Hub aspect. The strategy seems to be to drill 12-24 of these development wells in the best case scenario, but it might be as little as 4-8. Maybe they'll just sell the prospect on for a piddling royalty like they did for the Austin chalk leases, then talk through a megaphone about the next 'company maker' idea. "Burleson historical drilling track record now 91% success rate (10 from 11, including 5 chalk wells)" Well well, same old. Congratulations team. They're so consistently successful, but none of these wells have been anything to speak of. All they've done is fund just a fraction of further drilling costs, and pay the administration and operators, who are also the ones who formed the company. They've conducted multiple cap raisings to get this far, not to mention the shareholder destructive convertible note adventure. The operators are in for any successful outcome with their free 'performance' shares. Links: (1) http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_fut_s1_d.htm (2) http://www.natgas.info/html/natgasunitsconversion.html
  3. That'll be worth a look. Meanwhile natgas itself still looking ok, price above the 50 dma, which itself is opening a tiny gap above the 200 dma. Seen worse situations in natgas, but how will industrial commodities generally go over the next few months? - not so great, if you listen to Marc Faber - http://www.zerohedge.com/article/marc-fabe...-long-treasurys
  4. Continued reading your posts on this board, and get some reassurance that some actually believe BUR is worth something. Haven't had anything to add, as have given up trying to assess these companies. By the way I went for double entitlements in the rights issue, hoping to average down and give myself an easier exit price. However the chart of spot Natural Gas offers a bit of encouragement I believe. As an aside - how does a an abundant fuel in the States get belted down to such barely economic levels? It can be compressed and used to fuel cars and fleet vehicles; it can be liquefied for same. In a country with a trade deficit like USA, and a chunk of that is oil imports, what are they waiting for? Boone Pickens has been onto it for years. How does natgas languish and get to glut levels of inventory? Just rhetorical questions. Natgas is one of only two commodities in cal 2010 that ended the year lower. Could be a contrarian argument there. Anyway, looking at this 2.5 year daily chart you can see that the price looks to be breaking above downtrend, and with a bit of imagination you could read the last year as a bullish falling wedge. Additionally the momentum indicators have been positively diverging from the price lows since Apr 2010, and 50 dma is crossing the 200 dma from under, suggesting more rally. A year long retracement of the rally that began in September 2009, finished Jan 2010, is not bad preparation for more upside. Can't be bad for BUR if natgas sustains a rally while BUR is tying in gas and condensate production and establishing 2P reserves? http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8908/natgasjan18.png
  5. So let's see: instead of owning 25% of 4 Mile they would then own 100%? Isn't Alliance claiming that part of the 75% stake belonging to Quasar/Heathgate was acquired by them while withholding significant information from Alliance? So Quasar/Heathgate got part of their equity on cheap terms through deception, according to Alliance, because they withheld information due to Alliance . And you're saying Quasar/Heathgate might walk out of that advantageous deal and that's necessarily bad for Alliance? Losing the plant, and a partner knowledgeable not just of the mining/processing of uranium, but knowledgeable of the processes in that precise location would be huge, but as compensation they would presumably get back 75% and own 100% of, in your own words," .. one of Australia's biggest and best uranium deposits ..." What's Quasar/Heathgate going to do - sue Alliance for what Quasar/Heathgate have already spent on feasibility? What would Alliance's legal recourses be anyway if Quasar/Heathgate in some sense reneges? For the uranium bull what are you looking at if such a situation was to occur and resolve simply? That is, a small cashed up junior appears with a top notch developed uranium resource. A neighbour has proved that such a resource can be mined and processed profitably at lower uranium prices than today let alone tomorrow. You're saying it follows that the junior is washed up and won't find funding or major to farm in?
  6. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    Skiff, my intention is to hang in for the roughie long odds. I see no point in selling what was bought pre the hyper inflation of shares, since that historical holding has become chickenfeed, and this reflection must apply to anyone in that position. The ones who bought at the lows pre NipponX , and who still holding, are looking at their profit daily eroding, I suspect there will be more of those to be shaken out with the break of 3c, but of course I don't know, just an opinion. Traders operate with stop-losses which will be getting progressively hit. Similarly I can't see many of the placements holding as they see their subscription moving into loss, although I suppose there's a chance there that most are out, don't know. Personally I might add a few if the price gives a hint of stabilizing, but I now regard it as a full on gamble at a race track where I don't even know if the stewards are asleep.
  7. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    My previous remark ........ "I suggested this approach on the Intec Dorothy Dixer forum before La Jolla appeared." Post is here Ok, I did a search over at Dorothy Dixers and found the post where I suggested a different way of fund raising, and my memory has obviously embellished. It was made 4 March 2010 when the SP was already about .8c pre consolidation. La Jolla had already been resorted to. There' s no way that at the time I made the suggestion that the amount potentially raisable would have kept the salary funding going up to the NipponX deal. However I was thinking about it well before I bothered to futilely post it over there! lol. If I could think it, then why couldn't they have come up with some creative solutions before La Jolla? My view is still that La Jolla was no solution whatsoever since it virtually demolished the old shareholders' stake, the ones who had been funding the company for years.
  8. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    Yep, significant break I agree. The placement takers at 3c and the remaining speculators who were inspired to be buying around .005-.006 could panic. I've stepped back, was thinking of adding @ .028. Why didn't any directors follow P Wood's lead and buy some if prospect is good?
  9. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    "I agree that the purchase of shares by the CEO did happen....but he didn't buy many. Just an exercise in giving you and other shareholders some confidence." He bought about $39k worth, but I totally agree that explanations are possible other that he thought it was a good investment decision. Confidence of shareholders as you say, and also a placement had been made at 3c
  10. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    "Did you approach the directors with your offer of financial assistance finicky? Did they turn you away in favour of La Jolla?" I suggested this approach on the Intec Dorothy Dixer forum before La Jolla appeared. An offer attractive enough would have got support from shareholders, and as things turned out would have been very good for shareholders and would have financed the company IMO. It was certainly worth a shot given their actual decision "You've had your say and I've had mine" But I haven't "had my say".
  11. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    Looks like no managers have bought other than P Wood. And none at all in the top twenty. Why not? They're on good salaries. Are they expecting a risk free stake? "It never pays to wear your heart on your sleeve when it comes to money" So you imply that it is just form, and their real sentiments to la Jolla are different, but there is no real evidence of that at all. "In any case, La Jolla made finance available when nobody else would, so INL can have no complaint" So you are implying that any behaviour towards a debtor is acceptable when the debtor is over a barrel. By extension no complaint can be made of predatory lending. Anyway, how do you know that "nobody else would". I would have; most shareholders would have - if a massive cheap options offer was made early enough. An offer we couldn't refuse, such as a 1:1 entitlement offer of quoted options priced at 1/10 the share price, ex price at the then current share price, with +1 year term. All potential dilution would have ended in shareholders hands. How do you know there weren't other alternatives as well? The management's actions did not give any weight to actual, as opposed to future, shareholders at all. We were effectively dumped so they could carry on. "Needs must ... under duress." Duress isn't a license to do anything at all. Business doesn't operate in an ethical vacuum, as some would like. It appears to operate in a very liberal regulatory space though. By the way, for transparency, I have added to my stump of an investment in Intec since the NipponX surge. It is not really rational, but I want at least shot at retrieving some loss on my ridiculous investment in this company, the biggest financial stake I have ever made. However I have no conviction at all that I have not thrown good after bad and it implies no renewed confidence in the management.
  12. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    Australian Securities Exchange 3 December 2010 Convertible Note Facility Repaid "Intec appreciates the professionalism with which the necessary working capital finance was provided by LCJI to enable INL to focus on strategic growth." Does this sound like they would contemplate doing it again? Does to me.
  13. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    Yes I noticed that you have made no apology, although you probably should rather than beat your chest about it. You laid low a while, and have now come back to resume the ramping, apparently feeling vindicated by events. I don't see how, but you seem to live in a different universe. The real friends of speccie shareholders, actual and potential, tend to not be the self appointed band leaders of forum cheer squads but those who are willing to criticize their own companies "As you say "What good would anyone have done by reading your posts anyway?" Are you referring to your own?" No, that avatar must be a metaphor for your brain, but whereas my posts are arguably useless, yours have been a disservice and now you have the gall to tell others what they should be saying.
  14. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    "but I accept that that is the risk one assumes when one invests in a company like Intec." Unless you don't mind being bent over - a shareholder emotionally accepts real commercial risk not being treated with contempt by management and sacrificed for some greater good "Get on with life" If you don't mind mate this is a part of life for me and a few others, so for someone who has been a relentless apologist and PR enthusiast for this company, rather than sound an occasional critical note, I wouldn't be putting my hand up as adjudicator or referee. What good would anyone have done by reading your posts anyway?
  15. finicky

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    "La Jolla made some money, and INL stayed alive." How do you think you're addressing the issues with statements like this? We all know Intec has stayed alive this far, and the deal with La Jolla was instrumental, but it is alive without the old investors, the people the company is supposed to be run for - that is the point, or at least the debate that the non toadyers are trying to have. The company is alive it seems, the management is alive, but the old investors were left as good as dead. The poster 'Enumerate' long ago made something like this distinction well - a listed company is borne supposedly to make investors money. Any diversion from that end is a violation of what it publicly offers. A listed company does not exist to keep its management and staff in well paid jobs, and profiting from free options and so forth - that is of value but secondary to its primary purpose in making investors money from their risked capital. They function in that role for us - not us for them. Nor does a listed company exist to get a project to completion. That is also secondary to making investors some profit on their risk - even if the project is a cure for kids' leukaemia, because a company is not presented as a noble charity. This company should have been delisted, or put into administration. That way expenses would have been choked off, then possibly it could have been recapitalized as fresh prospects or resources emerged, such as the royalty stream from Bass Metals. Another option which was broached, without reply, on the PR Dorothy Dixer forum, was a massively dilutive ultra cheap options issue. This would have had no worse effect on dilution than La Jolla, and probably less, could have produced just as much working capital - more if the options exercised, and would have left participating shareholders with a meaningful stake in the company
×
×
  • Create New...