Would certainly fit 99% of the posts of avi, taffy, wildbeeny and all appendages of the One.
I find it incomprehensible that I can post a summary of what a CEO did in the past and what he hopes to do in the future and also indicate that there is no guarantee it will work and yet still get thumbs down. I suppose, if I wanted to write a "puff" post, I could write about the hot air filling the heads of certain posters on this board but instead I think I shall write some more about my race horse. 48 seconds flat in a 4 furlong workout on a sloppy track on March 25 is reason for me to be hopeful of success in the upcoming season.
The latest entry on their site is a three page article on how Central's current boss made his money in coal seam gas before taking over Central and why he thinks Central's current holdings and pipeline plans can repeat the success he had in the Surat Basin coal seam fields with the shale gas of the Amadeus and other basins in the next couple of years as coal seam gas is depleted. Interesting read but obviously no guarantee it will pay off for Central.
OA head guy, David Thompson, estimated 4.60 a share for the new company. I would be pleased if it were more and I think it will be but not right away. I am holding my shares for that day but an investor could certainly buy at this price.
Current PE should be around 16 at this price. Estimates of earnings are closer to 4.60 than to the numbers floating around of 9.00 a share which was based on the old ATK and not the combined company minus VSTO. Were the PE to be like BA then we might be in the low 80's in price but I cannot see OA shooting into the 90's or higher for some time yet.
Where did you see this jacampster? I saw the UKOG information about P1916 by Googling the article that came out one day ago. But, did Magellan management make a statement about this also on some other venue?
Pre market volume is light with small numbers of shares being traded and even the drop to 70 was on 130 shares. Currently down about 2.50.
I would say, if it stays there, that this is a bit more than a little profit taking. 70 dollars would represent a drop of 10 dollars or half of the increase since the companies combined. Oil prices rising on Middle East tensions again, possible interest rate hike sooner than thought and a correcting stock market can certainly take the wind out of a quick riser like OA even if nothing is wrong with the company per se.
Magellan would be well served to conserve as much cash as possible (while acquiring assets such as CO2 sources if possible at lower prices) through this downturn in prices because indications are becoming frequent that the Weald Basin in the UK is going to be very good assuming there are not too many groups of 15 students running around with placards protesting all aspects of the oil industry including fracking. I think Magellan and partners can be very successful with conventional drilling in the UK or, at the minimum, be able to monetize those leases for much more than before the HH1 drilling took place. Those with iron constitutions might well consider a speculative buy at these prices.
No argument there networth. I would prefer that we have a sunset clause on any such subsidies much like we did when we subsidized Harley Davidson years ago so that it could basically retool and begin to compete with the Japanese bike companies. I wonder if Harley owners know that part of the company history ;-)
And we bounced back to close unchanged. Besides, Magellan is not the only company hitting new lows in this sector.
Interesting. Politically, that strategy might backfire if people see Congress openly working to subsidize an industry that many in America already feel is coddled like a babe in swaddling clothes. This would be especially so if those politicians are the same ones who openly have condemned the idea of subsidies for other industries under the guise of "the market will decide." Of course that does not mean it cannot be done or should not be done as we subsidize many products especially in agriculture and a huge loss in jobs (as wells and rigs are shut down) does not look good regardless of the party in power.
Yes, I know this is a highly speculative and often manipulated stock on the London curb exchange and thus not suitable for any but the most risk tolerant but it has risen 60% in the last couple weeks and I suspect that is due to expectations of a flow test being close to approval on the Horse Hill one well site. And yes, avi, that is pure speculation on my part.
PE is not 7 but closer to 16. Est. earnings for the new entity are about 4.60 not the 9+ dollars still showing on the Yahoo Finance site which was probably for the old ATK. But yes, this could go substantially higher than it is right now. Just don't go crazy on it all at once.
I was hoping they would declare a dividend in the 1-2% range and they have done so at 26 cents per share each quarter. 1.3% yield at the current price is a nice little addition for shareholders.
Hi chb2c. I remember you used to post on the ORB board. Have you looked at OA and if so do you have any thoughts about it? Doc (mcrf?) used to also post on ORB but do not see him on the new board. I held on to my old ORB shares so now have OA and so far it has done pretty well but would appreciate some guidance as comments on OA are all over the place regarding its future prospects. If you would be so kind to go to the OA board and post your thoughts it would be welcomed.
This is another worthless article that is using the old ATK earnings model before the company combination and predicting new earnings based on the old. I like the premise that OA will rise but let's be honest about forward earnings. If OA can earn 4.50 to 5.00 a share by 2016 then it has a chance, with a 20 PE of reaching 100 dollars a share. That, of course, implies smooth sailing on the earnings front with no negative events as well as a market that does not bushwhack us all because of interest rate hikes. A small dividend would be a nice surprise for shareholder also.
Yahoo statistics charts indicate 30+ million shares at current 69 dollars per share equaling 2 billion and total debt also at 2 billion or 100% of capitalization. Is this correct or am I using these terms incorrectly? Thanks in advance.