First and foremost, what some may class as "sheet" may well benefit others with a more objective approach to their investments, those willing to view the business from all angles as to ascertain the risk vs reward. What could be taken as downramping, or "sheet" as it seems to be known here, may actually come from a place of interest in the business as an investment, albeit a more cautious approach than most here would comprehend. So for those already enjoying the "gap up to 50c" perhaps best to discontinue reading from this point on.....
I've seen this situation oh so many times over the years, smarties gets positioned, the story builds, newsflow begins, FOMO/hype begins as retail holders buy from the smarties and then oooops......Bitcoin was a perfect example of how it goes. Now, as someone who was heavily invested in Metgasco (and Linc/Cougar), i can say from experience it pays to be cautious and look at every angle before jumping into an investment, just because the permits are in place, the large reserves are there and the valuation metrics are attractive, doesn't mean it's a sure thing. The biggest lessons we learn are through our mistakes and i must say that rings true. I have a couple of, what i feel are, valid topics of conversation, so for those inclined, feel free to join in.....but let's keep it respectful and rational as to benefit all involved.....
There's been alot of talk on the threads re. takeover by a "big player" or a massive dollar purchase. Which of the major E&P companies do you feel would be willing to execute such a transaction when considering the billions of dollars Santos/Origin and the like recently had wiped from their bottom line dealing with what might be considered a less controversial technology in CSG? These companies made a concerted effort to realign their strategy with the ever growing awareness amongst the general population and rebuild sentiment towards the sector. These big companies are a brand just as much as a business. Would they be happy to put that brand at risk and align themselves with what has the potential to become a large gas resource but a very controversial one at that? Do you think they would feel the technology is safe enough and the public perception is positive enough as to not risk their brand? If you think the Greens won't do all they can to blockade/publicise this, think again, that Youtube video set off a few warning signs for mine and I've been invested in company's up against it with them, not fun. Why did BP decide to quietly leave the state without any noise?
There is definitely money to be made in these type of plays, but as history will prove, the money is made in getting out before it hits the mainstream IMO.
Expand
(20min delay)