- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,663
- Reactions
- 7,514
It is a very conflicted situation Stumpy.
In the big picture there is the possibility that we will going into financial meltdown if/when Europe falls apart. Collapsing banks, collapsing economies , collapsing countries will destroy people and businesses without discrimination. On the energy front such a collapse would drop energy prices sharply which in the short-medium term throw LNC's model into a heap. I think there are many iron clad companies at the moment looking very cheap because of this fear.
With regard to LNC we can't say they have met their targets. Teresa should have been sold by now to ensure financial stability and capacity for financing the UCG - GTL projects. I'm not that convinced the Wyoming oil fields are coming up to speed as predicted with the CO2 injection. I think that has slowed down. The Alaskan fields were supposed to show commercial gas early in the piece - but didn't . The long term looks good - but that is years away.
I'm still wondering how cost effective and technology effective the UCG -GTL process is. As far as I can see LNC has not publicly laid out the proposed technology stream which will be implemented in China. Is there a clear, cost effective GTL plant ready to run ? Is it LNC's technology or are they getting off the shelf from another provider ? No problem if they do but I'd like to know.
I have also been keeping an eye on the UK fuel cell technology (AFC fuel cell - LNC has 12 %) which could be a perfect fit for LNC's UCG process. It looks like the fuel cell is operating exceptionally well but I havn't seen any indication that LNC intend to commercialize it in the near term. That's disappointing.
When you add up the underlying resources and opportunities LNC has, it is a multi billion dollar company. But that may not be enough to win if the whole game gets blown up or it can't play it's hand right. That is the dilemma.
Like many other investors, I've lost confidence in Peter Bond.
IMHO, his ventures into O&G have been thus far, a disaster.
The fact that guy has balls and repeatedly gets back on the horse may actually see him eventually succeed. Repeated failure often leads to success as entrepreneurs tend to work out every which way NOT TO do things until they find the way that works. Failure is a good thing, but Aus is such a risk averse culture.
I bought a pile of LNC today at 0.685 because its a bargain at this price with quite a bit of upshot potential.
The fact that guy has balls and repeatedly gets back on the horse may actually see him eventually succeed. Repeated failure often leads to success as entrepreneurs tend to work out every which way NOT TO do things until they find the way that works. Failure is a good thing, but Aus is such a risk averse culture.
I bought a pile of LNC today at 0.685 because its a bargain at this price with quite a bit of upshot potential.
I think that's an astute buy. Unless GFC2 takes over the stock market, I think the bottom of this stock is around here - minimum 60 cents - and over the next 2-4 weeks.
13% down day, to 59.5c
European crisis certainly playing havoc with market sentiment.
With such high capex to get the formerly proposed Modular GTL units up and running, will we ever see Linc producing meaningful quantities of Hydro carbons, allowing the SP to recover to historic levels
PB stated that syn gas is likely to be in production by the end of this year. Seems highly unlikely.Assuming commercial scale UCG and GTL is feasible (5,000 bpd plants duplicated), which LNC feels certain it is, and GCL will cover CAPEX with minimal balance sheet impact to Linc, you would think LNC is a no brainer long term buy....
PB stated that syn gas is likely to be in production by the end of this year. Seems highly unlikely.
I'm also confused why GCL will be paying 4.50 a share for Linc. Unless it's for IP
Any thoughts?
Because there's a complete and utter COST difference between buying 5% of a company in the share market and simply owning 5% of the float and buying 5% of a company's shares while getting access to potentially game changing technology for stranded coal/UCG-GTL and and getting a 67% of the bottom line benefits.
Expertise and technology and 67% share dont come free. Granted GCL must fund the CAPEX, but if commercial scale UCG-GTL is a reality which can go on for decades in one location, then paying off the capex through 67% stake and producing a barrel of fuel for say $30 will not take a lot of time relative to the longevity of the project.
Theyre paying 120M for 67% and the technology, not just shares.
The timing of the reheated Greek crisis is bad and yes should weigh on the deal somewhat but looking at the assets of Linc, GCL knows they cant expect Linc to give the technology away after coming all this far for simply buying 5% of their stock in the market.
I have been told that Linc really cracked the UCG GTL nut Gasifier 5/6 and the micro GTL plants available.
Given stranded caol turned into fuel for say $30 a barrel for a period of decades and you are back to 2006 and the initial game changing scenario Linc is attempting.
Well put feetdawg. I think it is an astute deal by Peter Bond and a good one for both parties.
I'm very interested in your source for the critical comment on getting the Gasifer 5/6 dead right and satisfaction with the micro GTL units. These are the main pieces of this deal and I would have thought there would be a clearer statement that the technical issues had been resolved and that the commercial reality of this process was now within reach. Certainly the crash in LNC shares since the announcement of the GCL deal suggest no institutional support for the company.
LNC has responded to a "slowing" ticket from ASX.
All seems positive. They are still banking on being cash flow positive via the North American oil assets and are not specifically counting on short term financial sales of assets (although these are expected)
Of course if oil drops sharply as a result of a GFC those projections would be revised IMO.
They also noted the sharp rise in shorting during May.
http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/app...rkets.theage.com.au/apps/qt/quote.ac?code=lnc
What the market cant see is that things are actually starting to fall into place and the bigger plan of UCG GTL is closer now than it ever has been.
Linc has total of 504.5m shares on issue.
According to ASIC short report, there were 4.26m short position (3.39% of total shares) on 1 May. Come 18 May the number was 24.3m short position (4.81% of total shares. So a total of 20m shares were short sold. Total volume traded between those days were ~50m shares. So around 40% of transactions were short...
These numbers no doubt increased significantly in the last week, where another 37m shares were traded while the price dropped another 18%.
I've got nothing against the morality of shorting per se but it's difficult to see how shorting LNC at this level has sensible reward/risk... but I guess it's easy to join the shorting frency than to go against it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?