RE:RE:RE:New Share Holder
jsnfernley wrote: You did not state you read the FS's, you stated "from what I read." You could have been quoting from a shameless pumper from another forum, there was no way to tell.
I'll highlight what I said for you.
JayBanks wrote:
Are you saying they don't own the undeveloped Chu Chua claim? It's no where near producing as in years away from maybe being something, but it's a 2nd asset that seems to have positive resources there accounting to drill tests. And it's in minerals not Oil.
A downgrade on a oil reserve isn't a death spiral, it isn't good, but it's still gonna bring in $$$ for a few years. As a royalty they just receive payments on thier share of the asses as far as I know, they don't spend on the drilling and pumping, thier risk is that the asset doesn't produce it costs them nothing if it dries up.
From what I read they have no debt so in my understanding the assets are already paid for, and the only costs are light management and business costs which from what I seen on the statements are minimal.
As I said it's only a small early position ($2000)... so taking it as a loss doesn't hurt me, but I don't see it going to zero soon, (tho it turns out I coulda got in cheaper), but I also said I like the idea and I'm willing to invest and see what's going on but I'm not overly committed to it.
Am I missing anything in my DD? We can have differing opinions on what potential may be but your calling out my DD...
Thank you for the other info tho. I'm all for more information.
I haven't seen that info on the mine other than, just initial resource estimation reports and a statement discussing location with other companies rights in the area and positive infrastructure positives. It sounds like if the claims in the area got together and decided thier projects were feasible they would get together and work on getting shovels in the ground, but that's not currently the foreseeable future.
I know the royalty isn't multi-national, but having assets in different countries is pretty much the definition of multi-national even tho one is not producing. I think the issue on that statement is I didn't clearly write the sentence, that's my fault: "I like the idea of having a split in resource types and royalties on the oil also being multi-national". Should read: "I like the idea of having a split in resource types and royalties on the oil, also being a multi-national.
As I said, I'll hang out and watch, collect and if prudent I'll throw a safety in there. But my $2000 investment is throw away money as it is and as an investor, I'm in on the base idea, but I would like to see more, but I'm in on the ground level, for atleast a bit. At no point am I pumping it or recommending it for others, just gave the statement that I'm in and why I'm in. I'm fine with those that disagree with my investment. Thank you for the more info on what you see.