Alkemy Capital Investments Share Discussion Threads

[m4rtinu] 10/12/2013 08:24

Yes indeed, Leo. Thanks for the signposting.

[leoboy] 09/12/2013 18:14

good good -
Three Nooks Farm Update – 6th December 2013 :

+

we have a new 3%+ shareholder today !

[spaceparallax] 06/12/2013 15:42

breakout holding up well, not dramatic but sufficient to disrupt the previous trend.

[dan de lion] 28/11/2013 09:29

Why,no news, something leaking out?

[asparks] 28/11/2013 09:20

5 year breakout

[asparks] 28/11/2013 09:19

looking v good

[spaceparallax] 27/11/2013 15:27

Chart seems to be building up pressure for a serious breakout

[henryatkin] 20/11/2013 11:33

I would have thought this would have been announced as a RNS but not so. I came across it on the company website.

Three Nooks Farm Update – 4th November 2013
There is no major activity on site at present as we are currently going through a pre-planned period of monitoring the Nooks Farm 1 well in order to confirm that the abandonment works have been successful.
In addition the commencement of the production testing of Nooks Farm 1a well is also being delayed by factors outside of our control. Over the last few months the Environment Agency has begun implementing new procedures for the granting of permits and this has significantly delayed the well testing and flaring program (we have not changed our plan and the testing will still only be 3 days plus the initial well clean up). The current indication is that the permits will not be granted until the end of the year and so it is unlikely that we will commence this work until the New Year.
As we are now into the wet winter period it is unlikely that any further works will be carried out on the drill site reinstatement until spring 2014.
For any queries relating to the Three Nooks Farm project, please email: [e-mail]

[spaceparallax] 04/11/2013 14:37

Sp putting up a fight again

[spaceparallax] 30/10/2013 10:19

If we see 30p again I'll be doubling up, but think it highly unlikely because the energy mkt seems about one of the most solid atm.

[puffintickler] 29/10/2013 18:42

I agree investopia. That's why I'm out for now. Can see a reversal after recent strong rise as the hot money moves on. Holders should be ok long term but it will take a while for earnings to catch up with expectations so I can see a drift down from here in the short to medium term.

[investopia] 29/10/2013 17:38

Maybe.

If it is a double-top reversal pattern there's then a risk of an island top being realised, which could see ALK back at around 30p.

However, if that happens I'll be loading right up again, as I suspect will others, which could stabilise the price at the very least.

On the other hand, ALK could easily cvontinue the uptrend from here. A couple of positive announcements could do it.

[bigtbigt] 29/10/2013 14:24

Double top?

[spaceparallax] 28/10/2013 11:28

PT,

I have no problem with fair negotiations that offer an equitable quid pro quo; however, that is not what's been happening with many pension funds. On the matter of closing schemes to new entrants, I've no problem with that. I too have a number of elements to my pension and that's fine so long as the schemes are honoured.

Unfortunately, instead of the pension pot being properly accrued and nurtured by companies/institutions to meet the obligations agreed between employer/employees, such funds have sometimes been neglected or even treated as an extension of the companies' balance sheet. In truth that money should be locked away, with actuarial oversight to ensure that it is capable of meeting the terms of commitment. Hence, it is wrong when a company wakes up to the fact that they've neglected their duty and attempts to solve their problem by presenting the pension scheme members with unreasonable ultimata. Issues such as life expectancy have not changed overnight and should all be a part of the actuarial oversight.

[puffintickler] 28/10/2013 10:50

Space, (note, last post: I will not continue this dialogue)

No rose tinted glasses here.

The mines Thatcher closed were uneconomic, and still would be. No sane person would have invested in them. If they were operating now our energy bills would be far higher and we would be a million miles away from meeting our CO2 emissions obligations. Interesting statistic, Tony Benn closed more mines than Thatcher ever did.

Ineos have not stolen money from the pension fund. If they had the Union would have taken them to court. They have not done so, so I conclude that Ineos have proposed to do what many other companies have done (including my own): Existing contributions will provide benefits according to the pension fund rules. This fund will be closed to new contributions and replaced by a defined benefit scheme. This in my view is fair, workers cannot expect businesses alone to fund the huge increase in life expectation that workers will enjoy.

[spaceparallax] 28/10/2013 10:04

PT,

simply cant agree on your view of Thatcherism. Many still look back with rose-tinted specs, but there's no denying that she was responsible for much of the damage to industry in this country. She was only able to kill off the mines because of North Sea gas, which drove the dash for gas upon which most of the country is now reliant. At that time coal became comparatively uneconomical, but now that we've used up the gas we're being held ransom by the international market and providers with no incentives and a guaranteed profit. The coal industry could have continued to be a vital part of our domestic energy supply, albeit with the necessity for serious investment in clean technology.

Don't get me wrong, our nationalised industries had significant problems that did need curing but not killing. Unfortunately, when we lose them we're at the mercy of others in the so called 'free market'.

On Grangemouth, the problem arises because the Company has been badly managed and got itself into financial difficulties that it's seeking to address by stealing money from their pension fund. As with other situations occurring in the civil service, this is completely wrong, essentially a breaking of contract, and moreover s message to people not to bother trying to make pension arrangements because they won't be honoured. Also, history shows that it's the top echelons who manage to retain their overblown remuneration packages. It's said that much of Grangemouth's problems arise from them simply becoming uncompetitive on the World stage because of the cheap resources coming out of America to which they currently don't have access. This hasn't happened overnight and should have been spotted many years ago by management with measures being taken to access those resources. I'll bet those responsible continue to sit pretty whilst the ordinary worker is punished.

No doubt we'll continue to disagree, but ho hum. Until Governments get a grip and address the matter of public interest vs excessive business growth, ransom situations such as Grangemouth and the failing banks and the energy big six will continue to occur. Critical infrastructure/industries/institutions must be carefully regulated to ensure that none become too big to be allowed to fail. Not an easy problem to unravel, but until it is done the Country will continue to face significant crises

[puffintickler] 25/10/2013 17:47

Space, some of what you say is true, but some is very wide of the mark.

Thatcher emasculated the unions by changing the law. She did not try to emasculate unions by destroying industries. She was far to much of a pragmatist to do that if the industries were worth saving.

It was the unions that destroyed the industries by making them even more uneconomic than they should have been in the difficult economic climate of the time. Both coal and steel industries in the UK were not so much lame ducks as dead ducks. They had to be allowed to sink or swim on their own merit. History shows that merit was sorely lacking.

As for the Grangemouth situation, is it the Shareholders that are unreasonable in expecting a return on their investment or it the workers/union that are unreasonable expecting shareholders to pay for their overblown salary and pension packages? What would YOU want if you were an Ineos shareholder? See your money whittled away on overblown remuneration packages? I think not, you would prefer to see the loss-making plant closed and the remaining money invested elsewhere. But before doing that it would be sensible to suggest a package to the workforce that keeps profitability intact and the plants open. Is that not exactly what has happened?

[corrientes] 25/10/2013 14:14

Hearing George Osborne say today that the recent trade figures shows we're back on the path to prosperity,made me shudder.

The policy of any UK government today, acknowledges that we're such an open,raped country,that it now can't move without the OK of the worst type of big business. Cosmetic and diversionary tactics can only work for so long, but one day, the penny will drop,but it could be a lengthy wait, the Brits being so docile.

[spaceparallax] 25/10/2013 13:53

Whilst in the Thatcher era there were unquestionably issues with excessive union power and inefficient operation of key infrastructure, her solution for tackling these was mad. She didn't really deal constructively with the situation, merely emasculated the unions by destroying certain industries.

Some industries are so important to the well-being of a country that perhaps a hybrid form is required. This would merge the ability to take long-term strategic decisions that are driven by public good not profit-margin, together with the positive traits that exist in capitalism relating to initiative, balanced risk and proportionate reward for honest endeavour. In recent decades capitalism appears to be more aligned with the ruthless American model that screws everybody but the top management and shareholders as demonstrated very nicely in the film The Reluctant Fundamentalist.

Sadly our current Govt appears to have learned nothing from the banking crisis that crippled most of the World. Until effective measures are taken to unravel big business to rational levels there will never be a truly free market because businesses of such size are able to rig the market. Moreover we face the mad situation (parallel with Grangemouth) whereby a big business has positioned itself as to present the government with dilemma of whether to truly let the market take its toll and allow a failing business to collapse or step in and bale out 'in the public good'. Individual businesses should not be allowed to achieve such critical mass to yield such a hostage situation.

Similarly, national economies should not be allowed to become so reliant on a single sector - in the UK's case, the service and financial sector. This also yields a hostage situation whereby because govt and treasury are so dependant upon tax take from that sector they become backed into a corner and are unable/unwilling to take the necessary tough reforming decisions.

Apologies for my ongoing rant, but it's frustrating to have elephants in the room and continuing to see all of the mess that they make.

[corrientes] 25/10/2013 13:53

So no solution ? You guys crease me. Oh,and by the way,this is 2013, not the 1970's. Maybe you're still asleep.

[investopia] 25/10/2013 13:49

In which case, dan de lion, that was very funny!

[corrientes] 25/10/2013 13:17

So you guys are happy with the status quo ?

[investopia] 25/10/2013 13:05

'kin 'ell! We don't want to go back to that wasteful model.

Back in those nationalised industries both manager and operative alike did virtually f@@k all, and there was way too many of 'em too!