We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tomco Energy Plc | TOM | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.0385 | 08:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0385 | 0.0385 | 0.0385 | 0.0385 | 0.0385 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| OIL & GAS PRODUCERS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 26/4/2024 12:37 by 1dutchman TD - No 18302 - "...the TOM board have failed to understand that even if you run a narrative company, you still have to invest in the narrative." Sad but true.In retrospect, it is hard to believe that even a narrative company could have based its tale on a CEO with no relevant experience(in fact, worse than inexperienced - - he led his previous company to bankruptcy), an engineering narrative without employing a single engineer, a dependency on a money-grubbing contractor (Byle's Valkor) that failed to deliver on a single promise.... And yet, TOM got away with it for years. Still, investors in AIM companies would do well to spend a few minutes researching the leadership before investing their hard-earned cash. |
Posted at 25/4/2024 18:18 by the diddymen 1d - the TOM board have failed to understand that even if you run a narrative company, you still have to invest in the narrative. There are AIM companies with the same objectives as TOM but substantially better developed and more sustainable narratives.W-6 approaches and with no funding likely the TOM board will have to consider the risks of trading whilst insolvent. |
Posted at 25/4/2024 15:25 by 1dutchman Still, without Byle leading JP by the nose, it is assured that TOM has absolutely no strategy. JP made a go of it for so long simply by aping Byle’s lies. JP didn’t even have to understand what he was saying. It probably helped that the Chairman and the Board also had no operational experience in the industry, as they wouldn’t have even known the right questions to ask. But they surely would have known their ‘gig was up’ when Byle broke it off with JP. When was that, and how long have investors continued to be milked since the Board became aware of the split? Given the reliance TOM had on Valkor, surely this should have been announced to shareholders? |
Posted at 25/4/2024 15:24 by 1dutchman Yes, full credit to Vauch for being a man of action. I saw on the LSE board that he contacted Byle and was reminded by him that TOM still owed money to Valkor. He also learned that Byle and JP had fallen out and that there was no business relationship (except the loan). That would explain why Valkor’s drilling campaign no longer includes TOM. With Trio Petroleum, Valkor has found another group of shareholders whose pockets they can pick, so Byle no longer needs TOM. The ‘huff and puff’ or steam injection plan for their wells is as bad as CORT. Though used in certain locations around the world for tertiary recovery, it is neither economical nor environmentally sound to establish in a greenfield location, in a desert no less (water scarcity). I wonder if Byle ever actually believes in any of his schemes or if he merely throws s—t against the wall to see what sticks? |
Posted at 25/4/2024 07:07 by the diddymen Fenners the difference with TOM is that you can only lose money if you have cash in the bank to lose. TOM are down to a few weeks of cash now and even Jones and co are going to choke on how they have been stuffed by narrative in quick order.W-6 shortly. |
Posted at 29/3/2024 12:12 by the diddymen In 2023 TOM allowed the shares to be suspended in the knowledge that they were on the cusp of another fund raise.In 2024 TOM have had to accept a qualification of the accounts - presumably because they do not have the ingredients of a bail out package in place. If they had any substantive financing package for TSHII close to completion they would be in a position to go to the markets for temporary financing of working capital. The Chairman writes: "As I write, we believe we are edging closer to securing the requisite funding after many months of effort and patient negotiation." 'Believe' is a very difficult word to challenge in the courts. On this thread we 'believe' that TOM has been a narrative company for many years. On outcomes we have been proven right time and time again. The Chairman refers to months - they have been negotiating for years and it is appropriate at some point to say 'this one will never get over the line'. That should have happened years back, but this is AIM and in this set of results the Directors received £381k (2022 - £362k) in remuneration. For avoidance of doubt the current value of shares owned by Directors is £15. That speaks volumes for the confidence of the Directors in the narrative. |
Posted at 27/2/2024 21:41 by goulding1215 A little bit deserted over here. So, while everybody is unhappy with proceedings so far, myself included but I do see some hope for the future. Of course it will all depend on the bond maturing for want of a better word, and cash in the bank. We all regard TOM as an oil company. Well it isn’t, it is a sand company, because the sand is worth more than the oil. Why? Because there is a world wide shortage of sand particularly silica for glass. The TOM machine produces 1.5 barrels of quality sand for every barrel of oil. Currently oil is selling at 77$ pho. Sand is selling at about 85$ per barrel.Tom will be unique in its revenue for one machine, maybe 2? We know that TOM Owns a lot of oil. Who knows what the sand is worth? The sand is not going away, been there a few millions of years, and with a world-wide shortage. There is no oil shortage even with Russia sanctions. So, I see the sand being dominant in the company’s future. The BOD actually said at the AGM 2 years ago “we are a sand company where the byproduct is oil. If we can get this funding sorted, I am hopeful that TOM has a bright future. |
Posted at 20/2/2024 18:02 by 1dutchman The facts are quite simple. TOM's CEO has no industry experience. Nil, none, zero. He trained in catering and the last value he created was pouring a beer at Wembley. He spent the last three years being led by the nose by Valkor's Steve Byle, who had his own agenda that certainly was not consistent with that of TOM's shareholders. To be fair, after picking TOM's pockets in order to keep food on the table during COVID, Byle subsequently tried to help Potter out by giving him a contract to engage with Utah officials re: leases and permits. Strange, then, that Potter never showed up in any of those videos of the Utah Board reviewing those permits. But Byle is no idiot - he knew all along that CORT wasn't commercial and he eventually had to dispense with the relationship with Greenfield and TOM. And now he has new relationships with Ecoteq and Triad and has left poor JP on his tod. |
Posted at 04/12/2023 13:02 by fenners66 So the end of November reached and no newsof course not , there was never going to be. Now according to the AGM reports they will have to come up with another story. As I said I looked at their AGM notes and they laid out so many red flags but (maybe not surprisingly) the gamblers did not pick up on them. So (I have been asking myself if I can be bothered) if we look at them (always assuming their notes were accurate). Their notes - "Not been using Petroteq process for a couple of years. Nothing wrong with it but we're now using a better solvent and have made technical changes to the materials used in the process. There is no IP impact with Petroteq." Now this is the CORT process that used next to Zero solvent as a consumable It was going to give oil and clean sand. It's what TOM spent $1.5m on and as said on here it was NEVER proven as commercial. This was supposed to be a game changer ... but its been abandoned without an RNS to explain why they spent all that cash and moreover since it was obvious from the start that a CORT plant would never happen and Valkor would never get 29% of TOM ..... again their AGM notes " "Qn: With new 'go it ourselves' funding route, will Valkor still be entitled to 29% of Tomco? JP: That was based on where Tomco were 2 years ago. With this latest reserves based funding, it WILL be 100% that Tomco retains." obvious no CORT no 29%. But do the gamblers question? No./ You burned millions $'s and no questions asked. Dumped Petroteq and no RNS - despite some on here trumpeting PQE were going to sell more CORT licenses including to that ....err really credible - Netoil - ha ha no movement on that either. TOM's cash has dried up now PQE delisting and refusing to file accounts , CEO resigned All flagged from the start on here. PQE takeover at 200% premium - fantasy never happened..... none of it. But they swallowed everything TOM said - now they just accept that TOM has moved on to an unknown alternative. Dream on gamblers. Where have we been wrong ? |
Posted at 09/9/2023 11:54 by the diddymen Lopo,I have taken a look at the Active Investors now. First observation, a small observation, is that TOM is reduced to using a Laptop camera (or was it a phone?) That aside the whole body language, the feel, is about another placing of some form. How they are going to do it I don't know. Over the last few years I have had a sneaking admiration for John Potter's ability to keep the corpse going by filling the biscuit tin. Financing this project is a completely different kettle of fish. I re-iterate the stance that we have taken on this BB. Even if the project were sound and proven the values are too great for TOM (alias John Potter). Going from a B/S that has the contents of the biscuit tin to $250m plus is just not feasible. TOM have no technical expertise. TOM have no legal expertise. TOM are operating out of jurisdiction. TOM have no market expertise. TOM have no operational expertise. For a funder this equates to Corporate Governance risk, Financial Risk, Operational risk, Technical risk, Legal risk, Sales/Marketing risk. No risk based return on capital is ever going to work. Every alarm bell will be ringing. In my view TOM are planning to get another placing away. It may involve some potential 'opportunity' for existing investors, but in reality the company will be transferred to a new group of shareholders if JP can 'do it again'. The offer on the placing will be that they have potential funders, and then as usual 'nothing can be guaranteed'. No doubt the placing will involve a massive consolidation as predicted by thesageofsaint. Lopo. Not long now. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
