the estimated LO costs are spelled out, capex for waterflood and drilling for years to come. As an independent report there will have at least a certain amount of DD, far more than anyone here can carry out. Its the best we have and is well worth a read.
So far your predictions for RRL have been pretty poor, thats not a personal attack.
Bobo, I think I have made some valid points there but of course some posters are just fond of personal attacks. I have lost a lot of money on GKP. My mistake like yours here was not selling early enough especially when you are in profit. That is called GREED. I live and learn and I hope I am wiser.
FYI, I did trade GKP for decent profits and I bailed out well before the ship sank! My average was 67p and I started derisking it when it fell below 50p and sold the last lot at 30p. It was evident that mktcap and lack of buyers would mean the company would eventually fold. The Afren fiasco has shown me enough of what would happen to a company once the SP falls beyond a point of no return. You can read all the reports you want from the company but ultimately, you cannot fight actual numbers.
If Range does manage to turn a profit this year, then there maybe light at the end of the tunnel but I just can't see how looking at the numbers.
Mick, the 440bpd production was just used as an example to annualise the revenue. I accept that in 2017, it could well be 1000bpd but even then, there is no profit for Range. Only profit for LO which is the part anyone here should be very very uncomfortable with.
I am sitting here wondering why none of you can see that having the main supplier running Range's management is a huge conflict of interest and one that every PI should be wary of. If PIs somehow has couple of ~NEDs on board, then in might work but right now, you can just be fed any sort of BS.
Carve I know that you don't seem to update before you spread your doom and gloom. In your last post you write about monthly figures of 440 barrels when a recent RNS spoke of year end in excess of 800 bopd. The annex report of the GM notification is done by an independent assessor appointed by the ASX. I appreciate that the figures he works on are supplied by the Range BOD but he has also done his own research and has to submit a report that is open to scrutiny as many of have done so. Your views are too blighted by Lanauism and you don't seem to have moved on. We either have to accept that the current Range has no comparison with Landau's Range or we don't and you obviously don't. The planned expenditure as production increases in 2018-20 explains why as sole agent, LO are so keen for a bit of the pie. You are of course entitled to your opinion which is what BBs should be about. I'm sure bountyman will give you an invite to the 10p party which could be towards the end of next year perhaps!
I just find those figures odd and hard to believe for the simple reason that in 2.5 years, LO racked up fees of $36m without having performed that many drills and waterflood was still in the pilot/testing phase. In the last reported quarters, Range's own costs as shown in the cashflow statements was around $2.2m a quarter or $9m annualised.
Once it gets to a full blown and higher number of drills those numbers will all rise as they are costs incurred in operation. Even with a revenue of $20m, which I accept they can achieve in 2017, I don't see how they can turn a net profit.
I would be staggered if they can and will be shown to eat my words. Lol. Only way to find out if I am right or they have been feeding you BS again is to see at the end of they year if a profit can be turned. GL.
Remember my words here and you can remind me if I am right or wrong come Q4.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.