Going back to my statement "but not in the same way"... Firstly, I would consider the taking on of a licence to be an intangible asset (it is an exclsuive right to expore and extract etc) and that should appear on the accounts thus justifying a re-rate of the value of the company. In the case of West Med we saw how such accounted for items can be provided against in order to give a true and fair view of value. Secondly, I would also consider the location and spudding of the wells to add to the accounts under tangible assets (as the company now has proven stock of oil and gas). Again, such an event justify a re-rate of the value of the company. Thirdly, the laying of pipe is not so clear to me. And this may depend on the business model VOG adopts. In an upstream sense, to me, the pipe is just the cost of actually doing business (extracting and distributing gas). In a downstream sense, to me, the pipe is a fixed asset, as we could charge third parties to use the same for their gas. The potential confusion of the grave to the grave model has been covered by bloggers (Malcy, to name one). Therefore, I would not anticipate the laying of pipe (including crossing the river) as an event justifying a rerate - whether expense or asset. It is part of the growth cycle of the business. The drills before us will move 2P to 1P. Huge amounts. I consider this a material event justifying a material change in current value of the company. Likewise, a 10-year power deal, or a third big power contract are also, IMO, events sufficient to move the SP materially. Should neither event move the SP, these are sufficient events to really start takeover discussions due to the severe undervalue of the company. Hope that helps. Have a good weekend.
3CB, ... Re "So who's to say we won't be having the same argument in 2 years' time about current near term ways?" I do. But, yet again, I suspect I will not be here if that is the case. Re " "Could it not also be said that Spudding of original wells, extending pipeline, crossing the Wouri and taking on Big Power, were also near term ways to increase capital, but they didn't."....yes, in a way, but not the same way. And you will find in fact, if you were a holder at the time that they did give rises. It was the anticipation of the big power being connected that slowly hiked the SP to 80p. The SP did not spike to 80p.
"""Vog's share price is low & getting lower, this reflects concerns about what the future might be I guess""". Wow, on that logic, thank God we have exclusivity, pipeline, logbaba, matanda, potential CNG etc.. Otherwise the SP would be a minus figure now.
"" Rodlin quite rightly cites drill success, increased reserves, contract renewal, and third power deal as pleasuable and near term ways to increase capital which ought to be accounted for in the larger enterprise value. joey58, rightly cites Matanda gas, though perhaps not as near-term as the other factors."" Could it not also be said that Spudding of original wells, extending pipeline, crossing the Wouri and taking on Big Power, were also near term ways to increase capital, but they didn't. Quite the reverse in fact. So who's to say we won't be having the same argument in 2 years' time about current near term ways?
depends on your definition of dire. I would say 50% down on recent (9 month) high and substantially down on longer highs is dire rather than cheap. And there is no point in saying that other sector piers have lost more. They are just MORE DIRE
I don't think I actually said VOG is a useless company. I was merely suggesting that Spacehoppa seemed to be suggesting that others regarded it as just another useless AIM company. On the contrary, whilst most of the companies on AIM are garbage money pits, I also believe VOG is basically a good company with a potentially great future. The problem as others have alluded to is that it is badly run by the management and never quite lives up to stated expectations, especially as regards hooking up new customers. This coupled with the huge drain on resources from bloated salaries, bonuses and royalties means that the actual owners of the company are always at the back of the queue. By comparison, the average FTSE100 CEO earned £870K in 2012 and £499K in FTSE250. How can Foo justify his massive salary for an AIM company which is barely profitable and way off paying a dividend to the owners. Should hang his greedy head in shame.
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.