Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Thanks Tony - yes I am Pirate there as well.
Pirate ,
I’ll do it on the CEO channel - are you pirate there?
Just to address the comment on questions taken / answered in the podcast - I asked about 4 questions - 2 were answered including the one on debt v equity. I already new the answer as I had asked previously but wanted to posters to hear direct from iE3.
I also complained that a couple of questions went unanswered but was told there were about 130 people on the podcast and they were unable to get to all the questions - fair enough - podcast went on for 1 hour 50 minutes.
I also know that on a previous Q/A where SH were invited to post in questions and the answers would be posted on the website - only me and one person appeared to post in questions - about 5 of mine were answered word for word and one question from another poster. So it appears that PI’s here are better at complaining here than emailing in questions!
I’m not directing the comment at you Pirate but generally to all here.
Thanks Tony - I do not have Graham’s email address and would be grateful if you could supply it either here or on my channel on the CEO board.
Yesterday Majid said they were still looking at acquisitions perhaps we will get a new Punch and Judy show, rather than the ongoing repeats with minor script changes. jimo, :-) naturally!
fwiw, we need to look at the whole picture and not just the Cenovus raise.
i3E had some Loan Notes and a bad drill. These notes were renegotiated and (keeping it brief) the terms were satisfied by the Toscana deal and then the Gain deal, which lead to the first raise Documentation and the associated new Admission Document detailing the terms.
Of note, were
(1) the Dividend commitment in the Investment Proposition,
(2) the Loan Note "amendments include the requirement that the currently outstanding i3 management options will be cancelled and replacement options will be issued to i3 staff and directors which replicate the terms of the adjusted Loan Note warrants (the "New Options") in relation to the exercise price , to seek alignment between the Noteholders and management." and
(3) the award of 75M options, 45.2M to the board, also at 5p with soft targets.
The second 'requirement' is unlikely to have been required by the Note holders and is most probably a quid pro quo, which together with the third identifies the self-serving attitude espoused by the BOD.
wrt the Loan Note holders, they had saved the company, held it at their mercy in event of default, and would now be able to dictate future financing options to their own best interests, remembering a bit of quid pro quo.
Therefore the arguments presented by the BOD in the H1 video were probably specious, being justified by labouring the points and, and and, and and. None of them were blockers, but needed earlier planning and activity to be able to draw on when needed, but hey, the equity option was already in their back pocket and would enable more soft options by dint of the increased total.
The main LN holder appears not to have sold any shares: check the maths out. Doesn't mean he has not traded, but his Warrant conversion neatly outed a reduced holding RNS from Premier Miton when the Total was raised.
The LN holder is getting pik-interest on much safer Loan Notes and dividend on his 5p shares as well as capital appreciation. Hardly surprising that he wanted more at pre-Doc-ramp price along with other II besties and the offer closed so quickly..
We have seen the second tranche of 5p shares to the BoD, just 74.2M to come, then the 11p ones...
Better hope they continue to buy these and not take the JOG route revealed on Monday.
How will the next acquisition be funded? What level of 'simple' debt could they fund the interest on with their assets all needing investment. Yes, Majid has proposed using others cash by farming out, but do they want in on his terms?
Time will tell.
jimo
joe
Same here Pete - my q's didn't make the cut...SMH
Do you have Graham’s email - ask him the question.
Alterantively - tell me what you want to ask and I’ll send him the question - make sure it’s properly formulated ie if your saying they are overpaid -
Provide the reference to back up the claim.
Tony - I submitted a question at the last General Meeting on management share options and why management did not but shares with their own money. Guess what - my question was not put forward to the meeting! PI’s are clearly an inconvenience as far as Management are concerned.
Pirate ,
I don’t disagree with most of your comments - quite a few have said similar and I was also disappointed that PI’s could not get in on the raise. In the end it didn’t matter as if your were patient and applied GGG’s principles - you would have got in lower than the II’s. It’s not the point I know - we should have had a similar opportunity but you have to be pragmatic also - if you need to raise $50m and you know PI’s are only going to stump up $2m then……you would do the same.
Again - it serves no use complaining here - get in their ear and see whether you can influence future outcomes!
Tony - Long and short of it is that PI’s don’t feel valued - or that their interests are properly considered. Best way to remedy this (and show they are properly aligned with PI’s) is for Management to put their hands in their own pockets and buy I3e shares with their own money.
Jozo/Austin,
The SP has not risen as quickly as some of us would have thought maybe 6 months ago - but you have to take account of what has happened in the last 6 months which includes the raise but also Serenity pushed back, earnings reports ,ESG etc.
Having said that the rise over the last 12 months has been very good. Take a look at the 6 month and 12
Month charts - they look great and no reason the trend shouldn’t continue - if it doubles again in 12 months - who here wouldn’t be happy.
If your saying it hasn’t risen as much as it should have done - compared to what? I have been using KELT as a bench mark but I’ve been told by someone more clued up than me that Tamarack Valley is a much more similar company based on asset type.
I compared the 6 months charts for both Tamarack and I3E and there’s not much in it. Tamarack is sitting at 60% rise over the period v I3E at approximately 50%.
DYOR - take in all the data point and make your own mind up. I’m still bullish on i3e !
Jodo - have you listed to the last management podcast including the Q&A session. They CFO answers the question on this topic in some detail - if you havent then you probably should. If you have the same opinion after listening to the explanation - then fair enough ! No need for me to rehash old ground.
Tony and GGG
I'm reluctant to take sides in this argument, and I value your contributions Tony, but it's difficult to argue with the unfolding pattern as predicted by GGG (too frequently??).
It would need to be very convincingly demonstrated that debt was either totally unavailable or only on punitive terms, to justify the decision in hindsight. Even then, anybody like me who has gambled on HUR in recent years would still have some scepticism prompted by incentives the bod have built in for themselves!
Austin,
I'm not sure I entirely agree -there was a lot of negativity about the equity raise / debt issue and it perpetuates if unchallenged creating a negative perception which puts some investors off. When people got to hear the reasoning first hand from Management - I think a few have changed their mind.
You are correct its done and dusted so why the past raise keeps getting brought up by existing investors is quite beyond me. However, they do have authority to issue additional shares so it is still a relevant issue - whats the point of moaning about it on here - why not as a shareholder let management know what you think direct and try to influence future outcomes. Ditto with the options which by the way are linked to equity raises.
Investor activism does work - take a look at what happened at HUR !
Tony,
I'm normally supportive of your thoughts and suggestions, but surely contacting the board about something they have already done, is as pointless and fruitless as it gets.
We are where we are as they have been looking after No 1 not its investors, we have had a substantial rise and could and should have more, but the excess shares and a degree of mistrust does remain and consequently the journey to growth will be slow and cautious.
Jezzo,
Have you thought about emailing the Company and voicing your concerns ? They are normally pretty responsive if you raise a fair question/s
Tony - Yes I had a listen, I can see the reasoning behind it all but it doesn't change my overall opinion of the BOD's share holdings, salaries and awards to themselves simply for doing their jobs.
It is what is, there are a lot worse places to invest your money but then again this could have been a lot more advantageous to the PI's if the BOD had had any respect for them .
Jezzo - did you happen to take a listen to the podcast by any chance the the Q&A session?
G-G-G
I have to agree with your paragraph starting "As I've been saying"
It's basically what I said yesterday and it's the reason we aren't 20p now. If Majid (and other BOD members) was RNS'd buying a significant amount of shares in the company it would set in motion a change in opinion of the BOD by ordinary PI's and an upward motion in the SP I believe.
https://twitter.com/garquake/status/1453183631812448257/photo/1
Once they prove they can turn the high NOI forecasts into FCF the rerate will come. At these spot prices dividend yield should be closer to 10%, once the company confirms that, I3 energy will rerate to be more fairly valued. It doesn't matter how many shares are outstanding, capital will continue to flow into the company until the dividend is under 5%. Come back in mid 2022 and see if the share count really matters. The company is not going to rerate based on promises, but based on performance.
Its not clear at all GGG that you have taken liberties and misquote i3e / Graham - were not all mind readers. What I can say is that certain people have objected and you are out of order posting such comments on a public forum.
Its not the 1st time either you have done it - I can refer you to one of your recent posts about comments from Doc |Jones on dilution - its in black and white on the CEO website versus your twist on his comments here. Its out of order GGG - you have a right to your own opinions, but not twisting other people words to reinforce you point.
Correct cmcc . This was mentioned by Graham in an interview.
Tony, as if Graham said 'to get more action from the bod'. Clearly I've taken liberty with words to essentially say the same thing as cmcc. I'm also not going to get into semantics with you. You're being childish like trying to use a recent failed 'binary bet' of mine to try and support your arguments. You simply wish to cling to a belief the entire Canadian market is as undervalued as us, and it couldn't possibly be the 400m shares recently printed for IIs and mgt that is holding us back from being valued at the same level as an average Canadian peer. And yet we know this isn't the case. What we do know is the very same entities that held the sp back by trading it all the way to 10p were given an opportunity to do it all again. Draw a line (remove the spike when they stopped trading for a week) and you'll see the low incline gradient that I said we'd continue on post mega raise. And guess what, if they did it with a degree of debt we would have gotten a re-rate (step up in value) then continued the same slow climb. If you're not familiar with how these thing play out then it explains why you couldn't see what I've been saying would happen all this time. But at least if you look at the charts now, you should be able to see it has happened (again). The bod aren't your friend Tony. They serve themselves, and in doing so they serve the IIs. We can of course make money, but we're picking up scraps and not considered in the same way as PIs in other, better valued companies.
As I've been saying, we have great assets. We're rock solid. But it's going to take the f/o and the run-up to H2 results and Nth Sea drilling for us to get anywhere near 20p. And that doesn't make us immune to the bod finding another deal, doing another mega-raise handing it to IIs, then giving themselves another 5% of shares for simply finding the deal. No doubt you'd probably still be saying 'great deal', 'no way they could have used debt', 'we're worth XXX now and will re-rate in 1 month'. No wonder Majid has never put his hand in his pocket. They simply award themselves shares and their II mates give them a free pass because they're being looked after handsomely as well.
I note we're back below 13.5p. Feel free to provide a plausible reason for the sp anchor - all that research must be telling you something.
Sounds like some serious, potentially criminal accusations that are completely unverifiable. The poster who made the original claim should perhaps retract their claim.
Yoyoma,
No I believe that CMC is pretty close which is quite different from what GGG has said and then going on to attribute the quote to the CFO.
thank you, that now makes sense to me.
I think he means that the IIs held price sensitive info re the new acquisition obtained during the bookbuild for the cap raise, and so were prohibited from trading during that period. So they couldn't sell any excess shares into (and thus soften) the sharp SP spike.