Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
For sure I can wait, I've already held and kept averaging down and topping up for over a decade, so have a huge holding at a very low price.
I'm not just waiting for CH-1 drilling. I'm waiting for ARA to drill the new targets, to see if they find any commercial oil.
They could drill the whole field and just find gas, that's fine, as my holding will be worth more and more as that progresses. But if they find commercial oil in just one target, then it's going to multiply the share price.
Mike Rego, East Africa petroleum geology expert, says the oil is out there somewhere. We could be the one's that find it.
..with the bottle ?
I think you mean 'on the bottle' old chap.
Simply waiting to see if this latest err 'news' has any material impact old timer.
It's looking increasingly likely that it won't so I'll probably return to my sell recommendation next week.
That will keep you happy.
Bingo tonight I think - how did you get on ?
Why did you change from 'Sell' to 'Hold' then RoJo ?
End game for all your hopes of a disaster hanging by a thread.
Monday or next week anytime, us guys with the bottle can wait.
Do bear in mind Ufufuo and others these are "unrisked" assessments and there will always be an element of risk that would impact these valuations dependent on the perceived risks at any given point. The further through the drilling programme the further reduced that risk will become but will never become Zero until the last of the gas has been monetised.
However even with that being said these are some very encouraging numbers - if we ever get to 50% of these estimates (50% discount for perceived risk) it would be very good news. The GSA would be the first positive step in derisking....
Good night all and I wish you all a lovely weekend.
My money is on an empty stocking...
9.9% above RoJo 😁 but let's see what Santa brings on Monday
I will ride off into the sunset with my 25.57p right now Ufufuo.
Thanks for that eye opening piece of research, you should write more often here.
...meanwhile the SP is just managing to keep above 1p.
Thank you ICB.
When I said FT\IC I access it via the Investors Chronicle website as I am a subscriber. IC is part of FT so I think the information comes from the FT.
as the company’s stockbroker, it may be helpful to use the shard capital’s figures to derive valuations based on different scenarios. they published this research note on 29th feb 2024: https://*********************/companies/uk/oil-gas-integrated/aminex-plc/research/shard-capital/is-there-a-big-picture-change-in-the-cards-/43446264-b995-4e0e-9759-571a901f1b1b
in the report, they give an unrisked valuation of 2.8p for a scenario where aminex has resources of 763bcf and produces at a rate of 140mmscfd. for a scenario where we have resources of 1.7tcf and produce at 250mmscfd they give an unrisked valuation of 4.6p.
their earlier report from may 2023 (https://*********************/companies/uk/oil-gas-integrated/aminex-plc/research/shard-capital/the-time-has-come-/b1acaafa-e70d-41c0-90dd-5827fc37dfc0) had practically the same figures (2.7p and 4.5p respectively). when considering potential outcomes of the – then yet to be confirmed – 3d seismic results, on p.6 of that report, they state:
“as a point of reference, we note two potential value points that we believe the market may consider when deciding how much value to recognise should the 2tcf be confirmed”.
they then outline two scenarios based on different rates of production. long story short, they say that 3d seismic results of 2tcf would justify valuations 4 to 6 times greater than the share price at the time of the report – which was 1.03p. so, somewhere between 4.12p and 6.18p.
obviously, the 3d seismic has confirmed a good likelihood of there being 3.45tcf associated with just the existing nt1 and nt2 wells – and 7.95tcf aggregated including ch1.
if 2tcf justifies between 4.12p and 6.18p…
3.45tcf would justify between ((4.12 / 2) x 3.45) 7.2p and ((6.18 / 2) x 3.45) 10.66p
if ch1 brings us to 7.95tcf that would justify ((4.12 / 2) x 7.95) 16.38 and ((6.18 / 2 x 7.95) 25.57p
so, in summary, the 3.45tcf for nt1 & nt2 may justify a valuation of between 7.2p and 10.66p per share. if ch1 brings us to 7.95tcf, that would increase that to between 16.38p and 25.57p per share.
there are lots of variables at play here – for one of those, you may be interested to know that the shard figures are based on a presumed gas sales price of $3.9/mscf – probably conservative. other than that, i guess you can apply your own risk factor (considering what you believe the chances are of achieving one of those scenarios)
just a yardstick. i hope this helps.
Porsche 911 for me , had one 30 years ago,, motoring at its best, cost 17 grand then from Parker& parker Kendal. 🏎 🚔
Your only chance of owning a Lambo is if Dinky or Matchbox made one..!
Wheels don't matter if I can get from A to B, but I'd prefer a private island untouchable by the warmongers and dictators in this world
Good to listen in to this relevant sort of chat about values, so let me change the thread and ask you about choices of wheels, Lambo or no Lambo ?
Do bear in mind that most of those historic costs would have been incurred when AEX were the operator and 75% license owner - but what would TPDC be due to fund and as far back as when? NT1 & NT2? No idea.
Not sure about historic costs RJ but a good question - depends, perhaps, on when they were incurred?
Have to leave you now for a little while - out for lunch.
Keep that sp up!! ;0)
There was historically RJ (maybe BG would dig that reference out again) but, I suspect, based on what was said at the AGM it may have been renegotiated as part of the Ntorya GSA discussions. But even if not it was fixed previously at 15%. In any event my last post is still just a relevant, just substitute the numbers.
Another point about back dated costs. Would that be wholly due to Aminex or pro rata with Aminex?
I suppose it's possible they have their back in by means if the negotiated GSA. While we know that has been agreed I don't remember a figure being published
But RJ even if the $35m that is earmarked for Ntorya development was reduced by 20% ($7m) would uyou rather have that $7m in the bank (paid back from future incomes btw) but at the cost of 20% of those future income stream ($8m per annum)
$7m, in the bank (paid over time), versus $8m a year potentially for decades - which do you think will have the greater impact on the sp? I know the answer and so I suspect do you. Cash in the bank NEVER has much of an impact on the sp - annuity income in the form of "guaranteed" future incomes certainly does.
20% is more than I had in mind. I was thinking it was around twelve at one point. I must have missed the Sultans words on that. So much to take in sometimes but yes the lower the slice the better but as you say I don't see this being held back
Well that last we heard "officially, a BG has pointed out, is 15% - BUT - as you may remember, when this was discussed at the last AGM, TW and Sultan stated that they were expecting 20% -perhaps included or clarified as part of the recent GSA.
But yes RJ whatever it is will affect both ARA and AEX pro-rata but a 20% dilution of assets is not to be sneezed at! Though I do not think it will stop the sp rise over coming months with successful completion of various milestones - simply moderate it.
Crusty do you remember what the maximum back in % was?
Obviously if they do take it up then whatever they take if any, it would be only 25% of that attributable to Aminex.
Although it would mean a little dilution; because it means they will have back costs to pay, (maybe paid as you suggested yesterday), it would mean they have to pay their share ongoing, which would make Aminex free carry last longer and once all used up, further ongoing costs will remain that % lower with them paying their way.
By that time Aminex should be rolling in income so personally I don't see it to be a painful negative.