Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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.
I thought 1.2p was mentioned but we might have to wait some time for it. However, that is much more than we would get if this bunch of chimps were allowed to invest it.
If all monies go back to the share holder anyone know how much per share we can expect ?
To All Scirocco Energy Shareholders,
This is the last day to vote, so please ensure you have voted on all your #SCIR shareholdings.
Vote “FOR” all resolutions to be passed. - If you want cash returned to shareholders.
If the money from the Ruvuma sale is NOT distributed to shareholders, it will be wasted on management salaries, advisors and PLC costs!
Interesting RNS issued for CPX today which is currently down 81.80% for the day.
It always amazes me that some Boards of AIM Companies make comments such as those shown below which are in today's RNS:
CAP-XX, a world leader in the design and manufacture of supercapacitors and energy management systems, provides the following update in relation to its working capital position.
The key words are "World leaders!"
They then follow that up with the following statement which includes the key words "The Board would have no option but to place the Company into administration"
"There is no guarantee that an equity financing will be achievable and, in the absence of any additional financing being available, the Board would have to take steps to preserve and maximise value for its creditors and should the Company fail to achieve a solution in the short term, the Board would have no option but to place the Company into administration. In this eventuality, it is not known how much, if any, value would be returned to shareholders."
SCIR issued an RNS and Tom Reynolds stated:
Following receipt of the waiver from AIB, Scirocco is pleased to announce the successful completion of the sale of its interest and investment in EAG.
I would draw your attention to the words "Is pleased to announce"
As a shareholder I was certainly not pleased to see an RNS that confirmed the sale of EAG as a loss of between £725k to 875K depending upon whether they receive the £150k of contingent consideration!
I have voted for the MVL as the cash is better in the hands of the shareholders than it is in the Company!
AGE
Updownstream all the questions you raised are in the document of the SCIR website so see below
What date are we expecting the vote? 19 March 2024 at 10.00 a.m.
How long will the BOD have to act on any potential outcome?
At the time of this circular publication, the Board does not have a mature prospective acquisition to present to Shareholders. However, the Board requests that it is given time to end June 2024 to receive the FID Payment, identify and progress potential transactions and/or investments (in line with its investing policy), which are thought to be value accretive and which offer significantly higher value than the MVL option in absolute terms. If the Board has not identified a credible route forward which meets the criteria listed above by that time then it would bring forward a recommendation to proceed with an MVL.
And for argument sake, if the vote was to return cash to shareholders how long do the BOD have to act starting payments?
I am aware any potential return of cash would be phased and is contingent of third payment payments.
Could we see the process getting drawn out and cash funds being degraded by operating costs, salaries, "consultancy" costs etc
What date are we expecting the vote?
How long will the BOD have to act on any potential outcome?
And for argument sake, if the vote was to return cash to shareholders how long do the BOD have to act starting payments?
I am aware any potential return of cash would be phased and is contingent of third payment payments.
Could we see the process getting drawn out and cash funds being degraded by operating costs, salaries, "consultancy" costs etc
I provided information about Amur Minerals PLC to demonstrate what happens when AIM Boards try to do RTO's.
AMC issued an RNS this morning saying they have identified an RTO and they are attempting to move from having owned a mining licence in Russia that was sold for $35m and they are trying to move into the Pharmaceuticals business!
It is clear to see that the Board are desperately trying to keep their well paid part time jobs to say they are moving from Mining to Pharmaceuticals.
The notion that AIM Boards act in the best interests of Shareholders is laughable !
What do the Board know about the Pharmaceuticals business?
Just look at the share price graphs of some of the the small UK Pharmaceutical Companies and you will see that the share prices have been decimated by one share placing after another based upon the hope that the drug that they are developing will come good and be approved.
The Board did not even have the courtesy of seeking shareholders views on whether they should seek an RTO or whether they should return the remaining cash to shareholders.
They have looked at 17 opportunities and they have entered into a heads of terms agreement and no doubt incurred huge consultants fees to be able to do so.
The Board have completely changed direction from being a mining development Company that had a licence in Russia to the Pharmaceuticals business that is an even more risky venture.
AIM really is rotten to the core!
AGE
The only people to profit from this dubious arrangement at any point in the last 3/4 years have been the board - filching it of the pockets of their shareholders. They have fleeced them for just about every penny and should be struck off.
The Board stated the following in their project Raptor document:
The Company and the Directors are of the view that early-stage hydrocarbon assets remain a challenging investment space for micro-cap companies that ultimately lack the balance sheet strength or the depth of portfolio to absorb the range of potential outcomes for such assets. Additionally, the ability for micro-cap companies to access capital in the oil and gas sector has been significantly impaired in the last few years.
The Directors believe that the Proposed Transaction will be beneficial in the following respects: • if the maximum potential consideration is received, the Proposed Transaction will be a highly accretive deal for Scirocco, representing a premium of over 200% against Scirocco's current market cap (assuming a market cap of approximately £3.4 million);
What they did not say is that they and previous members of the Board had raised £37,414,000 gross by issuing shares and that the sale would be at a loss of £7.813m and that we would be paid the $16m USD out of our own share of the gas.
What they said is that it is a highly accretive deal for SCIR as it represented a premium of over 200%.
It is amazing how you can keep within the rules and yet still present a not so good deal in such favourable terms!
The Board did not have the funds to keep Ruvuma as they spent £1.293m on the aborted One Dyas deal and £2.132m to Gneiss Energy so a total of £3.425m
Now that Ruvuma is sold we hear there is a massive upgrade in the amount of potential gas so no wonder ARA were so keen to purchase SCIR's Jewel in the Crown!
SCIR are not going to make a profit from this extra gas as we sold Ruvuma at a loss of £7.813m
They also stated:
"Since entering into the EAG joint venture, Scirocco has supported and funded EAG's acquisition of GGL, which owns a 0.5 MWe anaerobic digestion plant located in County Londonderry in Northern Ireland. EAG's acquisition of GGL completed in October 2021 and was funded by Scirocco out of the proceeds realised from the sale of its shares in HE1. Since completion, the GGL asset has performed very well, exceeding EBITDA forecasts. "
They then sold EAG/GGL at a loss of between £725k to £875k so I would highly recommend that you remain sceptical when Boards use EBITDA as a metric rather than profit!
AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the latest RNS the BOD describe Ruvuma as large investment project which begs the question why did we get rid of it?
So the CEO who has jacked in….releasing a RNS that’s all singing and dancing 🤣🤣🤣🤣 honestly do these clowns think we’re all daft?? Is that supposed to be the carrot leading the donkey so we all vote AGAINST??? Seems strange this all glowing RNS has been released AFTER the ultimatum!! Tell them to stick it up there backsides
Because the millions we had received from other asset sales was wasted on fees aborted deals and loans to companies that were supposed to have been subject to due diligence.
This money was supposed to fund Ruvuma through to initial production.
As the money had been spent they just got out taking the worst possible deal they could get.
Should have read High Quality asset
In the latest RNS the BOD describe Ruvuma as large investment project which begs the question why did we get rid of it?
Probably got an things mixed up but did state that they would re enter and repair tubular leak at NT1 to enable well to become a gas producer.
Thought that kiliwani north was renamed NT1.
I see TR is back not even an apology bit praise for him but and his board.
Ruvuma was the reason that I invested in this company and I have watched this BOD destroy what should have been a very profitable situation. How can anyone trust them with further finances to waste. Share the money and kick them out asap.
Steve you say "The aminex rns did mention kiliwani being brought back into production"
Really? where and what did it say? If it did I missed it....
The aminex rns did mention kiliwani being brought back into production.
I assume we still have our 8% stake.
Didn't cove sell 8% of a 60tcf field for over a billion pounds. Makes our $16 million if ever we get it look pathetic.
We are not part of the party. A similar deal to Aminex wasprobably on the table at one stage but our greedy board were too busy looking to rape every last brass penny from this company.
Good morning Chris
Hard to believe.
16.4 Trillion Cubic feet of gas......25 year development licence next. (gave it away)
Vike Shareholders have the freedom to make up their minds on whether they should vote for the resolution to return monies to Shareholders or vote against and you have exercised that right!
You have made some good points however they apply equally to option 2 that the Chairman included in his document and that is it continue to invest in line with the Company's investment policy.
If the total Ruvuma amount receivable and the timings are uncertain then where is the Chairman going to get the funds to invest in another opportunity?
He might ask shareholders to vote to approve the issue of a very large amount shares of shares which will have to be issued at a discount to the prevailing market price so say 0.25p or even 0.20p and it is likely there would be no
pre-emption rights for existing shareholders.
To raise £3m at 0.2p you have to issue 1.5 bn shares and there are currently 900,496,088 shares in issue so there would then be 2,400,496,088 shares in issue.
The new shareholders would then get a proportionate share of the Ruvuma proceeds which has the effect of reducing existing shareholders pay out under the MVL but the new shareholders will only have paid 0.20p.
In my humble opinion the resolution is not premature as the MVL is carried out in stages with the Ruvuma money being returned to shareholders as it is received.
The Board AGM presentation includes a slide that shows that it cost £428k pa to maintain an AIM listing and the Ruvuma proceeds are going to be received over a number of years and the Chairman stated the $2m is expected no earlier than late 2025 and may be delayed into 2026. "
Knowing how long it takes to things done in Africa 2026 the $2m may well be pushed further out to 2027 or even 2028 as the contingent amount payable is dependent upon the well producing in excess of 50 bcf of gas!
5 years at £428k pa for an AIM listing is £2,140,000 and we have a current market value of £2,701,488 based upon a current bid price of 0.30p.
AGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have voted AGAINST the resolution.
I agree returning cash to shareholders may be the best strategy, but this is not yet the time to decide. Until a Ruvuma develpment licence is approved and that project is green lighted, there is no material cash to distribute.
I am FOR giving mgmt maximum 6 months to see that project get approved, receive the next cash payout, and propose alternatives, including a full distribution. But we're not there yet and this vote is premature.
Information copied and pasted from the Chairman's document below:
As you can see the Ruvuma sale completed in October 2023 so there is no need to give the Chairman an extra 6 months to close the Ruvuma deal as it has already closed!
Look at my prior post when I supplied information about Amur Minerals PLC Board's RNS's telling shareholders they are looking into an RTO and they have identified 17 opportunities!
It is quite obvious that some Board's of AIM Companies do not credit shareholders with much intelligence to say that they think they can pull the wool over shareholders eye's!
The Chairman wrote:
"At the time of this circular publication, the Board does not have a mature prospective acquisition to present to Shareholders "
"With the completion of the sale of the Company’s interest in the Ruvuma field in October 2023, the Company expects to receive the contingent payments listed below linked to development of the Ruvuma field assuming it proceeds as expected:
•
US$3 million payable upon final investment decision being taken by the parties to the Ruvuma Asset Production Sharing Agreement or the JOA as the case may be (the “FID Payment”), which the Board still expects to be received in Q1 2024, although this may be delayed;
•
Deferred consideration of up to US$8 million payable in the form of a 25% net revenue share from the point when Ruvuma commences delivery of gas to the gas buyer (the “Revenue Share”), with the earliest expected payment from this arriving late 2024, although again this may be delayed; and
•
Contingent consideration of US$2 million payable on gross production reaching a level equal to or greater than 50Bcf (the “Upside Payment”), which is expected no earlier than late 2025 and may be delayed into 2026. "
AGE
If the BOD are given 6 months then I would suggest this is solely to close the Ruvuma deal. No more handouts. Pay/bonus/remuneration of any kind is frozen. Otherwise, they will be paying themselves as much as possible and as quickly as possible or come up with some other scheme to consume 'our' money.
The BOD have shares. It's best for them to also take the 'cash' they are entitled to at the same rate as the investors. No more, no less and at the appropriate time. But no more payouts to them!!
I have voted AGAINST the resolution.
I agree returning cash to shareholders may be the best strategy, but this is not yet the time to decide. Until a Ruvuma develpment licence is approved and that project is green lighted, there is no material cash to distribute.
I am FOR giving mgmt maximum 6 months to see that project get approved, receive the next cash payout, and propose alternatives, including a full distribution. But we're not there yet and this vote is premature.