Member Info for Adw198

@abbxa you say “Over $40 profit per barrel based on $70 sale price so Brent now at $82.35 a barrel means more like $45 - $50 profit per barrel”

The company appeared to give figures at todays prices didn’t they - if not what was meant by this

“At current oil prices the Block XX crude already in storage will generate revenue net to Petro Matad of circa $600,000”

Current oil prices?

Terrible update, certainly against your own expectations Abzzba.

Producing less than you thought with stored oil values at less than half the $1.4m you predicted. Oh dear!

Still no deal to sell. I don’t understand what’s happened to export licence that wasn’t allowed to be applied for till the deal was signed, but now isn’t mentioned.

No mention of the massive renewables deals you’ve told us to expect WOS. Another poster who must be gutted with that update.

MB bought at the last raise m, not sure anyone else from Board did.

Much easier to show support when the option is a 45% discount. Extremely limited evidence of Director purchases in the open market. Maybe they’re currently in a closed period, or maybe they don’t want to invest even at these low levels.

Does anyone have even a ballpark guesstimate as to how long the export licence takes to be granted? It doesn’t sound that complex but it would concern me that MB didn’t give any guidance as to whether it’s a days / weeks / months job.

The smart money is on a raise, the same way they’ve raised money in the past. The best option would be DQE deferred payment but Im not sure why DQE would be that keen to drill on the promise of payment given H2. What if the next one is also like that? How much £ worth of oil would they want, to be paid when?

When specifically about a future raise MB didn’t mention of these alternatives last year. I acknowledge he might have done previously, I don’t know. He said the plan was 2 producing wells through the winter to get to self sufficiency this year. As others have said that clearly hasn’t happened so the consequences and cash runway are clear and short.

“You clearly implied that the CEO 'gave' himself a load of shares at a 45% discount and that this was his pre-determined action bought about by him rather than the circumstances of the raise that allowed him to partake with the same terms as everyone else”.

No, I didn’t say that, imply or think it. It’s why you can’t quote anything of the sort.

You may have misunderstood the point being made (for the millionth time that a 45% discount purchase means very little IN MY OPINION) which is perhaps why you got so triggered and bizarrely accused me of slander. Have you figured out what that word means yet? You’ve not retracted it whilst obsessing about the hidden point / meaning you think I was making. Show some humility and accept what I’m saying, as opposed to what your anger makes you think I might mean.

To move things on Im happy for you to pick a form of words that’s conveys a CEO buying $100k shares at a 45% discount isn’t significant. That’s my view so feel free to wordsmith it however doesn’t offend you.

And then go and research what slander means.

Would be as triggered if I’d said “he choose to raise $9’ at a 45% discount”?

I’m genuinely struggling to know why you’ve made this a hill to die on, getting so upset to label it slander?!

You asked me yday if I had taken part in the offer - who, according to you made me that offer?

He signed off the entire raise as he’s the CEO. He gave himself the ability to buy $100k at a 45% discount. He gave Petrovis the same deal for $1m, along with the same deal (but limited to $500k) for PIs. Listen to the interview, he and the Board decided to do all of these things.

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. I reworded the sentence and you were still unhappy. All you’re doing is highlighting that the only way they could get a raise away was by giving a very material discount of 45%. Personally I wouldn’t regard that as a positive but I’m happy to hear why you take it as such a positive, even now whilst he’s 25% down on his discounted purchase.

I know he paid the same as everyone else who took part. I’m not suggesting he artificially did a low raise - never said it, never inferred it.

I just don’t agree buying in such circumstances is something to be read into, as the like of WOS repeatedly claims. I’d buy in if someone gave / offered me a 45% discount and I don’t even work for the company and need my salary covering.

Shall we move on?

The rage you must feel towards me is blurring your ability to be reasonable. Just because I caught you out telling porkies a few times (H2 being ok the periphery) you don’t need to jump on everything I say. And if you had such a problem with my words why also complain when I use a different sentence structure?!

Slander! :)

Not really mate - he gave himself shares at a big discount. You’re welcome to use your own words to describe it if you want a go. But no, you want to spend all day nit picking my words and accusing me of slander!

It’s irrelevant anyway - the point is very clear that I don’t read much, if anything, into such a buy. You’re welcome to hold up his heavily discounted buy that’s 25% down from even the 45% discounted rate he was given (aka gave himself) as evidence of something - so the floor is yours pal, tell us what it means to you?

I’m not going to take lessons in vocabulary from someone accusing me of slander by accurately describing a CEO giving himself a $100k purchase at a 45% discount.

Look up slander mate. Better still, just accept other people are able to think and speak for themselves.

“He allocated himself $100k worth of shares at a 45% discount to the SP”

That pass the Thorn Slander test?!

He literally bought $100k shares at a 45% discount to the SP. He decided to allocate $100k to himself and got it signed off.

Good luck to him, it doesn’t bother me either way - I just don’t regard that purchase as evidence of a great company. I have no idea why you’ve taken an autistic level of obsession with my describing that as giving himself a 45% discount. I take a very minor point that he will have taken a steer from the book builders what to raise at - but the final say was with him / the board.

It’s not slanderous and you’ve just shown you don’t even know the meaning of the word, instead slinging abuse. I was a lot more gracious when you quoted fake numbers for production at H1 - which funnily enough you didn’t even acknowledge - once again you got completely worked up because I simply expressed a view that they wouldn’t have averaged 250bopd to date. I stand by that - it’s just an opinion though so calm down and / or just move on and accept you can’t control everyone. I’m not your son!

Exactly Doc. When deciding to do a raise he choose to allow himself $100k - at the discounted rate. It’s not even up for debate so I don’t really understand why thats being nitpicked.

He’d said he was willing to pay full price which would have been a statement - the discounted purchase doesn’t mean much to me.

If he again takes a 45% discount when they probably raise this year I won’t be particularly impressed either.

Calm down Thorn - I’m saying he was heavily involved in the decision to raise at 2p and he decided to buy in $100k worth - which of course was checked as a related party transaction. Whether you would have used the phrase “gave himself a 45% discount” is your business. I don’t think my phrase was inaccurate, or misrepresented the position and it absolutely wasn’t slanderous as you repeatedly asserted. Do you stand by that accusation? If so please explain why it’s slander?

Either way it’s semantics around the underlying point - investing at a 45% discount to the SP doesn’t impress me. Others are welcome to form their own judgements on his buy. You’ll just have to accept I’m entitled to think for myself.

I stand by my language he that he gave himself a 45% discount given he was CEO during the raise. He also gave Petrovis the same discount, and gave PIs a limited amount at the same rate.

If you don’t think he was involved in the decision to raise at 2p then I’m asking who else made the decision - as you appear to have a big problem accepting the CEO was front and centre in the decision.

So please explain why you believe I’ve slandered anything - remember to focus on the things I’ve actually said tho, not your strawman who keeps making up things I’ve not said.

Whether you agree or not my language is one thing but the underlying point I was making is a 45% discount doesn’t represent some huge show of confidence in the circumstances. You’ll just need to accept that my opinion is different to yours - no need for the shrill accusations

“Appalling people who wish cancer on people to try to stop them posting. Awful.“

Now this is an outright verifiable lie. It’s been done to death but I made 1 comment, to 1 person which wasn’t to stop them posting but when they deliberately pretended Doc was being r a c i s t.

That was a totally scummy thing to do just because Doc had different views. I wish I hadn’t snapped back because it’s allowed the likes of Proquo to express his faux outrage and misquote what actually happened. He sounds a very angry man!

Doubling down on the slander accusation.

He’s the CEO - who you think had bigger input in the decision to do a raise at 2p than “himself”?!

Names please Thorn? Or just accept some other people don’t read much, if anything, into a CEO buying in, in these circumstances. 20% of his salary, as I keep saying I’d happily invest 20% of my salary if some gave me a 45% discount.

I never said it was an artificially low price for personal gain though.

It was probably the best he could get away - what’s not up for debate is it was a significant discount to the share price at the time. I therefore consider all the factors - others can read something else into if they want. It’s not worked out well so far but might at some point.

He himself said it was “essential” he took part. I’m not sure I believe that but I think it makes a point that he felt it was very important to making the raise viable that he took part.

I know you lot don’t like reading views you don’t agree with but we’re all entitled to form a view about what to read into a CEO making a 45% discounted $100k buy whilst he trousers $500k a year in salary. I’ve given my view and rationale and I’m happy to agree to disagree if you read it differently.