Member Info for aligator

I guess this is good news (albeit I presume Blythe will need to be shut in again to install the permanent modification) but I still cannot rid myself of the nagging thought that the performance of BoD and senior management team over the past few years has left investors so exasperated. The parallel fact that they have awarded themselves waves of options as reward for such mediocre performance merely exacerbates my frustration.

The chemical injection fault was announced to the world on 29 March, resulting in Blythe being shut in, but hinting that a solution was expected the same week and production resumed immediately thereafter. The update dated 4 April then stated that further work is required, i.e. clearly suggesting that the issue was more complicated than original considered. Here we are 12 days later, having seen cashflow presumably running into tens of millions deferred, with no real idea of what the problem is and how long it will take to remedy.
I know there are those far more technically minded than me who will say that this is not unusual for the industry. However, given the sheer number of problems which have befallen the phase I project, specifically over the past 3 years, one has to seriously consider whether the BoD and senior management team are the right people to be running this company.

Having read the RNS several times, I have focused on the statement that "The fault is a MECHANICAL issue on the Blythe topsides and does not relate to the Blythe reservoir." Correct me if I am wrong but surely the Blythe platform should have gone through a series of meticulous checks, at the time of installation and pre-first gas to ensure it was within specification and able to operate safely, etc.? Presumably this would have included the mechanical ability to handle chemical injections and other such production issues?
Am I off target here or is this yet another foreseeable problem that was, in fact, neither considered nor seen by the company?

Morning gg, Like dunderhead I am no offshore expert but, as you say, all the pre-planning and required sign-offs for something as run of the mill as this issue should not have resulted in it now being a problem. It simply layers more questions on the accumulating doubt about the BoD and senior team. For me , what makes it even more galling are the long term incentive options they have awarded to themselves as if their performance to date has been faultless.

My views on this BoD and the senior team have sadly declined since the days of the announcement of the farm-in by CalEnergy, which effectively saved the company. What has followed has been almost a constant tide of poorly timed and poorly worded RNS announcements, invariably containing negative news, all of which have combined to constrain the sp, if not wipe millions off the company's value.
Yes, one could say that it is just down to a sequence of bad luck but, in this industry, care and precision are constant watchwords and IOG's long line of mishaps sets the company apart from its competitors.
I, and other posters, have said before that the performance of key individuals and the BoD needs to be critically examined and hard decisions made about replacing them with people who are capable of delivering on plans without issues such as those which have piled up over the past 2-3 years.
Unfortunately, I will be out of the country on 20 April. However, I sincerely hope that shareholders will take the opportunity to put the question to all directors/senior management "Are you the right people to be vested with the responsibilities you have?". Indeed, I have already tried to contact Lombard with my frustrations and perhaps those on this site could speak to other large shareholders in an attempt to get some serious focus on this mismanagement issue.

I have tried very hard to remain constructive with regards to this BoD and the executive team but the continual flow of negative news is challenging that view. Mechanical issues on production, chemical injection problems and, as expected, the lack of insurance for the seabed scour (which, given my non-technical brain, should have been identified as a cost risk during the planning stage) are just 3 more issues in a long list of problems which have arisen over the last 30 months. It just seems that, in the case of IOG, if it can go wrong it will go wrong and, to my mind, casts some doubts on the entire senior team's experience and capabilities of developing gas assets. Of course, there will be those who don't agree with my assessment but, the fact is that, instead of the share price moving towards the targets of the company's brokers, if not reflecting the NAV of the company's assets, producing and undeveloped, it is languishing back around 37.5p.
Remember, that the BoD awarded itself rather ridiculous unchallenging options just a couple of weeks ago!

Eyeore2, your post made my brain hurt. Being a non-market person I focus on assets, future prospects and risked value, which have long suggested to me that this sp has to be the bargain of the week, month, year, century so I fully agree with your last comment. For what it is worth, my own analysis has the sp at ca £2 by year end, with the prospect of £3 by end 2023 and £4 by end 2024.

Frustrated as I am with the performance of the sp, I acknowledge the influence of the LOG overhang, II profit taking and MM shenanigans but, importantly, am extremely grateful for the fact that current gas prices are multiples of the 45p assumed in the phase I development plan. Had we been reliant on the lower figure, one can only speculate where the sp would be now.
That said, with a risked NAV of ca £450m (vs £210 market cap), it is still frustrating to see the sp at less than 50% of its assessed value.

According to consensus thinking, this should be near 50p now and, subject to an RNS on Elgood first gas, heading for Finncap's 66p target.

Almost 17% below yesterday's high on no further news/announcements etc. This performance is not within my scope of expertise to try and understand so would appreciate thoughts/comments from those more qualified to contribute.

In the absence of the first gas announcement not appearing in any of today's newspapers, it would appear that the company made no effort whatsoever to maximise the publicity of the achievement within the broader media world - TV, newspapers, internet, etc. I am truly shocked by this assumption as it could only have been a win win scenario to do so and, in my view, would have greatly assisted the sp in the process. We all know that the company has failed to successfully harness the media in the past but, if true on the occasion of first gas, this is frankly madness by the BoD.

Lemming, I guess my point is that, given the fact it is new, domestic gas production at a moment in history where the UK is desperately seeking to secure its energy sources, I would have thought that the company would be full blast in getting the info into the media. However, a trawl of the major TV networks and internet press shows nothing, apart from a couple of industry websites (see earlier "Update"). At this moment in time it looks as if the company has not done anything to advertise this achievement to such media outlets which I simply find astounding. Perhaps the press tomorrow will publish something but, currently, the achievement of first gas has seemingly moved the share price backwards!

mentioned that Boris was due to sit down with the oil & gas industry to discuss the current situation, but not one mention of IOG, Blythe first gas or otherwise. I had previously hoped that the BoD had been working overtime to get the story into the mainstream media channels? However, it is now looking unlikely. Incredible.

www.energyvoice.com
www.upstreamonline.com

media silence so far today.

Well ladies and gentlemen, it is now 9 days since the company announced the commencement of backgassing. Thus, according to the 21 February RNS, a further announcement confirming first gas should be made tomorrow morning, in which case I would expect the sp to rerate again to 50p and beyond. That said, I can only hope that the BoD and senior management team have been working their proverbials off in relation to the parallel publication of this news with wider media outlets including the major TV channels, papers and the internet. It will be news which, quite frankly, could not come at a better time for the UK and I therefore also hope that Boris, the government and parliament will also be brought up to speed on the achievement. In saying this, I am mindful of why gas prices are so high and respectful of the plight of those in Ukraine.
It has been a truly momentous journey for many of us and even those who invested in the last 3 years or so. I can only hope that you all achieve what you set out as a target in your respective investments.
There is more to come from IOG and I do hope that next week's sp journey could be considered a fraction of its future achievements.

dunderhead, Not sure what you "absolutely disagree" about? We seem to be on the same page re BoD performance (or lack of) and I hope we will have our "day in court" with the directors and senior management in due course. For the record, the RRE deal would have been horrendous for private investors - ca 20p compared to today's price and the prospect of 66p (Finncap) and 100p (seasoned investors).

Barrett, If most long term shareholders are honest, the journey to this point (I have been in since 2013) has not just been bumpy, but, at times, scary. However, a fundamental belief in the value of the company's undeveloped reserves has, I suspect, carried most of us through the dark days. That said, there were times when, put bluntly, the future looked very bleak. To give credit to the current BoD, the deal with CalE brought the company back from the brink and Warren Buffett, through BH Energy, will again be banking multiples of his investment in due course. This allowed the Nordic bond to be negotiated and issued. However, it could have all gone horribly wrong, which makes the imminent announcement of first gas so welcome.
Going forward, the BoD needs to prove to shareholders that it possesses the requisite skills and experience to take the company to the next level - i.e. the development of Southwark, peripheral fields and longer term asset acquisitions etc., as well as evidencing nouse in maximising media opportunities and the broader marketing of the company, which to date have produced more questions than answers.

Richard Griffith sale just does not compute with me. With Finncap targeting 66p and current gas prices suggesting ca 100p, why would an investor trade at ca 40p? One could theorise that this was prompted by inside information but RG still owns millions of share in the company.
As ggis comments, every investor has their own buy/sell tactics but leaving, in all probability, ca 25p on the plate for each share sold just does not make commercial logic, specifically with a first gas announcement expected with a few days.

My non-professional take on this stock is that, while we, as private investors, are frustrated with seemingly unfathomable delays to bringing fields into production, the MMs are even less impressed and thus, until tangible evidence of sustainable new production is made available. PB comes across as a nice, well-intentioned person but, to be honest, I am not sure he is the right guy in the role at this specific time of the company's development.