Member Info for aligator

Thanks Peakview. Pleased to get confirmation that my method of calculation, etc is not unduly skewed. I agree with your figures - I was getting around 70p but decided to shave the NPV even further, hence the 50-55p. This suggests to me that the brokers are allowing the MM's to dictate their (the broker's) valuations, otherwise I would have thought that Peel Hunt would also have come up with a target price nearer 70p.
That all said, if we believe that these figures are viable, why aren't the likes of LO, etc buying at 18p, which would push the sp northwards in any event? As you say, this is not an "if" but a "when". However, the sp may not reflect the full NPV until the "when" has occurred.

Good to read about positive indicators from brokers and the "charts", but can someone please educate me as to why the NPV of the core project can be worth ca £400-500m (historical data) but the market cap is less than £90m. Even assuming a 50% diminution in these numbers (CalE etc), the NPV of the company, taking into account the pipeline and other assets, would theoretically be worth in the region of £250m. With 475m shares in issue, this would suggest a target price of range of ca 50-55p (higher than Peel Hunt's 41p) and, more importantly, some 3x higher than the current sp.
The company is fully funded, fully staffed and has the backing of BH, so what is holding the sp back?

Good to hear from you GG - I trust all is well.
I have to say that the benefits of such posting boards is that you get input/feedback from all manner of professionals. I am no investment expert and therefore pleased to see so many positive comments about the status quo and the next year or so from those far more learned than me. As butd stated, this company is fully funded to production, unlike so many AIM companies, and I take great confidence in that as well as the BH support, which I continue to think will become a takeover candidate in the not too distant future.
I hope that, come the AGM, I will be joined by as many of you as possible to express our collective ire at these option awards. they are unwarranted, too cheap and too soft.
Good luck to all shareholders.

Nothing new in this summary of events of 2019 and for 2020, except that, if CER, which will have undertaken its own research, takes up the 50% farm-in option on the Harvey prospect by the end of Feb, we can assume that Harvey is a viable development opportunity.
SP edged up on initial trading but cannot see any reason why, based on this RNS, any spectacular hike is likely. Indeed, profit takers may well see it struggle later in the day.
I have to say that as a long term holder of these shares, I am thinking more and more of exiting the stock and trying my luck with other oil and gas investments. The trouble is, as we have found with IOG, AIM is so often the target of get rich quick merchants and, reading other posters' experiences, it could be a frying pan into a fire experience.
Some historical posters like GGITS have been silent for some time. I wonder if they have finally given up and gone elsewhere?

On reflection, I have to say I agree with the negative posts on this matter. If the 10% compound annual target is sp related only then that would equate to a price of just over 20p in 3 years, which is the level RockRose tried to buy at 12 months ago and considerably less, by multiples, of the highs of the last few years. Further, the strike price is simply scandalous given what has transpired over the past 18 months. This should be at least 30p if not edging 40p plus.
This behaviour is all the more galling given McCauley's promise of no further dilution early last year and the BoD's lack of communication with shareholders, despite us being told during that meeting that this issue would be rectified immediately.
This really is unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour by the BoD and I feel that shareholders should seek to protest this en masse.

dunderhead, I am sympathetic with your views but the options do not vest for 3 years and are subject to compound annual Total Shareholder Return of 10% being achieved (so ca 34% in total over 3 years), which I would be pleased with. That said, we need to know the precise definition of "Total Shareholder Return" and how it is calculated.
What I am surprised about is the option price of 1p - I would have thought that, given the events of the last 12 months, this should have been set at 10p or higher. To my mind this would be a much fairer benchmark to reflect what has occurred.
Following these awards, company employees now have over 20 million options. Assuming performance criteria are met, at todays price of 15.38p, income tax payable on the 20 million would be around £1.15m - so that is another relative incentive for the holders ensure that the company succeeds.

Investor 81, Agreed. However, there is a current catch-22 between the administrator's objective and that of the MMs who presumably want to see the sp remain where it is until the overhang disappears. Quite what the premium will be is anybody's guess but I am speculating that 25-30p might be the administrator's range.

Anyone got views on the likely timing of disposal of its 29.9% stake by the LOG administrator? I am not an expert on such matters and puzzled as to why the MM's are not willing (able?) to reflect the underlying fundamental value of the company in the sp. According to the brokers, the target SP is somewhere between 40p and 60p, but this possibly does not allow for remaining dilutive options.
That said, based on this target range - backed up by the core project numbers, secured funding and Thames pipeline delivery to the UK market - the current price of 15-16p looks an absolute bargain. Or am I missing something?

This was increasingly predictable as time marched on. And as for those on this board who said that it would not have an impact on, or barely influence, the share price, maybe they could explain how the share price over the past 9 or so months drifted down from ca 20p to 16.4p (last night) and then dropped to 14.125p this morning. This is a near 30% drop from the 20p offer figure put up by RockRose early in the year.
There may yet be commercial life in parts of the field but more analysis will be required and even then it is not a certainty at this stage. Either way, the BoD is not covering itself in glory with its handling of information flow to the market.
Notwithstanding, looking positively at the whole situation, the core project is underway with full funding, the Thames pipeline will undoubtedly carry 3rd party gas, new licences will be obtained and CalEnergy may yet bring new coporate and field acquisition prospects in the short to medium term. However, unless there is some form of agreement in place, I can only imagine that Berkshire Hathaway is running its slide rule over the entire IOG story as it could now acquire 50% of the entire company for around £35m rather than pay £20m plus an mcf commission for just the Harvey field. This would put it in much greater control of its destiny and I could see no reason why the LOIG administrator would have any problem with such an outcome.
I am buying further at this price.

OA, Interesting thought. Given the fact that IOG is fully funded to core project first gas and is vastly undervalued at a share price low 16p I have long believed that it can only be time before an offer comes in. I acknowledge that the Berkshire Hathaway overhang via CalE may turn some companies away but a mid-large cap producer may yet see the opportunity as too good to miss.
I too have been picking share up around 16.25p,

OilAnalyst, what are their intentions in your opinion?

Anyone got a view?

Benign RNS although yet more options disclosed.
The lack of an RNS about Harvey is now becoming a larger and larger millstone for the BoD. Clearly, all is not as had been expected unless something else is brewing, although it is difficult to see what IOG now needs given it is funded to first gas.
The BoD needs to put some form of statement out sooner rather than later. The Harvey well was completed prior to 19 September, when the rig moved off the site. It is now coming up to 3 months.
I well remember during the conference call and meeting earlier this year the Chairman saying that there would be no more dilution and, in contrast to the previous 12 months or so, that the company would be keeping shareholders much more up to date through RNS' and otherwise. How quickly these pledges have been dumped.

Am I correct in interpreting the TR1 as Spreadex having sold all its shares? This could explain the unknown huge trades a few days ago. If I am correct I am comfortable as the thought of having Spreadex weaving its wizardry in these shares does not sit well with me.
SP is now struggling, presumably because of continued LOG disposition. This could drop to 15p as predicted by butd. At this price, given all the positives in the company, I am a buyer.

Given the lack of announcements about the Harvey well, I am now assuming that the product of all the analysis from the well has not met expectations, if not come anywhere near, suggesting that reserves are at the bottom end, if not lower, than previous projections. Either way, I am increasingly disappointed that the BoD sees fit to keep shareholders in the dark, with long gaps between RNS announcements. It seems to be that we have crept back to the bad old dark days of late last year/early this year and that the later promises about keeping investors informed etc have simply gone out of the window.
We had all hoped that, by now, the share price would be considerably more than 18p, if not multiples of. The reality is that it is 2p below RockRose's offer at the beginning of the year with brokers now dropping target prices from 120p plus to around 38p.
Like most LTSH, I am retaining my shares for the moment but, let's face it, the prospects of realising huge gains from this stock have now disappeared. At this time, the decision to sell at around 25p by those who became too demoralised by the story, including RXdave (?), appears to have been the right move.

At 15p or below I am a buyer!

Trellis, I am fully aligned with your thinking about core value items within IOG but do however believe that, whatever is announced about Harvey, such news will impact the sp one way or the other.
My (increasingly diminished) hope is that the drilling will confirm a economically developable discovery and that CalEnergy will trigger its option to acquire 50% of the 100% interest in the field, providing IOG with upfront funds which it can use to repay further debt, contribute to existing projects or invest in new blocks, reducing dependence on equity and debt. In this case, I would be extremely surprised if the sp did not reflect an appropriate uptick.
One has to presume that negative news will bring the sp down.
I am just very surprised that no announcements have been made given pre-drilling timetables and undertakings. The BoD is gambling with the goodwill of shareholders, again.

hi dinsalas, Unfortunately, I don't share your optimism. To my knowledge the salary sacrifices were historical, I am not aware that currently, being fully funded through to core project completion, there are any such remaining arrangements.

If you also recall, the contribution of the board by way of new shares earlier this year was minimal on its part, so I don't really see this BoD being necessarily aligned with the objectives of investors.

Further, you will recall that it was the erstwhile Chair of the BoD who, earlier in the year stated to us in person that there would be "no more dilution". We are the fools for believing that.

As for the rebrand, I personally think the previous logo had more class and purpose the the new one. I cannot see the market being swayed into believing that because their is a new logo the company is on a new track to success.

The non-publication of the Harvey results is now a growing concern with each day that passes without us being told the real story. Others will say that it will not positively impact the core project and they are correct. However, what a negative announcement will do is drag the share price down even further. It is my assumption that the Bod is holding back poor/bad news on Harvey in the hope that the LOG offload will have occurred sooner.

My view on this is simple - BOD secures it’s own employment future on the back of significant concessions from existing shareholders and then leaves the private investors to try and swim in a whirlpool of Administrator and II deals.
First the brokers talked about 120p and more. They then dropped to 75-80p then 50-60p and are now focusing on 35-40p. Sure, the administrator and IIs do well by way of volume holdings but the more modest PI’s see projected handsome returns eroded at every turn.
Frankly, pretty unimpressed.

So still no Harvey results and more share options coming to light which merely dilutes the sp further.

I cannot help but get the impression that the BoD/senior executive have secured their own positions through employment contracts and share options on the back of the deal with BH. Meanwhile the long-suffering LTH's, whose support the BoD required earlier this year merely to get to the next stage, are being left up the proverbial creek.

I was a significant supporter of the BoD and all that it was seeking to do but I must admit that I now have serious questions about its attitude to private investors in the company.