Member Info for BigBiteNow

@NicetoMichu I don't disagree and it is defintely a current topic of debate in the oil sector. For the last 4 years or so I have been involved in a stock that is working towards feeding the pending revolution in grid scale energy storage. That has led me to spend a lot of time researching that particular market. There are clear signs that peak oil is closer than many would wish to admit although it is certainly far enough away to not warrant a huge sell off of oil stocks today.

The main reason that i can see that institutions and funds are moving away from oil stocks is because of the change in the public's environmental consciousness. The average man/woman on the street understands far more clearly the threats that climate change pose and big institutions like the World Bank are backing major investment drives in renewables and energy storage. Institutions are following that trend because it is being led by their very own customers and so reflects on their business

I will say it right now, everybody is massively underestimating the speed with which change will come with renewables that are led by cost effective energy storage, and the process as already begun. But despite all of that there remains plenty of interest in the oil sector because oil is in demand and oil prices reflect a strong market, and money will follow that.

So whilst there is defintely casue to pause and reflect and be aware of these changes in sentiment, it still should not be overplayed at this time. Good profitable and expanding oil stocks will remain popular and AMER is heading towards being just that over the next 12-24 months.

Amazing, now 14.09p to buy. Crazy

For all these so called red trades, a great many are buys. I just had anoter 50,000 at 14.2p which is shown as red, which says a lot about the large red trades that came before it.

Given what we know about POO and wat the saudis are intent on doing. Given what we know about AMER's current production and plans moving forward, can anyone out there please argue the case to me that AME won't at the very least see 20p a share this year?

If so then buying at 14.2p delivers a very strong chance of a 40% profit this year. So many investors on AIM turn teir nose up to such profitability. Not me. I will take that all year long.

Apologies my last post was in response to JP2000

@Roth1 I merely following the information that is available and htat points towards CP0-5 being a very large oil discovery at the point in time that it has had the necessary time to be drilled and evaluated. One failed drill at Calao does not define that nor change it.

Calao was never supposed to be as prospective as Indico because Indico delivered 17.7m 1P (gross) reserves and Calao was touted as being all in 9.8m at best.

When those Indico appraisal wells are drilled then I fully expect the "conservative" 3P figure of gross 33MMBO to be confirmed, as a minimum. Calao was never showcased as being in that sort of realm.

I think the use of the term 'dodgy seismic' is uncalled for. AMER ae working with a major player in ONGC on CP0-5, so calling out their seismic or their approach to the work, given they managed to deliver Mariposa and Indico, is taking things a bit far.

I have posted previously that despite my anticipation and faith in Calao-1, I would start to judge progress at CP0-5 after the first 4 wells, and overall progress at AMER by year end. Given the clear message regarding Indico-1 OWC and the extent of the programme AMER as for this year, that is for me a sensible approach.

In the meantime, if the SP insists on judging Calao-1 as being worth a £30m reduction in MC, then I am a buyer because it is absolutely ridiculous situation.

Apologies for the constant spelling mistakes and missed letters, one of my young daughters spilt her drink over my keyboard and since then te keys don't do what they ought to. Time for an update but i can't bear to give it up.

@NicetoMichu firstly absolutely no malice intended and I respect your freedom to post and opinionate as you wish here. In my opinion one should always act professionally and treat discussions ere te same as they would in a business environment because there can be a lot of money at stake and that should be respected at all times.

In a business environment I would not expect to hear bad language nor see opinions battered down through bullying. If i don't agree with someone then I expect to employ facts and figures to argue my case as to why not and I expect the same of those who would wish to discuss investments with me.

My reasons for highlighting my concerns about your choice of language is that the bullies and ueberbulls are very much in the minority here and choosing to talk of such things on the day when the SP reacts so negatively to what is relatively minor news at this stage, for me undermines the contributions of the majority and paints a picture that the SP was somehow pumped to the head heights of 16.8p, which could not be further from the truth. When it comes to would be bullies or ueber bulls/ueber bears, I either ignore and engage with those tat have worth or I engage and present counter arguments in a profrssional and courteous manner. Everything is simply a waste of my valuable time.

This is merely my opinion as yours is your own, which encourages debate and knowledge sharing which is what we are all here for after all.

@ColonelDrake Yes whilst these 2 exploratory wells were exciting and full of potential, I have posted previously that the Indico appraisal wells could well be the really big story in this initial 4 well campaign. They will no doubt test the OWC contact, which could well lead to a significant uplift in reserves. The 22nd Jan RNS "conservative" 3P reserve figure of 33.33 MMBO (gross) is achieved with just 13.6% more effective oil column.

Given the conservative nature, it would not be to great a stretch to say they will achieve this as a minimum. That would deliver AMER a further 3MMBO (net). However, if they go a lot deeper then things would/should get a lot more interesting.

The company has already added 28% more 1P reserves and 23.6% more 2P reserves compared to 2017. Those 3MMBO adds a further 21.5% of minimum 2P reserves with likely more to come, and that is all despite a full year's production in 2018, wich removed 2MMBO (net) from those figures.

Yet te SP is trading just at just an 8.3% premium on where it was the day the initial Indico discovery was announced.

@Stockboy Yes but unfortunately tat is how this particular market is acting right now. Today is not the day to judge the market's true reaction because there are all sorts of tactics and plays being played out.

As for the Calao-1 drill it cost AMER $2.6m NET not $5m as you have stated, which only goes to strengthen what you had to say.

@NicetoMichu with all due respect whilst there has been positivity and belief here I would challenge the thought process that there is some sort of ueberbull RMP type strategy going on here. One should not allow the failure at Calao-1 to distract away from what is the real story here, which has been discussed at length by a good many of the posters here. True worth won't come in H1 nor likely this year. This is a long term investment that when given a chance will (in my opinion) deliver very good returns.

The company whilst using very positive language have also been restrained in their wording, even JW talked about a dry well not being a bad thing because of the data it delivers in his February interviews.

The February presentation was and remains very clear that the vast majority of activity for this company sits within H2 of this year and beyond. Front end we have these individual one after another wells at CP0-5 and the now clear path to an expedited drill programme, which we have again discussed here as being likely from 2020 onwards.

So the " 50p or 75p or £1 targets" is indeed a long way away and always was, but it is the fact that tese targets are achievable that is key. That said there is more than enough strength on oil prices and the plans that AMER hve this year to at the very least deliver an SP double of what we saw at the end of play yesterday. That's a 100% gain. In my view some investors on AIM seem to demonstrate disappointment if their investment isn't a multi-bagger. Give me a 100% gain for 2019 from here and I will have a very merry Christmas indeed.

As of right now that gain is now is closer to 130% simply because one exploratory well did not deliver. That well does not remove the success from Indico out of the equation, it does not make 2 appraisal wells at Indico disappear, nor remove the OXY deal, the PUT 8 deal, or wipe out brent at $67 a barrel.

In my opinion your choice of words to be poor and uncalled for given where Calao-1 stands within the greater picture. If investors are here for the wider AMER story as I am the today's news should and will be taken for what it means in the greater scheme of things, which in reality is not that much at all.

Good morning. Naturally i share the same disappointment as that which has already been shared here this morning but only for the fact that I wanted to see the momentum continue and the valuation more respect for what has been achieved here these last 6 months or so. I managed to convince myself that the delay was a big positive, I was wrong and I hold my hand up for saying as much.

That said I have added at 13.8p because as usual there is a large over reaction to the news.

On 10th Dec, the day Indico success was announced, the SP finished up 12.7% at 13.3p. So to achieve a buy in price of anything close to that is an absolute gift horse.

It is interesting reading the various perceptions of the company and its progress on the board today. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine couldn't sit muh further away from the majority of what i have read today if it tried.

The idea that the OXY deal is simply 'potential' is for me a falsh impression and misunderstanding. That deal comes with $93m of capex investment that will increase the value of the 4 currently undeveloped blocks. It also places a clear price tag on those 4 blocks, which even when discounted represents a substantial sum for what were 'backburner' blocks.

Likewise the PUT 8 purchase if nothing else, places a $38m plus price tag on that block and indicates (through the GTE interest and willingness to pay that sum) a worth for said block if it were availble. Again, investors may wish to discount that but there is no way I will be convinced that those 2 deals are priced into the valuation becasue they are represent mere 'potential.'

What is in my opinion clearly happening here is that the market for whatever reason is misunderstanding and underestimating what this new look AMER is about, and that is absolutely fine with me because it has enabled me to take a position at a lower level, ahead of a highly likely and considerable push north.

Contributots here can call out the management for communications or indeed MM shenanigans, whatever, but what really matters here are the fundamentals because in time everything else will dissipate, and it is those fundamentals that will drive this SP to where it should rightfully be. I have seen several companies with poor communications but very solid and attractive fundamentals succeed and succeed well. Communications did not hold them back because the companies put out enough clear information for the market to understand what they were about, and AMER is no different.

The CP0-5 plan has been clearly communicated and is being followed and will only be updated when something changes to allow that. From what I have seen of AMER communications this year they are keen to shout how good a story they have as soon as it is worth saying. Therefore, when that 2nd or 3rd rig is coming we will be told. The same goes for Calao-1. I do not believe for a seond that AMER aren't paying close attention to the drill given it is in the best block that ever happened to this company. Also, they have reported both previous positive drills immediately after its conclusion. On the other side of the coin, given the success and wording used by JW about CP0-5, they have nothing to fear from reporting a dry well. Therefore, when I logged on this morning and saw no flashing red light after 52 days of a 30 drill, I was delighted. in my view, something substantial is happening down there and I am loving being a part of it.

Only my opinion of course, so DYOR always.

Evening all,

I don't have a great deal of time at the moment but I just wanted to repeat one quote, which is employed in today's RNS not once but twice.

"The results confirm the continuation of the orebody being mined at Vametco and provide the potential for additional feed tonnages for the Vametco plant and future brownfield processing plants."

Future brownfield processing plants!

What a tease. Not only are the company clearly demonstrating that brownfield is very much on the cards but once again they are offering insight into the fact that it is more than just a pipe dream. One simply doesn't write such things if said brownfield isn't firmly in their sights and/or secured enough to support it. This is an official RNS after all and BMN do play it straight down the line.

What makes it all the more interesting is that it is said directly after the words "the Vametco plant" meaning whatever plans lie in wait for Vametco, other brownfield processing in definitely still very much alive.

I am still mulling over the timing of this RNS because it is a certainly a bizarre time to be releasing drill results given the fact they were highly likely not finished today, and the company has previous for releasing drilling results after the event. So a 4pm release on a Friday certainly has my attention if nothing else.

BMN didn't have to mention brownfield today. They could have clouded the picture far more if they wished, but they didn't. instead they specifically connected Brits ore to brownfield processing whilst making it clear that they weren't simply talking about further expansion at Vametco. Think on about why they did that.

With all due respect some of the stuff being written here is simply nonsense and a classic sign of investor impatience.

Take a look at the Feb presentation. The only things planned for Q1 that have any sort of possible conclusion this month, are Calao-1 and Platanillo field enhancements. The company has made it clear that production updates will be quarterly, so the only thing in play right now is Calao-1.

The company reported that the well spudded on 1st Feb and that the total drill and test was 40 days. The ONGC Indico tender states 39 days for Indico-1 and 32 days for Sol and Aguila. Mariposa-1 was reported after 39 days, Indico after 40 days.

We are now at day 49. If the drill is taking longer then it is taking longer and we will know when we know. If it is finished then the form says it would have been reported by now. That's it. No games, no delays, no failures.

As for the takeover talk. I cannot see the institutional investors who have paid much higher than these levels accepting a low ball offer now that AMER has finally put together a detailed plan of works, signed a deal with OXY, and in my view discovered the biggest oil find in Colombia in the last 30 years. Plus the only expedited takeover offer would be one that the BOD recommended and they would have to go a long way to sell a 25-30p offer given the pkans and progress that are afoot.

If its a hostile takeover then that will take time and given what the 2nd half of this year offers, that is only going to make the whole task a heck of a lot harder.

@coffeecups The terms from Hanwa and SGRF are fine as far as I can see. We are not party to the finer details but they are commiting to an equity investment once full funding is achieved. It does not say anything about BCN needing to achieve the funding all at once and the placing last year proves that to be the case because both the SGRF/Hanwa investments and the $100m placement, were announced at exactly the same time on the same day.

Therefore, there is proof that partial funding can be achieved at market rates to commence construction, without this undermining the deals agreed with SGRF/Hanwa. That would then achieve the goal of driving the SP higher and enable further funding to be agreed at higher prices, thus lowering the overall dilutive cost of the outstanding $220m.

However, as I have said the company has said it is looking to secure the full funding in Q2, which at the very least challenges what is a very palatable theory.

@News the 94.5p was the agreed placing price with the proposed cornerstone investor back on 15th Dec 2017 and was based on "the volume weighted average price of the Company's shares on the AIM Market of the London Stock Exchange over the previous seven trading days," which is the 7 trading days immediately prior to 15th Dec 2017.

In terms of fair value the company will achieve what any cornerstone investor is willing to pay. If there is competition then it may well be a premium to the current market valuation at that time. However, given the size of the investment there is likely to be more than one investor and this is supported by yesterday's Bloomberg article, which quoted Mr Secker but stated separately, that the company was "looking to raise $150 to $180 million from one to three investors"

That is not a direct quote but the article states they were talking to Mr Secker on the phone on Tuesday, so one can assume that he said that.

That quotes indicates competition and possibly the existence of further debt or asset level investment.

$150m of equity from one investor at corporate level would place said investor in a position whereby they would be forced to make a mandatory takeover offer because they would own a great deal more than 30% of the company. 2 investors would take it fairly close also but it would depend on the price per share.

If it was indeed one investor, then that lends itself to being at asset level or that greater debt element exists, which are both win/win scenarios for investors.

The noises coming out of Southern Copper also point towards competition, which is a very good thing because it drives the potential for that premium and a better all round deal.

However, despite all of that my base line expectation is a calculation in line with the 7 day rule or something similar, so if it is heavy on dilution then it is all about the SP rising to a level that reduces the dilution.

But as i say the lower the SP the higher the percentage these investors take of the company, which itself supports the an argument for asset level investment and/or more debt.

I do find it rather frustrating when I read such things as "its all guesswork." The idea is to minimise the guesswork by analysing the data available in order to achieve a head start on the competition. That's how money is made at this game. To simply sit around waiting to be told everything is in my opinion a sure fire way to be outmaneuvered and out played.

@Endion Hello again. Yes it is an error and rather interestingly VSA have built their valuation on just the shares needed to achieve the remaining equity element of the funding, which they perceive to be $170m.

They have left out the $40m in working capital and $90m from SGRF and Hanwa. I fully understand the working capital being parked because it makes no sense to raise that at this time, when it could be raised in stages at far higher levels.

It may well be that that is BCN's best maneuver under the circumstances as that will delay the SGRF and Hanwa equity investments. Whether they can do that is debatable as there may well be small print preventing it but that is certainly what VSA are showing at this time.

RNS 16th July 2018 - Investments by SGRF of Oman and Hanwa

The investments "are conditional on the full US$460m construction funding required for the Project ("Construction Funding") being in place."

So it is one method of avoiding an all out equity raise for $290m. The company has repeatedly said that they intend to complete the "full funding" in Q2, but they didn't say they would do it all at once.

@news In the note from VSA (page 25) the box entitled 'Valuation Summary' states £170m at 60p and 248.2m new shares.

However, they appear to have made a right hash of the most important part of their document. They have included a pound sign when they clearly meant dollar and the figure should be 50p not 60p because above the box where the above figures are discussed (page 25) they state ;

"Given the imminent project financing we have assumed that equity funding is raised at a price of 50p, although this is
merely an estimate, implying an additional 248m shares and our target price is therefore calculated on a fully diluted
basis."

$170m is approximately £129.47m at today's exchange rates. At 248.2m new shares that equates to 52p. So I have no doubt that they meant $170m and 50p.

As for the 7-10 day averages i usually expect 5-10 days. However, if you refer to the previous "Cornerstone Investor" RNS from 15th Dec 2017 you will see that "The Placing Price represents the volume weighted average price of the Company's shares on the AIM Market of the London Stock Exchange over the previous seven trading days.

So there is evidence of this being employed by BCN for cornerstone investment, although the deals with SGRF and Hanwa weren't concluded at that point.

At 94.5p a share in Dec 2017, was that 'fair value'?' Fair value is what the company can achieve and is willing to accept.

http://www.bacanoralithium.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/VSA-Capital-on-Bacanora_Lithium-13.12.18.pdf

All of that said, i am more than happy with my sub 20p average here because i firmly believe that the SP will begin to rise once the institutional sellers have completed their selling, which cannot be far away. That will more than secure a good return on my average.

I also believe the company will employ all positive news flow that it has at its disposal in order to boost its valuation. i.e. Zinnwald FS.

I am also leaning towards the idea that the funding will come in stages because they have already demonstrated that $100m on top of the $25m draw down from SGRF is enough to commence construction, which is enough to see the SP further recover prior to the next round of funding. What that would do is protect the company against the SGRF and Hanwa equity stakes, which would automatically kick in at FULL funding. However, there is a negotiation still to be had there on the price. If its as per the previous deals the it will be the previous 7-10 days averages, which would work very well for retail shareholders in general.

Right now, whilst the company is saying that it is going for full funding, it is not wise to do so if the equity ratio is 60% of capital costs + $40 of working capital. At the very least the working capital should be held back but also as i say staged funding to encourage the market to value the business closer to its true valuation.

Firsty, thank you very much Ivybush for directing me to the AGM resolutions.

With all due respect to all other posters here, the exact make up of the financing is at the heart of one's ability to define how high a price to scale up is appropriate.

Contributors here can jump around alll day about a VSA broker notes and can post it as many times as they like, but the reality is that they have made a series of estimates, which are not guaranteed. The first is that the finance will be completed on a equity to debt ration of 60/40 based on the capital cost of $420m

Right now the project has $240m in finance of which $150m is debt. So the project has already secured 35.7% of VSA's anticipated 40% debt ratio. Therefore, at best they are anticipating a further $18-20m of additional debt, which means new equity will make up the other $250m.

Then there is the $40m of working capital, which will need to be new equity because nobody is going to lend this company debt for that sort of expenditure. Therefore, we are at $290m of which $90m is conditionally secured but is based on the full funding being achieved. What that means is that Hanwa and SGRF will highly likely want the same equity valuation that any new equity investors achieve.

Now in terms of those 500m shares. On the positive side it was tabled on 19th November 2018, which was shortly before Citigroup were appointed. In my experience that appointment was made becasue Citigroup had already presented ideas that would be the foundation of the finance moving forward but that is merely my opinion.

However, they will have been ideas only and given that the finance is now not due until Q2, it means nothing was finalised at that time and BCN had no true idea as to the exact make up of the equity. Furthermore, and more importantly, when that list of resolutions was released on 19th November the SP was at 37.75p. Today it is 22.25p. So they are as of today coming at this from a far lower base position.

Two key concerns to be aware of. The resolution states that the 500m shares are "in order to raise funds to assist in financing the US$419m capital expenditure requirement to develop Phase 1 of the Sonora Lithium project."

This resolution was presented and passed after the Hanwa and SGRF funding was agreed. Yes the number of shares have not been determined but the funding has been agreed in the previous year, so there is an argument that those shares do not count as part of the 500m allotment.

Secondly, and more importantly, this is a generally worded resolution that appears on all AIM listed AGM documents and it is merely a line in the sand at that point in time. That means it can be amended by means of a special AGM meeting if the company finds that it cannot achieve the funding inside the 500m shares. Therefore, it is merely guidance based on a point in time when the SP was 67% higher than it is today.