Member Info for BouncyDeadCat

Nickthesaint,

I agree, but this government won't cut costs as that's not the game they're playing.

The game they're playing is the quiet implementation of socialism or 'wealth redistribution' as some like to reclassify it as.

"The problem with socialism is that you'll always end up running out of other people's money"

Aligning CGT with income tax is a terrible idea that doesn't work. If it really did work, it would already be happening.

The reason it doesn't work is because;

a) people accrue capital gain by risking their already taxed income into things that grow the econony further (renovating property and selling it, investing in other people's businesses etc). Taxing a capital gain at the same rate as income tax when that same capital initially put at risk has already been taxed at the income rate level is punitive. By doing so, you remove the incentive to invest and the economy starts to collapse (through lack of investment). It's socialism 101 and it never. ever. works. Bonds certainly aren't the answer in such a scenario as government borrowing is used to fill the investment void and in order to borrow at affordable rates they introduce financial repression (yield curve control) and the payment of nominal rates to bond holders will always be below the real rate of inflation.

b) It's mainly productive people who are able to build up pots of capital (by providing value to others) and if/when a government comes along who is actively hostile towards these productive people 1 of 2 things always seems to happen... 1) These productive people leave and find more accomodating countries to do business in or 2) They stop being productive - because the juice is no longer worth the squeeze. Either way, you end up with a country that has become ever more poor and desperate.

Hardcore socialism never. ever. works. That doesn't mean that idiots won't stop trying to implement it.

Harrycarter,

Lol. Your post is laughable and complete fabricated nonsense.

1. Char installed a Christmas tree and didn't immediately flow test OBA-1 because they ran out of money. You don't go through the added expense of installing additional equipment for no reason. They've just raised $9 million and the testing of OBA-1 is going to be carried out once the Anchois drill has gotten underway – read the RNSs for goodness sake.

2. Energean bought Edison in order to acquire a portfolio a of assets they didn't want? What!? At least make it make sense! For anyone reading anything harrycarter is putting out needs to know the truth – Energean negotiated the deal only for the assets THEY WANTED TO BUY from Edison. Go back and read the RNSs on the Energean/Edison purchase and you will see that Energean trimmed back the deal to omit assets they didn't want Q. Why would they pay for assets they didn't want? A. They didn't.

It's way more simple. Energean sold assets with lower potential to focus and fund another asset with more potential. If you care to read RNSs put out by Energean, they expressly state that Morocco is where they intend to focus next.

3. You keep bringing up how Repsol let the Anchois gas discovery lapse 15 years prior without any acknowledgement or comprehension of why this asset is now worth so much more today, not only because the gas asset has been dramatically expanded in size after Chariot drilled Anchois 2, but also because I) Morocco has been cut off from it's previous source of gas coming from Algeria and ii) Europe are in desperate need of new supplies of gas since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Moroccan gas is connected directly into Europe via the GME pipeline.

4. Your basic assumption is these assets can't possibly be commercial because another company who found a smaller proportion of these assets nearly 2 decades ago didn't progress them. This analysis is so basic and see-through, that I can only assume you're doing it to spread a lot of uncertainty and doubt and why most people on this BB find what you write either comical or ludicrous and above all, nonsense.

Utter nonsense from harrycarter as per usual. Trying to make people believe that if more gas is discovered in Anchois, then it will be bad for Chariot LOL 😂😂😂

FEED states, going from 100mmscfd to 150mmscfd will cost an extra 5% in CapEx.

If block 2812 is full of gas rather than oil, then wouldn't that be a great coup for a certain FTSE250 gas company who may or may not be interested in buying Chariot? 😉

We could well see the end game play out sooner rather than later.

Potato/Potahto 🙂

Again, as I'm not an insider I don't know exactly. Maybe because CHAR already have so much valuable data on the area? They also have a very good and very tight relationship with the Nambian Ministry of Mines and Energy. Trust and relationship building goes a long way in Africa.

What seems to be reassuring the market (price holding up very well today), is the fact that the BoD's have bought 10% of the placing, which indicates their confidence in the next steps the company is about to make, and of course, the BoD's know a lot more than we do and have put their own money in, which does speak volumes. Time will tell.

Bridgedogg,

I honestly don't know. But it's the kind of ESG business that these progressive investment banks love to have in their portfolios.

Bridgedogg,

What if CHAR could quickly farm out the new acerage on a free carry and maybe even receive some back costs?

Chariot spent over $150m exploring Namibia and they own a huge dataset - which has value.

Fernan,

Agree. However, I'm beginning to think the entire Renewables/Water/Energy trading can be merged and sold (or partially sold) as a larger ESG utilities business. Which will probably be quite attractive for some investment bank with those kind of leanings. As long as money in is significantly greater than money already spent, then I'm okay with what has been. But yeah, don't want to see anymore of these micro-purchases for £1-$2m, CHAR simply aren't in a position to be stretching themselves like that.

They raised $6.4m and intend to raise another $2m+ in the open offer. Probably end up with $8.5m.

They had $3.5m in the bank as of end of June 2024.

Oiltdr,

Doesn't negate the fact that we're diluted by another 7.8%.

When the rerate comes, the dilution doesn't just disappear.

No. But the fact that they're inviting us back in and handing over a very coveted asset proves the point.

KissnCuddles, I think the award of acerage in Namibia will be because of the enormous amount of work Chariot did offshore Namibia. They were instrumental in making Namibia what it is today - the hottest place for Oil Majors to be and of course... the huge discoveries made.

Probably most crucial, is the huge amount of data Chariot possess offshore Namibia. They must have covered 10,000 sq miles of seismic data over multiple blocks, both 2d and 3d. So they have a huge head start over any other E&P.

I return from a lovely holiday sailing around the greek islands to yet another placing (groan).

Will this $8 million be enough to get us to FID? Not sure, it'll be close. I also see that Chariot still had $3m as of end of June, which was slightly more than I thought they'd have.

It's a mixed bag really, on the one hand they now have the cash to flowtest the onshore OBA-1 well and wait for the results of the drilling and flowtesting of Anchois East, but on the other hand we, the shareholders are diluted another 7.8%.

Probably most significant is the BoD's buying 10% of the placing with their own money, which is as confident I've seen any Board of Directors be in a placing.

Harry,

Fire sale is a strange choice of words, as is your attempt to re-write history.

Energean may not elect to take the additional 10% (not 15 as you stated), we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, there is a very different view of offshore Anchois that differs from the very negative one you paint here.

Energean have been selling off other smaller O&G assets that they own in other geological areas in order to concentrate (and fund) development of offshore Moroccan gas (Anchois & Rissana) - assets they've partnered with Chariot on. Doubling down on offshore Morocco suggests they've taken a very positive view on what they think it is able to produce and why they are selling other assets - to allocate CapEx to Anchois.

I think rather than Chariot being deperate to sell a share of Anchois at any cost, they opted to sell a stake to a farm in partner who would develop the large gas asset as quickly as possible and free to the point of production (for Chariot). The BoD already admitted that they had received many offers for Anchois, including one for the whole company.

Since the partnership announcement between Chariot & Energean, Exxon Mobile have since moved quickly to secure two offshore licences offshore Morocco, which suggests they've also seen enough to have taken a positive view on the area and why they acquired acerage next to Chariot offshore Morocco.

A view things still need to be proven up, but the whole situation is a lot more positive and not nearly as negative as what you are trying to paint.

1 month to a massive flow testing drill and things become clearer still.

https://www.energyintel.com/00000190-78cf-df74-a9f0-7cff2d500000

It was cut short in the sense that they decided not to go back into Anchois 1 (Because Anchois 2 already gave them the data they were seeking to obtain from going back into Anchois 1). Flow testing was never part of the plan back then. How would they even know what flow testing equipment to stack the drill rig with? There were 5-6 different reservoir types that they were targetting, completely unrealistic to get all the equipment for every type of reservoir flow test they could possibly consider encountering.

Surfit,

Providing the acquisition cost of an asset is significantly lower than the price one can sell the asset for, then income generation (from said asset) is an irrelevance.

Acquire, prove, sell (for say 10x) is arguably just as good a strategy than acquire, prove, develop. Possibly even better.

Lol.

You literally put in bold capitals the following: "IMPLICATIONS FOR CHARIOT" in your post last night at 21:50. You also titled your post "Sound Energy´s deal. Implications for Chariot".

Which part of the word 'implication' do you not understand?

"implication" ~ a conclusion that can be drawn from something else.

aka read-through.

The attempted read-through and thus implications for the valuation of Chariot based on the sale of Sound Energy's gas assets is rather silly and a moot point.

Why? Because Energean have already put a value on Anchois and are willing to commit $850m to develop the asset if/when it is proven to be 1Tcf+, plus pay Chariot another $15m + $40m-$50m in stock.

And even at 0.6Tcf, Energean have committed $85m to a drilling campaign + paid Chariot $10m to buy into the asset as is.

Chalk & Cheese.