Member Info for Cheapskater

Not much action going on so I did a test deal and liked the price so hit the complete button. It's a 500k top up at 0.4248 which is below the middle of bid/ask so expect it to be reported as a sell here.

How can it be possible to trade 1 share. Surely to be able to have a transaction there must be some money move. 0.45p does not exist as a value that can be transferred.

Thanks, I would call myself a keen amateur as I have only made more money investing than I get paid for working for two years in the last seven but i'll give you mu tuppence.

Nobody has a crystal ball but here the signs are currently good. Not withstanding something out of the blue like legal action, or illness to a BoD member, or them doing another silly investment with a share issue now they seem to have things on track for organic growth, or a hurricane causing $m+ damage to Stanley, etc, then I expect boepd attributable to MSMN by or before May to be between 140 and 180. I'd like to think we are seeing $40/bbl in profit minimum over that time window maybe more. That's about $2m operational profit from fields per year and more than enough to fund salaries and service a debt to announce pushing the business forward. If results are published which show a half year profit then sentiment should shift here nicely. Without results that show it then RNSs showing something like the numbers above should still bring buyers in.

I don't want to talk true value of the company and NAVs, etc because they just help to see if a company is under or over valued and I don't have enough info to waggle more than a damp finger there anyway. Market sentiment is what drives an sp and a positive sentiment should see this one move upwards, over shoot and then settle back down. The are option prices, I suspect there might be some warrants too (2p rings a bell here) so that could drag on good news but all things considered and with none of the nasty news, I wouldn't be surprised to see this spike to almost 5p and fall back to 2p to 3p in the next 6 months or so. Might be some mini spike and settles along the way but you might need a bigger pair of balls than mine to try your luck trading them. Higher than that would require some unexpected good news like a loan allowing us to drill Amadeus successfully. I don't doubt that is coming but I fell it may be at least a year away perhaps 2 years by which time we may miss the pipeline boom time.

I don't think we're any way near a big enough player for a bigger fish with a lot of cash to make a silly offer (>10p) for MSMN until we have a proven delivery of > 500boepd . So that's how I see it. I haven't decided if I'll try to sell or topslice on a 4p+ spike. I've got 3.5m shares at about 0.7p so it's mighty tempting but I do feel I could retire from this one in 2-3 years if it goes the right way. Not with just this share but with everything else it could put me in a comfy place for the rest of my days.

Don't invest on my say to though make up your own mind and work out if you want to speculate and how long for. I have lost £80k on AIM in the past. Just hoping I've learned that lesson now. GLA

They'll have to do better than that to drive the bid ask down to buy in below 0.5p.....probably need to sell another £30 worth. I suppose it's worth it if you are on of theose high frequency traders who get's free deals if you can push the price down by 0.025p to buy a million but they'll need to be from different accounts/IPs for it not to look like trying to manipulate the market. Bon chance. I'm still fairly confident of a few pence by or before spring so I'm not gogin to flog any of mine on the lead of this genius ;¬)

Glad the model is coming in use :) It's just a model mind you so it's good you're just quoting round numbers as it's not particularly accurate as we just don't have figures to get it close to confidence. It gives a good measure of which assets are delivering benefit and what we should invest further in and what's not worth another penny in workovers.

Poo going higher is great but we need more bpd to actually realise it in income and then in the sp. Lets get Stanley 2 going and do the surface works and if WTI is over $75 by next May we could be turning toward a company with more than $1m pa in sustainable production profit which should be enough to pay the bod and reinvest for more growth. Not enough to do Oz. Might not be enough to to Welch horizontal next year but it could be enough to convice a bank to help them get on with developing those assets.

I inferred the Strawn value from the RNS releases for Strawn when they gave previous production numbers and profitability statements. Of course we weren't presented with the full picture so it's an estimate. I'm not claiming a high degree of accuracy, it's just a model and has been massaged a bit based out drops in output. Other assets in Texas and Oklahoma are nearby and likely to have similar general costs but I put in a lower lifiing value for those other assets as they have fewer wells and higher outputs so have less total infrastructure per barrel. That's a bit of a damp finger in the air. It might be closer to $27 or $28. It might be way off base. I'm not bothered myself if the numbers are not accurate so long as the priniciple is more or less correct as it shows me if the strategy is right one where to invest.

If you work out what all the calculations are you can tweak the lifting costs, bpd, MSMN % numbers. Poo, etc to do some "what if" scenarios. Such as what if MSMN took an extra 6% of Arkoma at 67bpd and what if that number was up to 120 bpd. What if a horizontal well at Welch raised production there to 150bpd and see what numbers come out at the end.

From this model is it my opinion tha Strawn is a not worth much and has no development potential so no real upside. Arkoma isn't looking much better at the moment but it still has potential. Welch is a keeper to squeeze for all it's worth and that could be >$2m/year with 2-3 successful horizontal wells and the Baja tie-in looks very promising indeed and may become more important than Welch.

Sweatysock, I have refined my calculation a little bit since. $75 is the sort of number where MSMN could become fully profitable not just field profitable but it does depend on the first Welch horizontal well delivering an 80bpd uplift in production. I did the initial calcs when WTI was at $62 and used known information from a Strawn RNS to work out the lifting costs at Strawn and extrapolated that with some not inconsiderable guesswork to the other assests. At the $62 level, with the production levels and ownership percentages MSMN had then, I got a production profit of $438k pa which was not going to keep the company in business without further fund raising anod not going to interest a bank either. If the production was lifted at Arkoma by ESPs to 100bpd then there is an extra $100k to MSMN. At $75/bbl then it grows another $100k also an extra $20k from Stawn for the price increase. Still not floating my boat. It's Welch that makes it intresting due to the 100% ownership. That one with a rise from $62 to $75 sees operating profit rise by $145k pa bringing the total for all assets to around $800k. An increase there of 80bpd from a horizontal well at $75 WTI gives an uplift of $950k pa to $1.74m pa. This should fund the company and enable the other horizontal wells to be developed there. Get them to give another 100bpd and the production profits go to over $2.5m pa and there may not be a need for a JV in Aus. I've been conservative in the Horizontal wells as the estimates are 60-120bpd per well so numbers could be much higher. Breakdowns and bad weather limiting production could swing it the other way but it's looking much better with a higher oil price. I hope that expands on the reasons why enough.

Well there's the asset for one thing. Strickes me MSMN are doing about the minimum required to maintain the permit as it's potential is huge. If they can keep that ticking over for 2 years they may miss the boat but if they can do the horizontal wells at Welch and lift 200+bopd from that facility which is the conservative end of the PFS then they can also bring some funding to the party. I don't want to see them using a debt facility for exploration, that way lies likely administration. Debt facility to improve existing proven assests to service it, then explore from the uplift production profit. Takes more time but it should avoid significant dilution at 500M to 700M shares in issue v 5+Billion @0.01p each just to cover the servicing of the debt. That's a gamble that nobody here is going to sit out. Not sure why anyoen is talking about a 3D survey now it's 5,458sq km. 3D over that sort of area would be stupidly expensive unless there are conventional gas pockets everywhere. Need the aerial to narrow down the area first for more detailed exploration of the most promising bits. Slow and steady may not win this race but at least it gives a good chance of completing the distance.

This is funny. It's a time extention but not. MSMN have "executed an amended second option" That means they have said they are taking the extra 6.3% but don't need to pay until July. Like the having it on a credit card. Inland will still be involved. 3 companies will have equal shares so who is the operator going to be? Inland for now. It was going to be Mosman now it could be a joint thing but the day 2 day stuff needs to be done by one company. All in all, I think I am happy with this. No outlay til end of July so no fund raise unless we get a spike from something that could limit dilutuion and it give the Welch report time to come out and that may allow a debt facility, at least for Welch. Also means report for GEM can be delivered and allow the share to be traded again so maybe MSMN can bail from there (at an 80% or so loss) but that could fund the Arkoma option. So my dilution fear is abated for the time being.

Trying get my head around the disclosure rules. Acquisitions have a sort of exempted status from an RNS while negotiations are ongoing so I suspect no agreement has been reached just yet. MSMN may have given notice of the intention to proceed but the new terms not agreed so they can't publish anything just yet. If nothing agreed by close of business an RNS of something to that effect will have to be published and that like means an extention for negotiations to complete not as a general extention of the option unless that is what is being negotiated. I might be reading too much into it and it might just be time zone related. Aus time is not relevant here. It's Oklahoma time that matters. Daylight saving time in the US started on 11th March so they are in CDT now which is BST - 6 hours. Depending on when close of business hours are it could therefore theoratically drop any time up to 11pm UK time as that is 5pm there. Is MSMN quoted anywhere else than LSE? If not then once the market is closed today they could do a 7am tomorrow as there is no impact on the price until trading resumes no mattter how sensitive the content.

...or an extention tomorrow pending the results of the new electric submersive pumps. There's no way there are in yet as the RNS 10 days ago said they were about to start as the funds had just been transfered. Flow rates need to settle to be assessed. Could be a 3 month extention. Alternatively If it's not and Inland haven't spent the money for the pumps they got from MSMN and Blackstone and they cease to be the operator as they hand over the reamining 58% then the money for the pumps has to be taken off the price of the option so that will make it part paid for already. Which do we prefer? I'm on the fence. I 'd quite like an extention but a discounted extra 27% would be welcome too so long as we put the brakes on the pumps while the Welch feasibility study is completed as then they may be able to have something to go to the banks with and not need to do a fund raise from a placing. If they play it well then we could be in for a good ride sooner rather than later but wrong and we'll see a little sell off tomorrow. It's been mostly well played recently so I am hoping for the latter with the discounted 55% and wait for Welch study.

Thanks. My Eyes going funny. They are not in the habit of publishing those.

Not sure there is one coming. All I can see for definite is Moyes & Co doing some international marketing to try to find a JV partner. We might here that some people might be interested but in the world of NDAs and due diligence it's going to be months before anything solid is annouced. Find someone too big and they like the numbers they might try to buy MSMN or Amadeus rather than partner with someone with no current funding stream. It could end up progressing at their pace and they could just sit out the decline of MSMN until they can snap it up cheap. Someone too small and they will need multiple partners and might as well hang on rather than over dilute. Not sure what the ideal partner looks like but it's someone that wants to get the gas out of the ground and into the pipe in the next 12 to 15 months. Like I said earlier, I'm not factoring that play in to may projections so anything that comes out positive there is a pleasant surprise and will hopefully lift the SP. Other news next week apart from the Arkoma option is the 6 months financials to 31st December 2017 which must be out within 6 months (i.e. next week) under the rules that someone managed to dig up a little earlier. That could help us glean the cash position if we have time to mull it over during Easter before markets open on Tuesday 3/4. Hopefully it's not horribly disguised. There has been one issue of equity for �500k less "expenses" and about $450k spent on Arkoma option and pumps plus some fee payments to Moyes & co and some travel expenses and at least �100k on directors salaries. I imagine there's going to be some currency conversions in there to up the error margins. Looking forward to having a stab at working it out.

CBS, I have no idea of costs of exploration in Aus. I suspect they are higher than normal due to remoteness and accessibility. If I had to guess I would say MSMN cannot afford to explore solo for another 2 years unless something exceptional happens. This is except for doing the minimum to maintain permits. Pipeline will be up and running then and they'll miss out. I think the JV option is the only way to go. Native title seems to be an issue with some of it too which can drag on for years if they can't come to a private agreement and MSMN will probably lose out. That may put of any JV partner. So my take is although the reserves look good and the pipeline is nearly there, it's far from rosy at this point and I'm not going to put it into any short term calculations. Once the pipeline is there and title is not a problem for all areas then maybe someone in the area will buy MSMN's stake or make a bid for the whole company, but so many potential twists and turns and possibillties cause many permutations that it could be a boom time next year with the right news and partner. They will probably have to hit commercial gas in at least one the first three or four drills though or the asset start to look quite unattractive.

Not going to post the interview link, I'm sure you can find it in a lot of posts below this one. I thought I'd listen to it again in case I missed something the first time as there is an inference to some people that MSMN have cash to fund acquisitions. I didn't miss anything the first time what is stated "have funding available for the other activities that we have on the radar" The other phrase used for the capital was "to progress Arkoma" So what is progress Arkoma and what are those other activities? All I have to go on are previous news releases and interviews. "Progress Arkoma" 1 Install electric submersible pumps funded? Yes. It's been paid already 2 Next Arkoma option funded? Maybe but I'd go no higher than 50% on that one without clarification 3 Anything else at Arkoma funded? Probably not. Other Activities Welch 1 Feasibility study funded? Should be covered already 2 Horizontal well or wells funded? Highly unlikely that even one is covered. Three wells definitely not. Other acquisitions 3 Evaluation funded? Yes, at least for now. 4 Purchase funded? Doubtful, unless one is as cheap as Strawn in which case they will probably be as "profitable" as Strawn. From the RNS history MSMN's share of Strawn ($90k) and workovers (half of less than the $150 put aside) totals about $150k-$160k. Based on my calculations that I shared a week or so ago about lifting costs from the earlier data I think it has a best case 5 year payback at 13bopd with no additional work overs or costly repairs so more likely it's a 10+ year return. We don't need to see another one of those. Another Welch in the other hand could be more attractive but it cost $310k. That money almost certainly does not exist but I estimate at 40bopd Welch has an annual operating profit of around $350k with WTI at $65 which it reached today. Other overheads exist so it's not real profit and there's some repair work and facilities upgrades on top of the purchase but payback is maybe 2 to 3 years notwithstanding many other issues with production. That's without a horizontal well. Pop one of those in for $600k and get an extra 80bopd and it could clear close to $1m a year and hey presto we are funded when you look at the other assets. The biggest question is can MSMN get a loan or are we looking at a placing? Who knows. I suspect some placings will happen in the coming year but I see the end in sight to those once we have operational profit which might be Q2 of 2019. At what price will the next placing be at though is anyone's guess. We need something to lift the price or the next placing is 100m shares at not far from 0.5p which still won't cover all of the above. There are a lot of terms I can paraphrase to sum up what MSMN should do next. E.g. Now they are finding their feet they should learn to walk steadily before trying to run. Not have an appetite that puts more food on the plate than they are able to reach, etc.

Sanchez57. mcap = about 248m shares * 1.85p i.e. about £4.6m

Only if it takes them over 30%. If they exercise a few and sell them withough going over 30% then they have no obligation. Unless we strike big reserves which might make the company expensive anyway then why would they be want to force themselves into a bid? I write that question because if the bid succeeded they would own ECR and then the continuity of ownership test on MGA will fail and the right to reclaim any of the tax losses automatically lapses.

I think everyone wold agree that you are down. Just not because of consolidation. Dilution is the killer. Alas AIM companies are often run that way and you learn, sometimes the hard way, that AIM is not the place for long term investments but short term speculation with money you can afford to lose. If you can't afford to lose it, then it might be better to stick in a tracker fund or a across a bunch of blue chips with a long term future. Even there you may see the portfolio value decrease but the likelihood of losing a large percentage of your holding forever on the likes of BP, BT, LGEN, HSBC, etc over the longer term is quite remote but windfalls or multiples are rare too. I have seen a few multibaggers in the FTSE but they are rare. eg Glencore recently from 75p to 330p in <1 year. Barclays during the financial crisis recovered from 60p to 360p in a couple of months but only the very brave put more than speculative money in there when other banks were being bailed out as BARC might have been next. I try to buy the big ones when they have been through a downturn but I missed all the major opportunities as I wasn't researched in those sectors at the time to have confidence before it was too late. Good luck with your portfolio.

kelladee, this is my last chance of explaining this. The reason the value of your investment went down on this share would have been due to dilution. This is when a company issues new share to make raise money or to pay debt as part of an equity financing scheme. If you own 1.4million share in a company when they have 10billion shares in existance and then over time the company issues more shares time after time until there are 30billion share in issue but the company still has the same value. The company value is called its market capitalisation (mcap) which is simply total number of shares in issue * the share price. Therefore if there are 3 times as many shares then the price per sharefall to 1/3 what it. Because those shares were not issue to you but sold to new investors or paid to a finance company then £30k investment becomes a £10k holding. That is how you lost money. Please stop confusing this with the consolidation and look back at the new to see all the ones that have issue of equity in the title since you purchased your shares. Inside the new item there will be an expected number of shares in issue, such as this one from 12/11/2015: "Following both First Admission and Second Admission, it is expected that the Company will have a total of 6,689,367,772" and this one from 10 months later on 14/9/2016: "ECR’s issued ordinary share capital will comprise 25,845,287,953 Ordinary Shares" There was a 4 fold increase in the number of shares in less than a year so anyone who held before the first one, me included, has lost a lot more than you in percentage terms because in that time the mcap did not really change. A company is supposed to be run in the interests of its shareholders so this was a bad way to run a company. Basically we all invested in a turkey not a golden goose. I hope that explains why your investment is down. Consolidation is not the reason that may actually have been the start of a turn around. Now lots of us have written off our investments here and are letting them run in case some miracle happens and it rises to 10p but I doubt many of us are expecting to get our initial investments back, just hoping to lose less than selling up now. At only 60% down you might have a chance. Not me, I am a little over 95% down but I am 50% up since consolidation so I was about 97% down.

Not sure why you keep on going on about the consolidation and your claims of losses. Holders lost nothing in the consoldation. 200x fewer shares 200x bigger shareprice. That's what I got so it's what you and everyone else got. SP has increased substantially since then. SP was about 0.0065p which equates to 1.3p. we are about 50% up on that. What we lost under the old board was through endless dilution to cover costs. You got that with this BoD too to pay of SC and the outstanding amounts. Then the consolidation. So far it's been a good thing. So long as we don't start the cycle of endless dilution to fund operations and fruitless ventures then we may not sink to much from here but there needs to be some positive news flows on activities in SLM and/or A&B for it to really go up. Fingers crossed. I hope you put less in here than me. My average at today's prices is about 40p. I'm never going to see that come back but almost any small multiple of the current SP will make me feel less bad.