Member Info for Contrary

This time last year the TTF price was around 30 and the original Tulip deal was done prior to that - so at 30 it was a commercially compelling proposition. Any price increase would be marginally all profit - the only downside on the purchase was the unsuccessful field development.
Since Jan we would also have had the contribution from the new acquisition, which should be completely self financing.
I hate the cause for the TTF hike but will be holding on to my shares, having increased it last week.
I still wait for a full, in depth, disclosure that gives a complete picture once the deal had been concluded.
TTF now 130!

I think I am right in that until the end of March a large portion of production had been hedged - so would not have been generating any super profit on that amount.

I tried to get a code from my broker to be able to log in but they were less than helpful - so relying on others or an RNS - annoying.

I find these updates only slightly useful - interesting to see what the cash is at a certain date but, without knowing what has been spent over the period or what debtors and creditors are at that point, actually of no real value other than an indication.

Nothing will have been included for the 5 months for the 20% interest acquisition, other than accumulated in house costs of working on the deal - assuming they are not contingent.

Therefore, I see these figures showing (hopefully) that from a start the company has generated sufficient cash to be able to repay all the bonds, some already being redeemed.

However, AA comments seem to me to indicate that he is looking at retaining these for future deals.

Excluding the 20% interest - the cash generation is fantastic (although on a diminishing asset) and the multiple of cash generation to market value is so out of kilter - but full and clear disclosure is required for the market to be in a true position to understand the company.

The 20% Total deal could well be paying (or large part) for itself, which would be extraordinary.

I am not clear on this tax - for what period will the tax apply - for Kistos, any "super profit" would be the current financial tax year, Feb onwards and as Haggis says production was over in Europe not in the UK.
On the 91p in the £1 - I would assume that the allowable investment is a deduction from the taxable amount rather than a set deduction to the tax payable.
I still hold my view - the basics in the company would appear to be great and cash generation great and the company iis gearing up to investment in the UK so should benefit from any investment relief.
Interesting to know if the Total agreement's £40m contingency payment has a tax equalising clause in it along with the price of gas clause.

I've been think that one over - I can only assume that, given the price of gas etc being so much higher than a year ago and an uncertainty as to what it will be for the near to medium term, it must be hard to justify a valuation for a producing asset. Their investment ethos does not seem to be taking a chance on a development project so I can see renewables and or a capital repayment - buy back and or special div.
Re windfall tax - I am not sure how that will work on a first year set of results - but there is that saying "oh to have a tax problem as a result of being successful!"
So - a deal in renewables, possibly, unlikely in gas, but it depends on how it could be structured - and AA seems good at that.
Pushing ahead with the Total deal - but I don't think Kistos is operator - so it would be dependent on the other partners.
Still looking forward to a positive news flow though and think that the share is underpriced.

Hi Agento
I believe it will apply to all shareholders but is in fact meaningless as all it is a mechanism to move the "merger reserve" to share premium. The new shares are issued for a day before being cancelled again.
However, what it is doing is increasing the distributable reserves of the company - £23m retained profit as at 31/12 plus £50m from share premium - plus any profits in the period Jan until now, which I believe will be very sizeable.
Share buy back and or (big?) div.
To me, it looks as though AA feels the shares are under valued?

I really thought that Malky's interview was poor - and I think that some/most of that negative is because Malky's delivery has become meandering and rambling - allowing the interviewee to not respond to pointed and delving questions.

I do feel that this share has fallen out of favour at present which is surprising given that most things are really positive - gas prices have risen substantially, the hedging has finished (replaced?) and an acquisition achieved (Total) prior to the jump in gas price - if this was beneficial prior to the price rise then it should be brilliant now.

The share price was at or above the current level before any of these positives came along!

Against the good news was the abandoned drill (and write off) and the management share incentive, which I think was mishandled - I do separate shareholder from employee and understand his inclusion in this incentive but disagree with his quantum given his original significant holding.

My current problem is the lack of clarity on the cash position - or possibly the cashflow expectation over the coming 9 months. However, I am expecting/hoping for a further deal at some point during this year - fingers crossed, but it is what AA is brilliant at.

My expectation on earnings and free cashflow against current market cap make this share extremely cheap - held back through lack of clarity.

It would be great to get further II interest in this company.

Current market Cap is around £400m and EBITDA for last year say £75m, whilst working over and reduced production and some sales hedged. Expectation for prices, certainly in the near term, is much greater and production now higher (doubled?). From my simple view the acquisition will be paid for out of reserves and cashflow from the current year so no immediate need for a raise/dilution unless there is an additional deal.
I believe things are looking incredibly positive!

I was under the impression that AA was against development - re-working yes, but not taking on the risk that a field will deliver its potential discovered/proven reserves with the problems of bringing a field on line. Otherwise I would put forward Barryroe in Ireland as a possible - Provdence and Landsdown would (or is that a "should") be only too happy to have a partner who can deliver - or take over one (or both) of them and also have their multitude of tax losses. Certainly going for undeveloped gas fields will be cheaper at the moment that those producing!

I believe the incentive scheme was not executed well at all (from a shareholders' viewpoint) but actual gas sales/cash generation is still very ambiguous and there have not been any steer as to what the year end balance will be. It could be that all loans have been repaid and the acquisition has been paid for out of internal resources - no real idea. Also did they sell some gas in the futures market when it was above $150 or even higher? I do feel AA let the side down with the incentive scheme and how much of it he took for himself - otherwise really rate the guy!

I accept the AIM deadline is 6 months from the period end, but Companies House rules also still apply to the company and that is April as it is set from the time when the company was first registered - they could ignore this rule though and take the fine, which in the scheme of things does not amount to much at all , but not good on the compliance side of things and I would have thought that they would wish to be seen to be fully compliant. Nothing bad would happen if they ignored the Companies House rules - which is sad really, but a fact of life.

Just checked on Companies House - Kistos extended their first year to 31.12.21 which means that they should be filing - and therefore also publishing, their first accounts by April 14th! Be interesting to see if they can hit that target. We should then really see how much cash was generated last year and how the acquisition will be funded.

I am not sure that comes out at 5p - more like 4.1p - not sure when they were issued?

Disagree as SpeadEx would have a position in the market to equal their exposure in the "Bet" - especially in AIM shares and once the position is altered by their client then they would reflect it with a similar trade. I question whether this is truely a "bet" and exempt for CGT as their is no risk taken by SpeadEx et al.

I think you are overstating their availability by a factor of 12? ARR was 4-5m the 4x applies to monthly net of churn and I would assume net of one off revenue as it is recurring revenue based. I would expect the facility to be in the £1m range. Still great and will grow with continued sales. No mention of the cost though.

I have glanced through the various documents and RNSs but can not see when the excess application money will be returned from Primary Bid - can anyone tell me when it can be expected?

From a quick review of the issue times of previous RNS' they appear to, in the main, be 7 am UK time - that includes some of the major announcements. Surprising really.

I wonder what price the Broker Warrants will be priced at - surely not 2p?!