Member Info for DavidFDO

According to the latest RNS, published at 1.00pm today, “It is anticipated that the aggregate 9,000,000 Ordinary Shares will be issued and allotted after the Court Sanction of the scheme of arrangement…”. I do not understand why these shares are not being issued and allotted immediately. The Exercise period for these options ends on 23 Dec 19 (Page 55 of the 31 Dec 18 Annual Accounts). The Exercise period does not end on 14 Jan 20 (the date of the Court Hearing to sanction the scheme). Would you have expected such a delay in the normal course of events? Surely any delay in the issue and allotment of these shares would be a financial benefit to the directors concerned, enabling them to delay the payment of £1,233,000 for these shares? What is the legal position?

There can be no doubt that GC did not cover himself in glory at the AGM, but I believe seeking his removal would be ill advised. Far better that he is encouraged, on reflection, to action many of the comments and suggestions made by PI's at the AGM. I believe we will all benefit as a result. Whilst the Sunday Times 5 May article alleged that Michinoko was set to vote against re-electing GC at the AGM, I simply do not believe it. The correlations between the shareholdings of Michinoko and the interests of GC are just too great. A few years ago I tried to work out why a company allegedly with an address in French Guiana and two shareholders based in the Cayman Islands should seek to take a shareholding in the Richoux Group - a UK restaurant group established in 1909. All became clear when I ascertained one of its flagship restaurants (now closed because the lease ran out) was just around the corner from Lords Cricket Ground.

At the AGM JW confirmed that Michinoko had not sold a single share, nor did he expect them to. That suggested JW felt he was pretty knowledgeable about Michinoko, who controls it and what their intentions are. Were GC to stand down from the Board, would their intentions change? If so that could dwarf our Rex Harbour experience.

Disappointed that other PI's at the AGM have not posted anything. Juxtapose's summary is spot on. The usual JW masterclass in providing us with all the information, detail, explanations and strategy missing from the RNS's, was constantly interrupted by well meaning, but counter-productive, PI's, who for the most part would have done better to shut up, listen and ask any questions afterwards. Giles eventually managed to restore some order, but too little too late. Compared with previous AGM's, there was far more criticism of the rest of the Board and its inability to keep shareholders adequately informed. Some tasteless, overly personal, criticism, particularly of GC. To be fair GC did not help his own cause, ignoring/making it clear he was going to completely disregard, genuine concerns of some PI's. Shocking comment by GC that ONGC were becoming more cooperative because he was providing one of their senior management with Indian/Pakistan ticket(s). Several seconds after making the comment, he then added "It's true". Whether true or not, gobsmacked it was alleged at an AGM, For me the one who got let off the hook lightly was Nick Harrison. With respect to the resolutions, he was asked by Giles what proportion of the share capital one resolution referred to. He didn't know and failed to reply. He spent a large part of JW's presentation working on his laptop and whispering with GC (more than a little distracting as they were sitting on the top table) and then scuttled out as soon as it over before anyone could ask him any questions. One PI had drawn our attention to Note 4 in the accounts. If you haven't read it I suggest you do, No wonder NH made such a rapid exit!

My conclusion was that JW had answered all my operational concerns. The company's PR, failure to disclose in a timely manner, failure to keep PI's adequately informed etc. continues to a major problem that I believe undermines trust in the Board and therefore has a significant impact on the share price.

Hope that gives a flavour.

Colonel, whilst I believe you have made some excellent posts in recent weeks, I think you will find that an expectation of "3,500 bopd via pipeline (if that)" is a touch on the rosy side. I think the "if that" proviso will definitely be needed! I know you believe the Ecuadorian website I found last year was fake, but strangely the figures published on it corresponded virtually exactly with the Q4/18 RNS issued by the Company on 22 Jan 19. That showed 236,833 BO/average 2,574 BOD OBA throughput, whereas my calculations, based on "that website", were 237,147BO/average 2,599 BOD. On the same basis, I believe that "that website" is currently indicating a Q1/19 throughput of 174,170BO/average 1,908BOD (assuming the remainder of March is consistent with current throughput levels). If correct, that would be 26% lower than Q4 throughput and 45% less than the figure you are expecting. Fortunately, (and I know you agree), I think any bad news emanating from Platanillo is likely to be dwarfed by the impact of the RNS that we are all currently waiting for. Just my own view and belief. DYOR.

Threeputt The link you are looking for is http://www.controlhidrocarburos.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/producci%C3%B3n-fiscalizada-petro/.
BigBiteNow 11.15am Excellent post I totally agree.

My final contributions on this particular subject:

Parkeg, I for one believe it does represent accurate data. I do not believe it can ignored by any right minded person. All will be revealed in the fullness of time. Having received the assurance that there is no significant problem at Platanillo, I believe the most likely explanation (IMHO but I accept a pure guess) is that they were scaling back the amount of production they were sending through the OBA as, once the Chiritza pumping station was commissioned, they could start clawing back their investment through the transport charge credits that we have already been informed about.

Threeputt, thank you for complimenting my literary skills, but it was and is not a fake. At the time I did my search the share price was tanking, there were no directors’ buys and it looked like there was a significant drop off in OBA throughput. The Directors are now buying megabucks of shares because they know there is no significant problem at Platanillo and the Occidental deal is transformational.

As Bakoven said, I might as well as shut up now. I will have enabled at least some other LTH’s here to be able to get an idea of OBA throughout without having to wait for the quarterly figures. Good luck to all, even the Colonel. Bye for now.

Empty cans make the most noise

Thanks Moneylender. That puts my mind at rest. He does not deny the figures, but it suggests there is a valid explanation. Today's RNS says absolutely nothing about Platanillo, but his response clarifies. We couldn't reasonably expect much more than his statement that there is not a major problem there. It will be interesting to watch whether that website continues to provide daily insights.

50cc spot on with (g) although it was not a whole bottle of red!!!

50cc I understand your cynicism but I am genuine. As a LTH I have made the trek to the AGM in St Mellons for the past two years. It was I who challenged John Wardle and Nick Harrison as to how they had the gall to accept the share options as a reward for driving the share price to 8 year lows. It was I who got so fed up with the share price being driven even lower that I decided to do my own research. Believe it or not. Take your pick. I don't care. I'm not Rex Harbour. I just want answers.

50cc I got there from a Google search, ignoring UK sites and using Google translate to look at South American sites. I tried to replicate the search but couldn't, so had to go back through my history to find it again. I too couldn't work out how to get there from the top level site, so I posted the link exactly as it appeared in my browser. The motive for the search was to try and find an answer as to why my investment is being shredded (I have been a LTH since 2010). The motive for posting was to share the info with my fellow sufferers and to hopefully get an explanation from the Company without having to wait until 2019. Hope that clarifies.

Hopefully all will be clarified tomorrow. In the meantime please note that, since making my original post, I have now noticed the note at the bottom of each page:

- El Crudo Colombiano Recibido para transporte por el SOTE/OCP no se incluye como parte del Total Nacional de la Producción Fiscalizada

According to Google Translate this means

"The Colombian Crude Received for transport by the SOTE / OCP is not included as part of the National Total of Fiscalized Production."

Whilst I think it was clear that all of Platanillo production was included in the Ecuadorian website numbers in August, maybe the commissioning of the Chiritza pumping station has resulted in an increasing proportion of the Platanillo throughput now being excluded from the numbers?

Be that as it may, we should not be having to guess. I believe the company needs to clarify urgently.

If there’s something you cannot understand, most likely there’s some information you're missing. For some time now the Amerisur share price hasn’t made sense. It made even less sense today. I therefore decided to see if I could find out what’s missing. I think I’ve found part of the answer, but we need an explanation.

Most of the Amerisur daily OBA figures are publicly available on:

http://www.controlhidrocarburos.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/producci%C3%B3n-fiscalizada-petro/2018/

Admittedly several days are missing, but I filled the gaps with numbers correlating to those either side. According to the RNS issued on 7 Sep 18, "OBA export volume was 125,780 BO, with average daily throughput of 4,057 BO and peak daily throughput of 5,562 BO during August". Based on the numbers published on the Ecuadorian website, I calculated it to be 126,233 BO (Var % 0.36%) with an average daily throughput of 4,072 BO (Var % 0.37%) and a max daily throughput of 5,519 (Var % 0.08%) i.e. the figures tie up almost exactly! On the same basis, I calculate the figures for Sep 18 to be 115,387 BO with an average daily throughput of 3,846 (down 5.5% on August) and figures for Oct 18 to be 88,440 with an average daily throughput of 2,853 (down 29.7% on August). For Nov 18 to date it seems the production has been around 2,568 BO, with 2,516 on 15 Nov 18 and 2,523 on 18 Nov 18 (down 38.0% on August).

No wonder they wanted to move from monthly production numbers to quarterly numbers! What is going on at Platanillo? Why are we not being told? Are shares being sold by those with information we do not have? I believe the Company needs to clarify the position by RNS without delay.

As can be seen from this Board, the failure to provide the normal monthly production update in a timely fashion is leading to much unnecessary market speculation. Is it because they are reticent at releasing spectacularly bad news? Are they holding on to spectacularly good news? Either way they would be in breach of market rules by deliberately withholding price sensitive information from the market. If they had decided not to issue further monthly updates, that decision itself would require an RNS. The delay can only be for an insignificant reason. Have they simply forgotten? Has John Wardle got the flu? Any other suggestions?

I'm not so concerned about the price and supply of vanadium as others seem to be. If you take a look at the RNS issued today by Ironveld (IRON)

http://www.ironveld.com/docs/Ironveld%20supplies%20potential%20off-take%20partner%2026.09.18.pdf

That states that they have just started mining their "Vanadiferous Titaniferous Magnetite project" "a resource that contains 27 million tons of HPI and 1.4 billion pounds of Vanadium in situ, the latter representing over four times the global annual demand."

Whilst I accept that there may be a short term shortage, I would expect Ironveld and others to seek to rapidly fulfil the increased demand.