The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Mole - agree with all of that.
I think it is not a case of "not caring" about the current SP. More about frustration plus anger at some of the more extreme antagonists (the malicious brigade). But as you say he will - in my opinion - be also saying that to himself that they are progressing the agenda and that he will follow his timeline and not that of onlookers. The challenge for us of course then becomes some sort of act of faith when news is thin
So the question is quite simply either you run with that or run for the hills, as a few have. But I go back to my 13 billion shares in free circulation. The vast majority of those shares have clearly stayed put, but the market of course reacts to relatively modest volumes and to short bursts of sentiment.
Totally agree Freeatlast. And that coincides with conversations quite a few of us have had with Zaza.
Dirk - it wasn't the Nomad - it was YJ who are FRR's Comms/PR team. They organise these events, and usually the Nomad attends - at least in part.
We will have to see whether Tim Thompson was right - but I am sure he would not say anything without a clear steer. And given that we are fairly close to the timeline for an AGM I wouldn't be too surprised if it turned out to be just that - an AGM. One advantage with that is that only genuine shareholders can get in, and of course resolutions are normally proposed and voted upon. And need to be passed.
Whatever - I would be very surprised to hear that Zaza would start to plan for this without a high degree of confidence regarding progress. Otherwise a big tin hat plus some very big whatsits would be required.
I remain of the view that we are in the process of seeing a major re-financing of some sort in order to take the Field Development plan forward, based on results that we have yet to see.
Zeps - for what it is worth I had a long conversation with the Nomad just after the U2 RNS (it is the Nomad who has prime responsibility on advising on reporting accuracy)
He was quite happy to talk it through - and I did post on this conversation. Basically that they had run into issues with the cement wall but went back in quite a number of times trying different approaches in different places. Each of course had to be pre-planned. Eventually they had to call it a day - the gas in the main diffusing into the wrong side of the wall. The first podcasts took place two days after my conversation - with pretty much the same explanation
Am sure the decision was not made the day before the announcement - and no doubt there will have been a good degree of pragmatism involved. However what do people think if it was reported without the T39 news ? It would have been just as bad - probably worse - and a far steeper fall. But this stuff happens in exploration and development all the time
Me? I remain in very positive territory but accept that everyone will have a different take until real clarity emerges. I have also been pretty consistent that EWTs need to be sufficiently long enough and detailed enough to allow third parties to make calculated assessments on long term prospects - particularly if they might be about to invest money into the next development phase.
Just my thoughts
I see Symore Mark 2 was posting again this morning. Despite his positive noises beware of this wolf in sheep's clothing.
See the response below from Symore Mark 1 - 100% the real thing - and an ii member since 1999
Hi Devex - that is not me on LSE BB. Makes you wonder how low these shorters will go. First they will post positive few posts and when the time is right, they will start spouting all negative tat. Anyway, I am only posting here and if do decide to migrate to LSE, I will post here first, otherwise, best to ignore all symore named posts.
On FRR, holding tight - not sold a bean, and will be adding more.
Just a few observations on posts today.
- There are well over 13 billion shares in free issue. There will be many holders with substantial holdings – and I agree that in low volume the large sells will largely be PIs panicking, de-risking or simply needing the dosh. I am sure this has nothing to do with YA – and 100% certain it is not directors selling off.
- Someone said ZM’s average is 0.34P. It is way higher than that – closer to 1.00P. He had 71 million shares before becoming a director and these will track back over the years to when the SP was much higher and shares in circulation vastly lower. Plus his RPNs cost around $8 million. I reckon the whole lot will have cost at least $10 million - perhaps more. And of course he added as recently as May this year
- Re the Outrider debt this was purchased for a fraction of the book value. As long as Outrider see the investment being repaid in reasonable time and by a viable entity I suggest they will be very happy with their 10% per annum, and would agree to re draft terms in August 2020. If you were to take a stab at the real return on what they paid (to the distressed hedge fund a few years back) the yield will be many times higher than this. A good bit of business for them, and of course Mr Hope will be well informed on progress.
- Agree with Mole and others that the real deal here is Field Development funding. Am still firmly of the view that the EFTs are part of this – and perhaps even linked to an updated CPR. Am happy (more or less) to sit this out.
- I certainly do not believe anyone is selling based on “inside” information. The FRR ship has been leak proof in the past – and remains thus in my view.
- I am very sure that the Nomad is in very regular contact. He knows the concerns of shareholders perfectly well.
- Clearly news is imminent and many times over IMO – could be any day.
JMO
Just a recurring thought.
So we know ZM is seeking funding for the next stage of the Field Development programme (I think Niko is a one off). And we know he is looking at reserve based lending as a favoured route. We would all sing his praises if he pulls that one off.
So put yourself in the position of a lender - what security would you want? Try this short list:
- confirmation SOAG/GOGC are fully supportive
- evidence of extended well tests. Ie - that sufficient time has elapsed to understand the most likely stable long term flow rates. Accompanied by historic evidence of likely flow rates in the future
- either a revised CPR, or the evidence that a revised CPR is a formality
- evidence that suggests a customer for the oil output exists, and that a resultant revenue stream will cover the repayment terms agreed
Just a view - but I think a very likely one
oathe
t
McAdder - I share your thoughts and in particular the probability regarding well testing (for all three). I have posted the link below before - worth a read for anyone serious about this type of share. EWT goes far beyond just flow testing
Note especially the paragraphs about the extent of testing that needs to take place in order to confirm reservoir dynamics and the data required for reserve confirmation (3rd page in - top left hand paragraphs are particularly relevant). Afraid cut and paste won't work on this document.
https://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors07/spr07/p44_59.pdf
A lot of this fits in with the context of recent podcasts in my view
This will lighten a few hearts. The post below is from TOT, and mainly relates to shorters attacking VRS. For info the CEO and Company were accused of all sorts of scandalous actions by a group of shorters. The LTHs largely stayed put - and some gathered together to seek out the accusers. (By the way the VRS SP at the end of last October was 15P, It closed at 146P today)
From TOT
Couldn’t agree more SB. I don’t think the company would be wasting time on the Ukraine if it was a busted flush. Thus it seems ever more likely to me that the radio silence will be broken with a very loud bang which will blow the shorters out of the water. That could mean that it might drag out well into September but I am happy to wait for that schadenfreude moment.
Talking of shorters I see that our old nemesis Jaknife was recently outed on the Advfn board for VRS. His directorship of this company is a bit of a giveaway:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04305823/officers
but you will see numerous other companies registered against his name at Companies House and surprise, surprise if you do a bit of googling he also writes for Shareprophets. No co-incidence that other bloggers from those dung filled stables like Wshak, and Winnifrith are always putting companies like FRR down. This is market manipulation on a grand scale, assisted by the likes of loglorry (aka Tim Kempster on Advfn). Not sure if he’s directly associated with them but the combined firepower of these guys and concentrated negativity on the companies they target (possibly supported by multiple identities like satan’s slave) must enable them to manipulate the market in a big way.
I suspect Zaza knows that, hence the radio silence prior to the big bang, but I can’t help thinking that AIM needs a champion to prepare a dossier which the FCA would be unable to ignore.
Glad I got that off my chest. Off fishing now.
Reading Gaf's post history I think he should sell all his shares! He hasn't got a good word to say about any of them
As for EDL all LTHs have taken a lot of pain - but I suspect most have sensibly traded along the way. For me the thing is I only post on a few shares - and never on the "boring" ones. The shares I post on are where I see an eventual sizeable gain, and if I lose that belief then I simply stop posting and sell off.
The prize for me has long been the power project - everything else is about getting to that point. Today is simply another step along the way. A Power Plant of the size proposed probably needs around 100,000 tonnes per month at full capacity - so a MCap of £5 million offers great potential if you believe they can get there - even if only with the help of others.
Gaf - what a poor investor you are. Or of course you only hold short positions.
I invite everyone to read Gaf's post history. Either he/she is the worst stock picker in town - or he/she actually wants his shares to fail. Can't possibly be both.
Numpty - was just about to post that link!
So lets assume TZ coal tracks SA Coal - with in itself tracks a basket of others. $75 a fair assumption so around $200k a month once stable supply is hit. So over $2 million a year for a £5 million MCap. Should add they would be total idiots to announce pricing - which will in any event track the market price in some way. Most of all you would not want other potential customers to know details of this deal.
Very pleased with this - at long last a serious customer has the confidence to sign up. Well done Rufus.
Excellent research Mr Mole. The November 2017 date is very interesting - and as you say there will clearly have been work carried out before that date (perhaps most of it) - and there is no further listing as yet.
Then compare that to the Steve Russell Bill (Georgian Fair Trade) put forward to Congress on 12th December 2017:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4563/all-actions?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.4563%22%5D%7D&r=1&overview=closed#tabs
According to the US government listings no further action has been taken - ie the bill is a proposal but has yet to be progressed. So to me this all suggests that the "peak" behind scenes activity was late last year spilling into the early part of this year. And as others have pointed out licences have since been issued and work progressed
Then we had the so called leak in April closely followed by the response RNS on April 16th
So many possibilities here but yet again we see the Company putting significant sums into securing expert input and contacts (with the Atlantic Council now seemingly less obvious). The one thing that is crystal clear is that the directors are not the type to be easily rolled over - and will go to great lengths to secure their side of the table.
Some interesting posts which takes us back to the speculation as to what might be the area of disagreement between the parties.
There may of course be a very simple explanation. For example if I thought I was owed £400 million for work done, but you thought it was only £300 million we might well spend quite a long time arguing about it. The numbers are big enough.
There is a clue in the 2011 Admission Document – “……GOGC and Frontera Georgia must follow a detailed accounting procedure set out in the Block 12 PSA for recovery of its costs and expenses which is open to audit and approval by GOGC. Where outstanding recoverable costs and expenses for one year exceed the value of the Cost Recovery Crude Oil produced from Block 12, the excess can be carried forward for recovery in the next succeeding years until fully recovered……….Frontera has incurred a total of approximately US$302,530,000 of costs (including financing costs) in respect of its operations on Block 12, of which approximately US$271,003,000 has been approved by GOGC and approximately US$29,332,000 is anticipated by Frontera to be approved by GOGC for recovery…….”
So $302 million has increased to $420 million according to FRR, but has GOGC agreed that it is all allowable – especially as production remained so low? And do they agree on the treatment of the latest round of investment? And most of the expenditure is probably oil related – so back to the gas argument? Who knows – but at the end of the day this will surely be about money
No way of knowing of course, but I recall Zaza being asked about the $6 million tax rebate. He simply said if no agreement then add it to the recovery cost pool. Ie into a big pot.
Pyro et al - re the article this morning picked up by DG (bizarrely just after I had replied to Kipper) it is worth a track through the source site (iFacts). Basically a forum for either attributed - or in this case unattributed - journalists and activists who largely use the internet to do their research. They also invite readers to supply data.
The only new news here is the finding that GOGC is also lobbying via Hogan Lovell - which seems to have been initiated quite early in the year judging by listing of recent commissions. As far as I am aware no-one spotted this prior to today. All the rest of it is old news or information pieced together from the likes of the April RNS (they have clearly picked up a sentence or two here) and the report on sanctions (which also needs to be treated with caution given the looming Presidential elections). So I think Mole is right that we view this with some care.
Re the PSA I am equally sure there are still issues, but in the main we have to go back to the 2011 Admission document and its brief summary of the contract for clues. These contracts get amended by mutual agreement all the time at one level, – and whether changes are material (ie disclosable) or not will be a judgement call. Clearly this dispute is proving difficult to resolve but, despite the iFacts article this morning, the April RNS is the most recent attributable statement from either party on the subject.
The 2011 PSA summary generally refers to oil and petroleum - and is clearly written as if oil is the main theme. But petroleum products are also defined as oil and gas - and there are some references to gas - so you are right about this being potentially the area of dispute. My bet is that ether GOGC don't like accrued costs being offset against oil AND gas – given the potential of the gas opportunity - or being applied in the way they are stated (ie -all up front) given the scale of the offset. But anything further at this point is pure conjecture
JMO
Kipper - given that they have reported progress on "the" arbitration award every year since 2008 (because it was material), and have not mentioned other arbitration for many years, I think we can safely assume there is no other. There may be some element of threat - but until a request for arbitration is lodged then it is not material.
Separately the fact that they doggedly chased this for 10 years - and eventually won in full - speaks volumes about their determination. And about the quality of the Company Secretary (well done Lev).
Bigdaveboom. Yawn - read the accounts. He hasn't drawn a salary for the last 2 financial years
Email on FOF - I'll look out for it - but I don't really want to get into "private messaging"
Just for the benefit of others - the site is no longer monitored and FOF is dormant. FOF have no privileged information - indeed never have.
Well at the risk of upsetting someone there is no absolute obligation to notify the repayment of a debt. Indeed companies repay debt every day of the week whatever the listing exchange - and most payments go unreported.
Various AIM rules need to be used as a guide and I suggest the following applies in this instance:" Information that would be likely to lead to a significant movement in the price of its AIM securities includes but is not limited to information which is of a kind which a reasonable investor would be likely to use as part of the basis of his or her investment decisions."
So it is a judgement call - and of course they have already stated that they intend to pay YA monthly in cash until the debt is fully cleared. They may choose to update re future cash payments - they may not. For me - and I suspect most investors - the notification of non payment in cash is the one that is most likely to impact the SP, and the one that would cause most concern. However they may choose to report simply to allay any concerns
Tin hat on and trenches dug