Member Info for dgdg1

I will be honest with you that I sold my Chariot shares on Friday due to my questions referred to here (no I am NOT short). I would be happy to buy back if someone can convince me that I got this wrong. By the way I was looking at the Predator presentation, where they mention a price of $14/mcf. They also say on page 14 "Current potential market sizeup to 50 mm cfg/day". On page 16 they model the 34mmcf/d which they are hoping to supply at $14/mcf as producing a net profit of $66m after tax, which works out at $5.32/mcf ($66m/(34000*365)), and seems to mean there are high capital or operating costs. Assuming similar for Chariot even at $14 but a profit split then Chariot's profit margin would be $2.66/mcf. They seem to be assuming low capex but not sure how comparable this is to Chariot's costs. In any case I would point out though that it all means they will be in competition with Chariot to sell the gas to industrial usersm which may push the price down.

Jimmy, also do you have any comment re the issue I referred to in my original comment that the potential extra trillions of cubic feet could not be sold in the short term other than to Europe at a lower price which could potentially be unprofitable?

Jimmy, thank you for pointing that out, I had neglected the new JV announced on 2.5.23 with Vivo. I would note though that it isn't clear how much of the 45 mmcf will be sold to industrial customers and how much will therefore have to be sold to Europe. Cenkos said "Beyond, the 60MMscf/d allocated to the Moroccan domestic power sector, the 105MMscf/d Anchois nameplate capacity provides 45MMcf/d of spare ullage. We expect this excess ullage will be divided between supplying the Moroccan industrial sector (as per today’s announcement) and for export into the European market (via Spain)." - but they haven't specified how much goes where - what is the basis of your confidence that it will "mostly" be sold in the local market? Also, Auctus said "As illustrated by the prices achieved by SDX (~US$12/mcf), the domestic industrial market can be very lucrative." - so they are talking about $12, as opposed to the $14 that Predator aspire to and you refer to. Also, given that it is a JV doesn't that mean the profits will be split - I assume evenly though to be honest I didn't see the company actually say it was 50-50 but isn't that normal? In which case it would be equivalent to selling at maybe $8? Admittedly better than potentially selling at $4 in Europe (if prices normalise), but again it means the average selling price is not clear, especially as we don't actually know how much would be sold to industry as mentioned.

Please comment.

Snott, thanks, but can you please give some more details and numbers, i.e. is the $8 the price just for Moroccan gas sales or also the European sales price, where are these financial models, what value do they produce, and would you know how to calculate how exactly how they are affected by the present gas price and what value emerges based on present prices, and the same question if European gas prices return to a historically normal level?

Sorry that should have said 105 mmcf per day not per year, but I don't think that affects my main point.

I don't know if this has been raised on the board recently, but my concern is the ongoing reduction in the European gas price. It's now 30 euros/Mwh which is about $9.70 per mcf (1000 cubic feet). The company was planning to sell about 105MMCF (105 million cubic feet) per year of which about 60 could be sold to the Moroccan market at $7-12/mcf and the other 45MMCF to the European market, at what was previously much higher prices. Analysts were thus talking about an average selling price of $12/mcf (based on a European price of $18/mcf). But at today's European prices of $9.70 it looks more like the average would be more like $8.70/mcf. Finncap in May 2021 mentioned a break-even of about $3.50/mcf (which should probably now be assumed to be at least $4/mcf). But that means that the profit margin has reduced from $8/mcf (i.e. $12-$4) to $4.70 ($8.70-$4). On that basis the value is much less than what analysts were previously talking about. More significantly, by the time the gas gets sold the European price could easily go down much more especially as Russian gas could come back by then under some form of agreement, so it could easily go back to the price that it was historically which was about 10-15 euros/Mwh which is $3.20-$4.40/mcf. If the price became $4/mcf then the average price per mcf becomes more like $6/mcf, so the profits would only be $2/mcf instead of the $8/mcf used in the old forecasts, which means the price target of 55p should now only be a quarter of that, or 13p. It also effectively means that based on a break-even of $4/mcf there is no profit in selling outside Morocco, and this also calls into question the value of the huge prospective volumes that they found, as they would also presumably only be profitable if selling to Morocco (not Europe), but they can't sell all that volume to Morocco now as there is insufficient demand, so it would have to wait until they have finished selling the first lot of gas which will take may years, and assume they could sell the rest then, but the discounted value of it will be low as it's so far ahead, and also the sales price is more in doubt.

If I am missing something or wrong on something, which I may well be, I would be very happy to hear from others.

Looks like the big seller has finished selling, you can't buy large quantities any more

Just out of interest, does anyone understand why this site blocked out what it thought was the word in gr1bble's post, i.e. "rac" followed by "ist" - why would you want to block that word?

HF, why would they want to lie to stay it is still in drydock, when the truth, that it has already left, is more favourable?

Hotfinance, yes it seems they got the drydocking bit wrong as well. It certainly is not a good look but I suspect that when they wanted to prepare the update they asked MSC for an update on the ship and were told she was in drydock - which at that point she was - but it then took them another few days to finish it all off and put it out, and by that stage the information was out of date. Admittedly it doesn't give the impression of being very organised and on top of things, but that's probably not much of a surprise, unfortunately.

I think we are all clear that they are not particularly good at handling real world events and situations - and it really would be beneficial for them to bring in someone who has skills in this area - and this is presumably at least partly the cause of their underperformance. I don't think there's anything sinister, but it is what it is. Hopefully this won't prevent them from achieving eventual success, but the share price reflects the situation as it is.

Sounds like you are suggesting it was deliberate. That seems very unlikely as in the big picture there is simply very little upside for QED in saying the licences are already approved as opposed to being probably about to be approved, and also they would have to know there is a risk of people finding out that it is not true - so not at all a realistic possibility, even if you think QED are lacking in integrity.

What is true is that it was a poor show to make that mistake. I assume it comes from a misunderstanding between Valkor and QED as to where they are up to, although it may have been someone on Valkor's side who accidentally gave wrong information to them or gave the wrong impression.

Well, latest RNS at 4.29PM says "The original announcement stated that Valkor had been awarded drilling permits covering their Asphalt Ridge site in early May 2023. The corrected announcement below states that the drilling permits are expected to be awarded later in May 2023"

DON: you say "RE: approvals for drilling plan in Utah. It think is just bad phrasing, and likely reflects that this RNS was written a short while ago."

But I find this hard to swallow. FIrstly, it would reflect incredibly poorly if this was the case. But, also, I believe the licence applications that people have been following were rescheduled for the 24th of May, so that is late May and not early May - therefore, whenever it was drafted it should not have contained a reference to early May. Also, the wording "Following the award of drilling permits to Valkor covering their Asphalt Ridge site in early May 2023" is hard to square with your interpretation - as it should have referred to the "expected award". Therefore, that leads to the conclusion that it must be referring to a different licence award which did indeed occur in early May which is not what we have been following (or that the licence award happened early) . At least that is what I would like to think.

Argentina's brief contains a judge claiming that you can only claim damages for breach of contract if you first terminate the contract (and that Petersen had not done so). Looking around, that doesn't seem to be true. See http://www.dlapipercontractlaws.com/system/modules/za.co.heliosdesign.dla.gcl/functions/export.pdf?country=AR

on page 09 "What remedies are available in case of breach of contract?

If there is not any specific provision regarding the case of breach of contract, the complying party shall make a formal request to the other party for the fulfilment of the contract, or claim damages. After that, damages can be claimed in court."

From https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-27/future-shipping-fuels-include-lng-hydrogen-ammonia?srnd=premium-europe

Article headed "Shipping Has Largely Relied on One Fuel. It Now Needs Many: Sparklines"

"The study not surprisingly finds that the single biggest determinant of shipping decarbonization will be what regulators require of the industry.

Still, it will be shipowners and operators who chart the course. China, Korea, and Japan dominate shipbuilding, with companies such as Daewoo, Samsung, Hyundai, and Mitsubishi maintaining global reach. Decisions made by any one of these highly competitive companies would urge others to follow suit. Similarly, ship operators such as Maersk, MSC, or Cosco could also use their clout to make fuel choices that will require their peers to catch up."

I have been refreshing the Boots Eroxon page. Just now, it said there were 100+ purchases in the last 24 hours, then a few seconds later it said "added to basket 52 times in the last 24 hours", earlier it said about 40 times, while also saying 100+purchases. Can someone explain how this can be? Surely adding to the basket is a precondition to buying, so how can it have been sold more than 100 times yet added to the basket on only 40-50 times? Unless people bought about 2 packs each time? But then it would have to have been almost exactly 100 sales. If it had actually been 200 sales then the average person would have had to buy 4 packs each, which is even more unlikely. What's the explanation please?

Abatt1, thanks, I have now also found it on the LSE's own site, not sure why it doesn't appear on IG's list. But anyway you are right so I withdraw my comment, as given that the trade was already public we don't have any proof that JS isn't just making it all up.

Abatt1, interesting, I don't see the trade of 55,000 reported at 09:07:59, only the later one, I'm using IG's L2 platform, which source are you using?

Well, indeed a sale of 55,000 shares was reported at the end of the day as having occurred at 8.46AM, and since JS announced his sale of 55,000 shares before this was publicly reported this does imply that he is telling the truth at least on this occasion, otherwise he wouldn't know about the sale of 55,000 shares. Now actually I find this very encouraging. As it tells us that probably a large proportion of the shares being sold and thus a large part of the reason for the depressed share price is actually our one and only JS. Now to put it politely. I believe there are many on this board who don't necessarily hold his judgment in the highest regard. So if you hold this view, the conclusion is that the low share price is actually a result not of sophisticated investors selling, the implication being that in the absence of JS's selling the share price would be somewhat higher, and thus one could hope that once he has finished selling the price will find its way higher, as other investors don't necessarily agree that the fair price is as low as it currently is.

So in a nutshell, if you don't trust JS's judgment then you shouldn't be spooked into selling on the premise that the low price is proof of some problem with the company that you don't know about, as it's actually just JS causing the low price.

Re Axe's post on Friday at 11.52 saying "The rise is de to the conference we are on at weekend/beginning of next week. Good opportunity to pump it and see if a RNS Lands Monday Morning, if it doesn't the sell off will happen rapidly. Deja Vu!"

As I understand it there is no conference this weekend, there are conferences on 4th May and on 20th May as stated on Synairgen's website: https://www.synairgen.com/investors/investor-calendar - but I don't think anyone has pointed out yet to Axe that actually there is no conference this weekend - am I missing something?