Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Persi
Pershing have a duty to inform the market, not the company. They haven't, and they sure as hell haven't suddenly got to 6.9% overnight, thats at least 4 thresholds that they crossed where they should have notofied the market. Not bad for a non trading company! Especially with a couple of nominee directors collectin a fee for services rendered for whatever nefarious practices are going on. Wait a minute, I can think of another in that camp as well!
exactly selfish
Pershing appears to be a dormant shell comany from thier last annual return and the parent company is Bank of New York Mellon. So there is an American Investment Bank playing around here, not following the rules in terms of informing the market of purchases and corsing of notification thresholds. As far as I can see, in relation to Pershing Nominees Ltd., there are two directors , Craig Clifford Douglas and Jane White. Registered office in Royal Liver Building, Liverpool, and on 22 September 2022 they filed accounts with companies house describing the company as dormant? Not sure if these are the individuals that S & S are referring to in thier statement, but they seem to be a couple of nominee directors for BNY Mellon earning a fee for providing services.
You tell me what is going on? Something ain't right and people are up to something.
A few points for discussion
1 - From Reabold website which is supposedly accurate as at 8th August 2022, Pershing Nominees Ltd does not appear as a notifiable interest level shareholder.
2 - There has been no RNSs that i can see in the last few months that identify any thresholds being crossed for notifiable interest levels for shareholders, other than for one reducing to below 3%
3 - Pershing Nominees Ltd according to companies house is a dormant company and filed accounts to that effect
4 - Pershing Nominees Ltd has only 2 shares?
5 - Pershing Nominees Ltd parent company is BNY Mellon!
Something is going on and it is highly fishy IMHO
If a GM is called, I woudl suggest that it will be in all shareholders interests to vote the action down, but also S & S need to now earn thier money to protect the normal shareholders from the spivs that are trying something on.
All
My view is that share buy backs very rarely actually work in practice. The other thing is that UJO have already done a share consolidation, so compared to how it used to be we have relatively few shares overall. I personally would much rather DB actually starts to give the shareholders a dividend. Whether that is a one off, or whether it is the start of the future as a producer.
Otherwise, they would do well to keep the cash pile for funding the development of Wressle, West Newton and Biscathorpe, then we shareholders benefit by develeopment of our assets without the need to revert to share dilution via placements to fund future work comitments, all of which should be acretive to the company's value and therefore to us shareholders.
GLTA
So the first RNS announcing the placement tells us they have $10.5m AUS at the end of June 22, then two days later we get the RNS with the announcement of the successfull BookBuild (for which read existing shareholders being shagged), we are told that they have cash of $6.1m AUS at the end of July 22. So July must have been a complete disaster? or the directors have delved into the coffers for thier 'bonuses' before they shag the shareholders? Either way, $4.4m AUS have disapperaed in a month!! Or they were telling fibs.
Starting to get very P'd off with this share, and before you say I am de-ramping, I have been a holder for many years, and have made and lost in the share, but it is really begining to get like groundhog day - AGAIN!
C87
I think that the key take away from this is that they don't include thier Corallian holding on this table, which has a clear signal that it is sold, otherwise they should be showing it and making reference to the potetntial sale. You may think this is vacuous, but it is usefull to long term RBD shareholders.
Onwards and upwards.
Agree ChimneyBleue
The disposal of Victory would provide the funding for WN. I know this may not be welcomed by shareholders at first, but this is a route to accessing the much much larger value of WN in a way which avoids further dilution of the company to unlock the full value of WN.
The shareprice should re-rate as a result anyway into the single digit pennies as the figure that you quoted of £100.5m would equate to around the 3.6p value for Victory alone, but the market should see that this funds WN which should unlock a greater valuation. The main issue is whether Rathlin have the money for thier part of the WN project, but perhaps between RBD and UJO they may buy them out and take over fully?
dkok
Selfish
The reason UJO are up is not to do with having RNS's per se, but rather the fact that the content of the RNS confirms that they are adding $1m per month to thier bank balance from thier Wressle oil well! They currently sit on a £9m cash balance in the bank with no debt, so the cash in bank alone accounts for over a thierd of thier market value.
As yet they haven't begun to commercialise the gas from Wressle but that is going to add in to their income from Q4, so very shortly they are going to be turning over in excess of $12m/year, they have shares in multiple licenses (WN included), %age royalty earnings from North Sea, and yet the market is still only putting a £26.5m market cap on them.
The market has not woken up to the fact that they are going to be a significant small producer, and SP shoud easily double from current level, just by putting a 5x p/e (low for an oil producing company). If S&S do the business for Victory and that then funds the development of WN, then the UJO shareprice will also benefit from that. What is good, is that UJO as a partner to RBD in WN should be more than capable of paying thier way when the cash is needed, which for all our sakes as long term holders (10m RBD shares for 4 years now!) will hopefully not be too long now!
dkok
Uggy
I beleive that from the Financial Times article in Nov2020 there were ranges on the NPV10 of between £85m to £146m, the latter being for gas at 50p/therm. Therefore, if we are looking at a new long term normal of £1.20/therm (and that is the lowest price being indicated for the next 5 years), that would put an NPV10 on Victory at around the £350m mark. With Reabold owning half of Corallian, that would be £175m to Reabold which would equate to a SP of around 6.3p. I could live with that!! :-)
Then we start to think about the value of the gas at West Newton, which is multiples of Victory, so whilst some may be thinking it negative that S&S are looking at WN being a Gas play rather than the black sticky stuff, I think they are possibly very much going the right way, and Victory should provide more than enough funding to pay Reabolds portion of the costs to develop WN, and give that Union Jack are piling up cash from thier Wressle oil well (£9m in the bank already since the end of last August) then they have the cash ready to pay thier part, so WN should be ready to roll pretty quickly, and when that starts to get going the SP here is going well into double digits.
dkok
Looking at Statistica, the forecast 5 year gas price per therm is looking to be around the £1.20 per therm as a new normal in 2027/28 and going forwards, the price having been much higher between now and then.
Based on that price, then a deal for Victory should be looking at this kind of level for the therm price which puts a very different NPV price to anything that has been issued by the company before, and makes the value of this SP seem woefully undervalued by many multiples, especially as they are looking at WN being primarliy a GAS project.
I am starting to see the dynamic duo looking to play the Victory situation to provide the identified Capex for the development of WN, along with our partners of course, as well as a potential return to shareholders either as a divi, or as at the very least a verry, very substantial increase in the SP.
It all just hinges on Victory, perhaps a very apt name hopefully!
GLTA
Surprised that UJO have put out an RNS today with a technical presentation going on thier website for the West Newton B1 and B1-Z wells and yet nothing from RBD?
https://www.ii.co.uk/news/west-newton-technical-update-and-presentation-rnsLSE20210128070006_3859528
NVG
Confident article!
If the 350BOE is acheived, then as S&S have previously said that the value for onshore oil as a sale value would be around the $8/BOE which equates to $2.8B. At 56% ownership to RBD that is $1.56B which equates to around 22.4 cents per share value, or 17p.
Now that is a very nice thought!!!
Even at the lower end we are at 10p value per share on a sale basis, and multiples of this if they sat it out and went through to production themselves.
Ferg
The market makers would pay you the money, but as the purchaser is looking to buy out the company, he needs the shares of the existing sharehiolders, so the MM's would then be seeling the shares on to the entity buying the company, with a nice little earner for them in the spread in the process.