Member Info for EbbsandFlows

When people talk about patience, this was posted on X by the company this time four years ago, back in 2022.

https://x.com/ZephyrEnergyPlc/status/1673321883003940866

Zephyr school report — FY2022 highlights vs now

The FY2022 highlights graphic was from the results period around 27 June 2023. At that point the company was presenting a strong set of numbers:

Revenue: US$41.1m

Profit before tax: c.US$22m

Net profit after tax: US$19.3m

Cash: US$9m

Share price at the time was roughly 4p. Today we are around 3p.

However, just looking at the share price does not fully show the impact. Shares in issue have increased from roughly 1.56bn at 31 Dec 2022, and c.1.69bn after subsequent early 2023 issues/placing, to around 2.10bn today.

So the simple share price fall is about 25%, but shareholders have also been diluted. On a market-cap basis the company has roughly stood still/slightly gone backwards, while each ordinary share now owns a smaller slice.

Progress report:

Revenue:

FY2022: US$41.1m

FY2024: US$24.3m

H1 2025: US$6.3m

Grade: C-

Comment: The non-op portfolio still produces cash, but revenue is nowhere near the FY2022 high point.

Profitability:

FY2022: US$19.3m net profit

FY2024: US$19.6m net loss

H1 2025: US$13.0m net loss

Grade: E

Comment: A very large swing from profit to loss.

Cash:

FY2022: US$9m

FY2024: US$10.3m

H1 2025: US$5.8m

Grade: C

Comment: Cash has been maintained through raises/deals, but not because Paradox is generating commercial revenue.

Paradox delivery:

FY2022 message: opening up the next prolific onshore US oil and gas play.

Current position: still no sustained first gas / commercial production from Paradox.

Grade: D

Comment: Technical progress, yes. Commercial delivery, still waiting.

Shareholder value:

Then: c.4p

Now: c.3p

More shares in issue, lower per-share value, still no dividend.

Grade: D-

Comment: The asset story may still be alive, but ordinary shareholders have not yet been rewarded.

Management reward:

Colin Harrington total remuneration from audited reports:

FY2022: US$741k

FY2023: US$822k

FY2024: US$557k

Total FY2022–FY2024: c.US$2.12m

Final comment:

Since the FY2022 “highlights” graphic, revenue is lower, profits have turned into losses, the share count is materially higher, the share price is lower, and Paradox still has not delivered sustained commercial production.

School report summary:

Promising geology and plenty of presentations.

Execution and shareholder returns need significant improvement.

Overall grade: Needs to show the market actual cash flow from Paradox, not just another “next step towards” update.

Do people think they will RNS when the paperwork has been submitted for the permits etc?

As this is Zephyr my gut feel is that we will sit here for 3 months without hearing anything, thinking that the paperwork has been sent in and its bureaucracy holding things up.

Then more and more posts about, it must be close, news imminent, any day now.

Then we will get to the middle of September and then they will RNS to tell us the paperwork has only just now been submitted!

Surely a trading update is due and confirmation of payments being made.......

Especially considering we are supposed to be pay £2million a year regardless of what goes on!

They could had helped the share price by saying we just received the next £1million payment, remember the deal is £2m a year regardless of what we sell.

But who believes that deal now?

Getting the fealing that for the third time the board have either failed or mislead us......

Today’s RNS is positive overall. The main takeaway is that the pipeline integrity work appears to have gone well, with no immediate concerns and no repairs required at current operating pressure. Only four short sections, totalling 25 feet, need visual inspection before the higher operating pressure required for gas export. That is clearly a useful step forward.

However, I do think the wording needs reading carefully.

The RNS says the successful ILI process now “allows for the formal commencement of the regulatory approval process”.

It is not completely clear whether the regulatory application has already been submitted, or whether Enbridge is now preparing/finalising it following the ILI analysis. If it had definitely been submitted, I would have expected the RNS to say that more directly.

In terms of possible timelines, my rough view would be:

Best case: 4–8 weeks

This would assume the paperwork is largely ready, the visual inspections are routine, no repairs are needed, and the approval process moves smoothly.

More realistic: 8–16 weeks

This feels more sensible given the number of moving parts: Enbridge, regulatory approval, pressure uprating, final gas processing design, offtake and commercial arrangements.

Slower case: 4–6 months+

This could happen if the inspections identify repair work, if the submission process takes longer than expected, or if Enbridge/regulators move more slowly than hoped.

So I see this as a positive update, but not yet the final unlocking event. It appears to move us from the inspection/evaluation stage into the formal regulatory stage, rather than confirming we are near the end of that stage.

The slightly confusing part is that Zephyr posted on 15 April that the ILI had been completed. Today’s RNS seems to clarify that the physical inspection may have been completed then, but the full analysis and technical sign-off has only now reached the point where formal regulatory approval can begin.

That may be perfectly normal from an operational point of view, but I think shareholders could reasonably have done with clearer milestone language along the way.

We are mushrooms

I agree the 4.85p debt-for-equity swap can be read as bullish, but I think that misses the wider point. SGR is not in the same position as ordinary shareholders. If the Utah filing means SGR holds a direct 50% wellbore-level interest in State 36-2, then they have asset-level exposure as well as equity exposure. If Zephyr ever got into trouble, ordinary shareholders would just be holding listed equity, while SGR would likely still have its 50% wellbore interest. They could also be a natural bidder for Zephyr/Rose’s remaining interest if assets were ever sold. That does not mean anything improper has happened, but it does mean SGR’s position appears much better protected than ours.

SGR appears to have had a very favourable relationship with Zephyr.

First, there was the expensive asset-backed debt used around the Slawson/Williston acquisition. Then part of that debt was repaid through equity, meaning ordinary shareholders took dilution while SGR was protected and paid for its funding.

The Slawson deal itself has hardly flown. It may have looked good on paper, but in practice shareholders have seen delays, curtailments, operational underperformance and far less of the reliable cashflow uplift we were led to expect.

Now SGR appears to show up again, this time via the Utah filing showing a 50% non-leasehold interest limited to the State 36-2 wellbore. If that filing is what it appears to be, then SGR was very likely the unnamed wellbore investor that put up the US$7.5m in return for 50% of the State 36-2 wellbore economics.

So SGR seems to have secured well-protected, asset-level economics at different points in the Zephyr story, while ordinary shareholders have been left taking most of the public-market pain: dilution, delays, uncertainty and a falling share price.

The other point that needs proper clarification is the history between SGR and Zephyr management. Zephyr previously described the lender as a US-based family office that had “historically co-invested with certain members of Zephyr’s management team on multiple occasions on other projects”. If that lender was SGR, then shareholders deserve to know what those previous co-investments were, which members of management were involved, and whether any of that creates a relationship that should have been more clearly disclosed.

I am not saying there has been wrongdoing, but this is now a pattern that needs explaining. SGR appears to have done well out of its relationship with Zephyr. I am struggling to say the same for ordinary shareholders.

Thank you - we are all in this together

Go to page 4

https://trustlands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-05-04-FAA.pdf

I have been looking through the Utah Trust Lands filings and found a document dated 4 May 2026 relating to Rose Petroleum (Utah) LLC and SGR Investments LLC.

The filing appears to record an “assignment of non-leasehold interest” to SGR Investments LLC for a 50% interest, limited to the wellbore of State 36-2LNW-CC-R / API 43-019-50099. It is described as being accepted for “record-keeping purposes only”, so I am not suggesting this is a new lease transfer or anything to do with gas export permissions.

However, this looks potentially important because Zephyr previously announced that an unnamed “wellbore investor” had acquired a direct 50% non-operated interest in the State 36-2R wellbore for US$7.5m, to fund drilling, completion and production testing.

The Utah filing now seems to point strongly towards SGR Investments LLC being that unnamed wellbore investor.

That may be perfectly legitimate and already covered by the previous RNS in economic terms. But I think shareholders deserve clarification on a few points:

Can Zephyr confirm whether SGR Investments LLC was the unnamed wellbore investor referred to in the December 2024 RNS?

What exact economic rights does SGR’s 50% non-leasehold wellbore interest carry — production revenue, costs, reserves attribution, repayment rights, security, or something else?

Was the May 2026 Utah filing simply late administrative record-keeping for the previously announced US$7.5m deal, or does it reflect a new or amended agreement?

If SGR was the wellbore investor, why was the identity not disclosed at the time, given SGR was already known to Zephyr shareholders as a previous lender/shareholder?

Is SGR in any way connected to any Zephyr director, officer, adviser, major shareholder or related party?

Does this 50% wellbore interest affect Zephyr’s net economic exposure to State 36-2, future cash flow, reserves, or investor modelling assumptions?

To be clear, I am not alleging wrongdoing. Zephyr did disclose the 50% wellbore funding structure. The issue is that a later public Utah filing appears to identify SGR as the 50% wellbore-interest holder, and I do not recall seeing that named clearly in an RNS.

Given State 36-2 is central to the Paradox investment case, I think it is reasonable for shareholders to ask for a clear explanation.

My view: this is not necessarily a scandal, but it is definitely something the company should clarify properly rather than leaving shareholders to piece it together from Utah filings.

Its been a long wait / journey but this company makes me smile now - so many building blocks of growth in place

We just need management to show some managment - seems out of their grasp

Ever hopefull

What’s happened to the quarterly production figures? Last year, they were posted on 29th May.

Surely, if they were good, they would be rushing them out.

Expect higher oil prices to be paraded alongside another unexplained drop in production.

I’ve had friends who have written their PhD theses quicker than this company is writing this prospectus. What are they playing at? It’s not like they are even busy. The p**s-take continues.

Honestly, I’d treat it as a yellow-to-red flag, depending on what they are posting.

There is nothing wrong with a listed company posting photos, site progress, equipment arriving, community updates, or general operational colour. That can be normal investor relations.

But if they are using photos and vague “nearly there / great progress / exciting times” posts to move sentiment without putting hard facts into an RNS, I don’t like it.

For a UK-listed or AIM company, the basic principle is that genuinely price-sensitive information should be disclosed properly and fairly to the whole market. The FCA describes inside information as non-public, precise information which would be likely to have a significant effect on the share price, and says one proper route for public disclosure is via a regulatory information service. AIM Rule 11 also says an AIM company must notify the market without delay of new developments that are not public knowledge and would likely lead to a significant movement in the share price.

So my view is:

If the update is not material: fine, post the photo, but investors should not overread it.

If the update is material: it should be in an RNS/RIS announcement, not hidden in social media crumbs.

If it is being done to “tease” the market: that’s poor governance at best and potentially dangerous at worst.

There is also specific guidance around AIM companies and social media. The key point is that publishing via social media is not a substitute for a proper market announcement, and if a company leaks or drip-feeds price-sensitive information to condition or move the market, that may constitute market abuse.

From an investor point of view, I would discount teaser posts heavily unless they are backed by formal announcements with measurable facts, such as:

production start date

tonnes produced or shipped

cash received

signed offtake

regulatory approval

plant commissioning complete

named counterparty

revenue guidance

updated financial impact

Photos can prove activity. They do not prove commercial success.

The blunt answer: if a company keeps using social media to imply progress but avoids RNS-level detail, I’d assume either the progress is not yet material, not yet confirmed, or they are trying to manage sentiment without being pinned down. None of those are brilliant.

I read it that its very much the case 98% of the roles are filled by Zimbabweans and that they should hold roles across the organisation - not just be found as the labour but also as the "brains".

I was also taken by this - "All small scale mining operations must transition to large scale statues by 1st Jan 2027 or exit."

I think Zim has lost patient with the promises and now is cracking the whip to get the delivery.

Remember the president of the country "opened" our mind two years ago and so far, we have produced not even enough to fill a bag!

This is an interesting read https://miningzimbabwe.com/zimbabwe-orders-mines-to-appoint-98-local-management/