Member Info for Fernan10

"Given AP is investing in this raise, and therefore likely believes the price will go up - it seems unlikely there is another dilution coming"

Shareholder Adonis bought (maybe after trusting all that CEO Adonis had told him):

-15.4 million shares on Dec31, at a price of 7p per share

-2.2 million shares on Jun22, at a price of 18p per share

-7.7 million shares on Aug24, at a price of 6.5 per share

So, I don´t think that shareholder Adonis buying shares means anything about the future direction of price.

Regards

Ok thanks jimmy.

In a previous post, I estimated the amount of Anchois´s 2C resources at 450 bcf (gross) . This equals to 100% of estimate for B sand (previous to the drilling of A3), and 50% for the remaining sands (A,C and M).

what do you think of that?

Regards

Fernan

Hi Jimmy.

What is the source of the 24 metres of priven gas in A3? I can't remember reading about that anywhere.

And what do you think abou A3's big failure? What were the causes of such a failure, and the lessons for future drilling?

Thank as usual Jimmy

The breakdown by sand of Anchois´s 2C resources, before the drilling of A3 well, was as follows:

Sand A: 94 bcf

Sand B: 313 bcf

Sand C: 92 bcf

Sand M: 129 bcf

Total: 628 bcf

Source: CHAR´s Set23 presentation, page 11

CHAR informed that A3 well found multiple gas bearing reservoirs in sand B.

I understand that sands A, C and M, even if they were not present in A3, are still capable of producing gas in wells A1 and A2

Then, assuming that the original estimate of Sand B resource is still valid, and the other sands´ estimates are cut by half, we have a 2C gas resource of around 450 bcf (gross).

At a gas price of US$ 8/mcf (the price agreed by Sound Energy to sell their gas to the public power utility company in a take or pay contract), that translates into a US$ 3.600 million revenue (gross)

Regards

We are invested in a company that doesn´t care about keeping its shareholders in the dark for months.

This forum is our best chance to share and discuss any relevant info on our little beloved CHAR.

So, we need to keep every valuable poster here onboard.

So, please, ignore the personal attacks, block the agressive posters, and continue with your active participation here.

Regards

OILTDR:

what you said makes sense to me.

I still think (and I´ve always thought) that Anchois is our most profitable asset going forward.

But I can´t see little CHAR building a 45 km offshore pipeline, a CPF and a 45 km onshore pipeline by itself. If CHAR can´t get the required technical support from a credible partner, I can´t even imagine a serious bank funding it.

what are your thoughts on the subject?

You have been suggesting that you have some access to CHAR´s decisions for quite some time.

I´ve checked your post history. It seems quite consistent, and, in general, what you have previously anticipated was later confirmed by the company. For example, that they are trying to get a partner in Loukos, not only to test OBA-1 well but also to drill other targets.

And your views have been quite positive regarding CHAR´s prospects from now on.

Let´s see what transpires out of all that "insider info".

Regards

Surety:

You wrote:

"The bit I am most interested in / perplexed by is why at current burn levels, they think another £1.5m is sufficient to sure up the balance sheet.

OILTDR - I think you gave a nod to this on Friday. They either have money in the Energean sub that has been transferred, are about to sign an onshore deal with back costs - or are claiming back costs from Etana"

Maybe they are planning to use the US$ 3.5 million raised for "new ventures" to pay their own salaries and overhead costs. Why I wouldn´t be surprised if they eventually do that?

What happened here regarding past fundraisings is very serious.

They raised US$ 12 million in July 2023 to drill 4 onshore wells. They drilled only 2.

Next year, when they had the chance of getting a new license in Namibia, they should have said to investors: "we drilled 2 wells in Loukos, instead of the 4 initially planned. We are going to redirect the funds not invested in Loukos to Namibia, because we think it´s a better way to apply shareholder´s money".

They said nothing, and raised another US$ 4 million in July 2024 (US$ 2 million for Namibia, and another US$ 2 million to "Progress onshore gas commercialisation plans in Morocco to build a gas to industry supply").

Now, after giving no explanation about the supposed "progress in onshore gas commercialisations plans in Morocco", they raised another US$ 3.5 million to pursue other ventures.

And there is people here still trusting this management team...

Another potential explanation: CHAR indeed received some cash from Energean. But, because overhead expenses and management salaries are still ridiculously high (e.g., US$ 15 million per year) they need to raise some cash to close the gap.

I can´t see this management substantially reducing G&A expenses from previous levels after the A3 disaster.

Wiggly:

You wrote:

"There’s a reasonable basis for this assumption: only $1.5 million from the recent raise was earmarked to strengthen the balance sheet, and it’s possible some cash was retained when the Energean subsidiary was transferred."

That means nothing. Management has a history of applying cash raised for specific purposes (e.g. fund 4 onshore wells in Loukos or a new venture in Namibia·) to pay for their own salaries and overhead expenses.

Then, it´s highly likely that part of the cash raised last week for specific projects will be eventually used to "strenghten the balance sheet"

I agree with you Surfit, regarding Duncan Wallace.

I would like him to be replaced by an oil & gas explorer with a solid and proved background in the business.

Surfit

The US$ 155 million "funding" that you mentioned, in reality is a package of guarantees provided to ETANA, in ordert to support its operations. Basically, the developers of future green energy generation projects now know that, should Etana fail to pay its electricity bills, the financial guarantors could be subsidiarily asked to pay.

As management said, they expect a gross US$ 10 million EBITDA from Etana operations. That translates, as per my calculations, in a net income of no more than US$ 1 milion net to CHAR (after deducting ETANA´s income tax, overhead and green hydrogen expenses).

In addition to that, CHAR now have the chance to invest in the construction of future green energy generation projects. Management said they can get an annual EBITDA of US$ 9 million, from these projects, net to CHAR.

What management didn´t explain is the amount that CHAR will have to invest to get to that EBITDA, and where the money is coming from. More share placings? Highly likely in my oppinion

Regards

I have never been interested in CHAR´s green energy business. My interest as an investor was always focused in Anchois. Maybe, after the demerging, I will sell my shares in "Chariot Green Energy Ltd" and reinvest the money in "CHAR oil & gas".

Time will tell

CHAR´s read´through valuation (US$ 34 million) is lower than current market cap. This is the reason why management is saying that the renewable business unit is currently undervalued and, for that reason, a demerging will unlock value.

Hi Surfit.

You said:

."I must admit I do NOT understand what they mean by: "US$20 million equity investment portion of the Etana financing, which provides an ESTIMATED READ-THROUGH VALUATION of Chariot's economic interest in Etana of $34 million, will both support Etana's growth and provide working capital through to first revenues.

Can anyone educate me on what this actually means and gives??"

ANSWER: I explained that in a previous post. A norwegian fund invested US$ 20 million in ETANA, in order to acquire a 20% interest in the company.

Hence, 100% equity in ETANA was valued at US$ 100 million, and CHAR´s 34% interest at US$ 34 million. That´s the meaning of a "read through"

valuation, a valuation deducted from a third party transaction.

Regards

Regards

No Whilmax. I´m not selling.

Dumping my shares at these ultra low prices doesn´t make any sense to me.

And I still think that the best value proposition is in the oil & gas division. Anchois has some value.

Maybe one positive effect of the demerging is that future profits (if any) resulting from oil & gas production won´t have to be diluted to fund crazy green hydrogen projects or other "new ventures".

Time will tell.

ETANA

CHAR projected ETANA´s "gross EBITDA and annual free cash flow before tax to be in the region of $10 million within two years."

Assuming a 20% income tax rate, and taking into account CHAR´s 34% equity interest in Etana, that should translate into an annual after tax income (net to Chariot) of US$ 2.72 million.

And don´t forget that all mighty cash-burning green hydrogen projects will be kept within the renewables energy division.

I don´t expect green hydrogen to generate any income before 2.030, at the earliest.

Then, after deducting overhead and green hydrogen expenses, CHAR´s renewables division´s annual net income maybe will be lower than US$ 1 million

NEW GENERATION PROJECTS

CHAR also said that its equity participation in future green energy generation projects have "long term growth potential with net EBITDA to Chariot from the initial projects being in the region of $9 million."

What management didn´t clarify is how much money will CHAR require to take an equity interest in those projects. The US$ 3.5 million raised last week is just "to secure Chariot's stake and participation in wind generation, gas and new upstream assets". It seems that the money will be spent in contract negotiations with future partners, project development, etc. And that money is not exclusively for green energy projects. Gas and "new upstream assets" (Namibia?) will also be pursued.

Then, it´s highly likely that CHAR´s renewables business unit will have to raise more money in the future, in order to take an equity position in those wind projects in South Africa. More share placings to come, for sure.

After the demerger, the oil & gas business unit will be a "no man´s land".

My 2 cents prediction: after the demerging of the renewables division, the new (old) "Chariot oil & gas" company will have to endure (AT LEAST) 2 or 3 years living out of shareholder´s money (future share placings) before getting any income.