Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
I'd argue that MFDevCo is pretty much worthless as well and always has been just a convenient way of channelling funds raised by the PLC. I highly doubt any of its 'deals' will ever actually amount to anything and its tie ups with big names weren't what they appeared to be.
I find it hard to see where the value is in a shell that already has £2.5 million of debt (albeit convertible). Unfortunately I suspect that in the event of any deal being done and an RTO happening, C4 will be the winners rather than current shareholders.
Marbur, any asset here now will comes as a result of that being reversed into this listed shell. All comes down to the terms of the deal as will be accompanied by widespread dilution, but all depends to what extent that dilutes existing holders here and at what price level. Personally think it will be those behind the private entity that is reversed in who will do well here - plus of course the Shard loan holders who would have bought it for a fraction of face value, but who in future might get paid out the full £2.5 million face value of the notes.
Nowhere near as simple as that - the target they missed was supposed to 2P reserves and pretty much guaranteed to be there. 197mmbbls is STOIIP for Serenity which still needs to be appraised and as yet we don't know what sort of RF they might expect from that. It also now means that the return to Liberator is just another pilot on Phase I to pinpoint the production well position, rather than an appraisal of part of the area that would have formed Phase II, and a chance to add more reserves from that.
It doesn't list the creditors specifically in its accounts but have to wonder if NUOG was one of them - given that this basically the previous incarnation of MFDEVCO, with all the talk of it being the next big thing, massive deals with Wood Group etc, and I'd imagine that Enegi funded it in the same way as it has been doing for MFDEVCO. It still amazes me that people fell for exactly the same scam twice - despite it being pointed out to them on numerous occasions exactly what was going on here!
NMS here is 50k shares, so anything over 300k can be delayed in reporting anyway under orderly market rules. Also see negotiated trades being delayed all the time as well. I’ve learnt over the years not to bother trying to read anything from the trades that pop up after hours, as almost impossible to draw conclusions from them - other than an increase in volume may point to something going on (either accumulation or offloading, but hard to tell which!)
It was only reported post close - you can’t trade shares after the close (not that would show up on the stock exchange feed anyway - obviously you have dark pools but probably not relevant to a co the size of PDL). Usually these are trades that have been worked over a period of time due to their size and can be reported after market close as part of maintaining an orderly market (often anything above 6 x NMS falls into that category).
This link explains it all and how the Russian classification relates to JORC standard - C2 is basically inferred resources equivalent (as per the below). https://www.intercontinentalmining.com/russian-reserves-resources-reporting-system/
How can it be a ‘factual quantity’ when it is in the 2C category of resources, which means that it is simply inferred rather than actually having been drilled and discovered? Barring 555kg which fall in the C1 category - although still means that only limited drilling has been done thus far.
Given the volume today I would suspect it is more likely a short reducing - otherwise I’d have expected the price to have dropped if someone dumped that amount on a low volume day. May well have been worked over a few days
I think you're misinterpreting what I have said! From what I've been told directly, they are keen to avoid past mistakes and will be more careful in future! I stand by my comments that the company misled people in the past via comments made in interviews (and also RNSs) - especially relating to bopd and implying that was largely oil, plus that the operation was continuing to produce, when it actually wasn't! Now all comes down to how well the upcoming wells perform.
If you think I'm lying then maybe speak to Owen Roberts who is a partner at Camarco and is whom I have corresponded with (he contacted me following the publication of one of my articles saying that the company took onboard some of the points made)! That comment in my last post was actually meant as a positive as in the past the company has been guilty of over-promotion and building expectations too highly.
Running costs aren't quite as bad as I thought - although the last financials are called interims, I hadn't spotted that the change of accounting date meant that they cover a 12 month period (not the usual 6 months). But still over $3 million needed just to cover the admin costs. I do know that any future the company are going to be far more careful with building up expectations too highly and being seen as making false statements in interviews etc - certainly from what I've been told directly by their PR company, who are keen to avoid past mistakes!
Can only base it on what is being produced currently as the future wells are an unknown. I'm pretty sure my figure is correct for 16aZ based on the last update. 130mcf x $5.24/mcf x 365 days = $248,638 for the 16aZ gas, as I stated.
Works out even less than that I think, based on the last update? 130mcf/d @ $5.24/mcf = $248,638 (pre-Opex). Plus the oil in addition to that (maximum of around $500,000, post Opex, depending on Brent price fluctuations and being generous!). Certainly not the £1 million free cash flow per month that the CEO promised before the end of this year! Given that admin costs were running at around $550,000 per month as at the last set of accounts up to the end of June 2019, suggests that it is an awful long way from being profitable. Even assuming that the current well being drilled is better than 16aZ, and that decline rates are lower than those predicted within the CPR!