We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Suggest you stop giving them oxygen. I suspect they have an incentive from putting in some time and may have a vested interest in seeing Sound go down. I recently used my filter for the first time (on Kylie and Pescado). Highly recommended !!
Kylie - I think that is a good explanation of the sentiment. The question for investors is whether this is a true reflection of reality and what needs to happen to sway sentiment. I have been surprised with the persistence of sentiment when the tax issue was resolved and with Ph2/exploration progress. The track record of this persistence may result in many investors to be on standby - committing after good news has not been a good strategy. My personal view is that Sound is now a viable company. Over time I have bought way too much so all I am willing to do now is hold tight.
Is partner finance not part of the deal announced in the RNS on 13 June: “Advancement to Sound Energy of additional Phase 1 and Phase 2 costs, if necessary and at the Company's election, repayable out of future revenue”
That was my reflection after the fund raise dilution bombshell. I have little confidence in the Angus leadership but find it hard to believe GL would outright lie about an agreement to defer the hedge shortfall across H1 2023. Is it more plausible that Mercuria played him on the schedule of settlement? Jumping this onto Angus at short notice is tough to defend against.
Certainly due one in my view! Phase 1 looks better than it did, it appears there is a term sheet for $260m with multiple option for the remaining funding gap for Phase 2 and presumably exploration partnering options. The tax issue is noise but annoying nevertheless.
Really? A screenshot? Hard to see why - why would they take on the risk of being an onshore target for anyone who is against big oil for something that just does not move the dial? Makes no sense to me
Things are looking good now. A bit concerned about growing a geothermal leg to the business; capital intensive and not that easy to make commercial. Forget Shell / BP buying Angus - it’s not material and creates huge exposure to their brand
PS - sorry to hear you must have lost a lot of money. Your post is totally reasonable but in my view ‘half empty’. I see things half full. There is indeed a ton of value (potentially billions $) in the licenses and Sound is not the natural player to get there. Someone else will have to pay for exploration but once we have Ph2 approved it makes tie-backs to expanded facilities highly attractive. Without momentum I am afraid that your characterisation seems fair but I feel momentum may be with Sound (high need for gas). That could give sound a bigger slice of the value pie with less dilution
Ericnat - I agree on all counts. SP Angels just looked at immediate liabilities and assets and ignored exploration and expansion value. If instead of making investments, these sort of divis could be paid out. I saw it more as a proxy of upside.
i admit - i feel good when the SP goes up, and bad when it goes down. Bad news feels unwelcome but that does not justify bullying the messengers. Whilst Sound's proposition is Ph1+2, the share price will follow succesful delivery into the high single digit. The strategy appears much more bold which is great, with exploration bringing much more upside. PS's question rightly is who funds and how much is it going to cost? I think that depends on how strong we are and how many options we have. Last year we were on the ropes, but now things look brighter - when we achieve Ph2 FID I think we will be getting in a good position to move forward
This is a rather harsh post PS. Just fact checking here. From memory the #shares a few years back was 1.1Bln; you can hardly blame Graham for diluation before he arrived. Now it's about 1.63Bln? The deal with Schlumberger increased our equity in Tendrara which is accretive. I just don't understand your point that the micro LNG decision is dilutive. How do you get to a conclusion that 2/3 of the value has been diluted?
Unfortunately you are right that the market does not at this stage recognise any of the significant contributions Graham has made. To conclude that he therefore has not added any value feels like a cheap shot to me.
What a difference a few days make. Just a few days ago i was making the case that the value of Sound is obviously not zero upon which i was accused to be a ramper. Just had a look at the board and am not sure what you guys have been smoking. I am all for a high share price, bdon't get me wrong. There is a clear path to 9p (more shares, but also higher gas price than latest valuation). I will be doing back flips all the way if and when we get there. I now will now probably stand accused to be a de-ramper.
Never been accused of being a ramper! Net zero and zero are two very different things and the suggestion that Sound has zero value lacks any credibility. Last time I checked the market value is around £25m. I simply laid out my version of a rationale and how that could change. Ramping? Give me a break.
“ The net cash flows from Phase 1 LNG will be zero, and right now that's what SOU is worth.”
Really? Just because you keep saying this, that does not make it true. You probably mean to say it offsets all possible liabilities, and whilst we are at it, let’s ignore booked reserves and resources.
I think the potential for Sound is there, but as long as we don’t have the means to execute it is not worth a lot and that is reflected in the market cap. A bit of credibility comes with phase 1 FID, a lot with settling the tax claim and a lot more with phase 2 FID.
I expect / hope that with credibility to deliver projects we enhance the attractiveness of exploration and with all that, that the share price will start reflecting the potential.