Member Info for Gerry65

no surprise here then, AST running on a net monthly negative cash flow, now CH can issue the annual accounts to Dec end.

Stockdale will you please read them this this time round, i know its a long and wordy document, but please, pretty please, have a bash, it tends to be worth it.

Jester, your post last night ( 20.19) - jezzzz if you'd read my posts, rather than resorting to insults, you'd know i have been banging on about the statement CH, made in the interims, that the present permit request only relates to pg-10 & pg-11a, and if so is unfit for purpose in terms of developing the whole field, unless it has been updated, but not rns'd. Now you do some research, and discover what, i am talking about lets hope its a full field permit request !?

joshua - placings are an inconvenient requirement for these aim co's, do you see why i sit on the outside, and trade them rather than holding and getting diluted ?

Hh - you baled from this one several months ago, taking a large hit, your post back in Jan, however over the weekend, you called me out as a "tool". you advised this bb that you'd filtered me, hey ho, you won't be able to read this but i'd suggest, only a fool filters a tool.

i'm now looking for my entry price, happy trading everyone !!

G

joshsa- i trade it, i was in last on the IPPC, didn't jump in right away, and didn't look for the top to get out, made a few quid.Profit is profit.

I'm really pleased news is coming through again, it was pretty much untradeable, when it was in the doldrums, between Dec and Mar, particularly with the sp spread. Much more fun now news is coming through.

So i'm out, at the moment, each morning at 7.00 i check for the morning rns, i'm always ready with my finger on the buy button, in the past the odd late in the afternoon rns could catch me out, i admit, but i'd rather sit on the sidelines looking in, and ready to buy, rather than locked in and under water, hoping for an opportunity to hit the sell button.I'm happy to pick up a 10-20% trade, a few times a year here.

There are some good posters on here on both sides of the debate. However as with many of these small aim shares, there is a lot of bs, and blue sky thinking. I post as i see it, which hasn't always gone down well.

Been called everything from a troll, to a tool, to an idiot, by several who have wished not to see my views posted here. But in truth, those dismal one line comments are probably more than anything what keeps me here.

I post the facts as i see them, i trade, and yes, its probably frustrating for some, but hey ho.

i believe i offer as much info as many on here, certainly more than the one line rampers.

The long and winding road continues for AST, hopefully it will offer me more trades, and ultimately a chance for all to recover their investment, at some stage.

Am out for a few beers with mates now, so will look in again tomorrow

G

Stockdale - i see we are back to the Autumn again when we covered Slovenian energy requirements, on this bb.

Nothing has changed.

The domestic gas supply to Slovenians remains very low, the no. of private homes with a gas supply remains in single figures in relation to the total households in the country. The likelihood any major changes here is extremely low, due to the high infrastructure costs. Who is going to pay for these costs, not the Slovenians by way of increased taxes surely ?

Commercial gas usage is fairly stable, and there are many options, for reliable sources of imported gas, from several countries, including the present Russian 5 year contract. The Slovenians have no problems with their present gas supply options which remain on a "take and pay" basis, due to the limited gas storage, facilities in Slovenia.

i've never been too sure of your, desire to pitch AST gas against imported gas, surely all gas, required by Slovenia will be sourced at the prevailing market rate. I'm not too sure existing suppliers will be too concerned, by any developments with AST.

What Slovenia will require is a steady reliable supply, at market rates. Are you suggesting that AST will look to undercut existing suppliers on price ? I'm not too sure where you are going here, my friend.

Slovenia needs to move to greener energy options, reducing coal fired power stations, over time. Research suggests its more cost effective, to allow existing power station to run their natural course, then gradually phase them out, and replace them with greener options.

Looking towards gas, this will require, new power stations to be built, perhaps also increased storage facilities, and additional infrastructure, which will have to be funded. I don't see this happening overnight.

I see Slovenia's needs for increased gas supply as a relatively slow process over quite a lengthy time frame.

If AST does obtain a "fit for purpose" well permit, unopposed, and one that actually covers the whole field, together with the renewal of the actual concession. Then perhaps, it could look for financial support by way of a jv, to build a small processing plant. I've no idea, what sort of deal could be achieved, but considering AST's present finances and negative monthly cashflow, i'm not sure it would be a life changing as some pi's here hope. Hey ho, maybe it would turn out to be fantastic who knows.

Your second point, re transportation costs, by existing suppliers, is not an issue for Slovenia, or the other EU nations that import gas, is it. what Slovenia requires is a reliable and flexible supply of gas at market rates.

G

part 3

Slovenia can cover its gas needs from two physical directions: Austria and Italy. Theoretically,
Slovenia can be supplied by gas from Russia, European gas hubs, Africa, as well as with LNG
from terminals in Italy. At present, the connection with Croatia cannot deliver gas from Croatia
to Slovenia due to technical reasons in Croatia and to its gas deficit (the country is import
dependent as well with its domestic gas sources decreasing).
As shown in Figure 2,Figure 1 Slovenia currently fulfils its natural gas demand from three
sources. The share of gas purchased from Austria increased from 22% in 2011 to 62% in 2016,
while the share of oil-indexed Russian imports (based on long-term contracts) decreased from
48% to 36%. It must be noted, however, that Figure 2 shows imports by Slovenian shippers
only; an additional 8,900 GWh (0.9 bcm) was imported by foreign companies in 2016. 13,650
GWh (1.4 bcm) was transited to Croatia, which received its Russian import through Austria and
Slovenia.

( position as at April 2018 )

part 2

Slovenia lacks domestic natural gas resources, so its market is 100% import dependent. The
sole gas source in Petišovci is at the moment not used for domestic consumers, although its
capacity could reach 10 000 Sm3
/h. According to Energy Agency data, almost half of the
imports were covered by long-term contracts in 2016. The 50.5% figure for short-term contracts
was still below the 58% share of gas traded on the basis of gas-on-gas competition in Central
Europe, let alone the European average of 66%.3

Part 1

Slovenian gas consumption is quite atypical in European comparison as the share of residential
consumption is very low. Households mostly use wood (as biomass), heating oil, more and
more heating pumps for heating; natural gas usage is less than 10% of overall space heating,
compared to an approximately 40% EU28 average.
2 The overwhelming part of gas demand
comes from industrial users, covering more than 60% of total consumption. Top 10 industrial
customers – mostly producers of metal, paper, construction materials and glass products –
accounted for more than half (55%) of overall industrial consumption in 2016.
The low share of natural gas in the primary energy mix, and especially in household heating,
indicates that the vulnerability of Slovenia in terms of natural gas is low. The share of gas,
consumed by district heating systems, which use gas as the sole source, is also very low.

Volcano - good call I'm out too, profit is profit. Good luck to those that stick for higher returns.

G

Madian - good post and research.

I also looked into the options available to the Slovenians to introduce more gas power stations into its overall power supply, some months back.

Regrettably back in the autumn, when I presented my thoughts, Stockdale and co were continually attempting to shout me down, though if you go back into my posts my research should still be there.

It's my understanding that on balance it's been costed that the best route forward is not to try and convert old coal power stations to gas, but to allow them to run to their natural end of lifespan.

It's apparently more cost effective to build new gas power stations, alongside the existing network and gradually replace coal etc with modern 21st century gas power stations. Gradually increasing the % of the overall network supplied by gas over a period of time.

At this moment in time you'll probably know that overall Slovenia has quite limited gas storage facilities, which is why their existing supply contracts for imported gas such as the five year contract for cheap Russian gas are on a "take and pay" basis.

The move across to greener forms of energy supply is a challenge that the authorities are well aware of, though the costs are not unsubstantial, it must be said.

I suspect progress will be slow, and financially quite a challenge for the Slovenians, as it looks at ways of restructuring it's energy power infrastructure. Funding will be to be found, and how the funding is raised given careful thought, certainly increased taxes rarely sit well with a countries electorate.

That's me done for this evening.

G

Jester - just back home and thought I'd look in as was pretty sure you'd have been unable to resist another of your dismal responses.

A quick look confirms you have posted 97 times on AST this month to my now 54 post and you're the one up at 03.46 in the morning posting your drivel.

So who is the desperate incessant poster ! lol, yet again a check of the facts demonstrates you need to take a look in the mirror my friend. Talk about embrassing oneself.

I raised a valid concern regarding the permits as to whether if passed unopposed they would be fit for purpose for developing the whole field. If this is the case it's good news and logically you'd be shouting it from the rooftops but no just more rambling jibberish.

Your response leads me to one of two conclusions - you have an answer, but it doesn't fit with your agenda, so you'd prefer not to disclose it, or you haven't got a scooby !

G

Joshua - I read posts on hur on a daily basis, I have traded it and have a buy in price in mind, and I agree, it's right to correct false statements. I would if I was holding at the time.

I have actually recommended one of your posts on a different bb, so in some instances we are like minded.

However here on AST i do not

Here with AST i'm not looking for anyone to proclaim a view. I'm looking to understand, the content, and structure of the present well permit, as how CH has presented it in rns suggests it's limited to 2 wells.

That may not be the case, it may be that previous permits can be relied on to explore the whole of the field, without further permit delays and appeals.

However, as the previous permits, on which AST developed pg10 & pg11a, which were seen as the best bets, did in fact prove to be limited in terms of the allowable operational work overs. Necessitating additional replacement permits, I'd be thoughtful as to what is in place for the rest of the field.

It's open for debate, as nothing seems clear I a'm merely posting my thoughts on the matter, not facts, not false statements, and would be delighted if it's not the case.

Like all here I look forward to the next news or rumour, on the long and winding road.

G

Stockdale - dearly me, try reading my post again.

none of my posts were removed as they were factual, and with hindsight correct.

At the time you were spouting your blue sky thinking - presenting your view that gas would be delivered cheaply into the Slovenian domestic supply. maybe i should have treated you more kindly, at that time when i dismantled your thoughts. in truth i didn't realise i was dealing with a cry baby.

unable to put forward a counter argument, you stated to this bb, that you were running off to admin, to complain.

They took no notice of your gripe, because it was baseless, was it not ?

my posts are still available for all to read.

G

joshura - l've noticed from your posts both here and on HUR, that you tend to label, those with a glass half full view as trolls.

engage with them, resolve their concerns, convert them into the fold. but do it with facts and info, not presumptions and waffle. you may of noticed i genuinely enjoy, the debate.

you mention that the answers are there, for all to find, you present yourself as one that reads the rns, which is pleasing.

what is your take on the statement CH made in the june interims that the present permit is limited to only pg10 & pg11a ?

if you have additional knowledge that can clear this up, why not direct me to the relevant rns.

if i had your knowledge i'd happily share it with this bb, and then the issue will be put to bed.some would say it is in your interest to share your knowledge - is it not ?

i'd certainly consider putting an increased amount into my next trade, if the well permit, covered all wells within the field, without limitations, and was open ended as to time frames.

G

jester - what on earth are you doing up in the early hours posting at 03.46.

stop fretting about your paper losses here on AST.

accept i've raised as i often do a valid concern, that the present well, permit seems only to relate to the 2 existing wells.

if this is the case and it does go through unopposed, then those two wells even fighting fit after the costs of work overs will not produce enough gas to justify the building of a processing plant.

if there has been an amendment to the permit, and the position is not as CH stated in the interims rns then all well and good, though i'd have expected to see an rns to confirm this.

jester we've crossed swords here, several times, purely because rather than engaging with me, you took the decision to resort to insults. it's now my belief that it's the way you wish to converse with me, and that's fine with me, my friend.

Stockdale again look back at old posts, remember back in Sept, when i dismantled your jumbled thinking, you ran off crying to admin. trying to remove my posts, pathetic really , hey and guess what, nothing happened, and as it turned out i was actually right.

so my message to both of you is to engage, with those holding differing views, rather than resulting to insults, as it works both ways.

G

Jester - As i anticipated - no cogent reply just a jumble of words roughly constructed into a paragraph, and unable to answer a direct question - yet again.

I clearly irritate you my friend, is that because I ask questions that don't fit with your agenda ? I'm thinking i know the answer to that , do i not.

As you seem to acknowledge with your comment "we all know the situation", I'm guessing that what I am suggesting is in fact accurate, but that you'd rather not, have it posted on here. All I ask is that someone clarifies the position, not much to ask I feel.

As for having an agenda - of course i have - why would i post without one ?

Posting without reason and without a purpose would clueless, would it not !!

As for my posting content, style or agenda, you personally have a simple solution - filter me !!

As i say Jester to the left of me Stockdale to the right !!

I'll look in tomorrow and see if anyone has a cogent response.

Regrettably for your blood pressure i'm fairly confident that i'll be posting on this AST bb, for many months, as the journey along the winding road continues.

gla

G

Report on Strata Tiles from the H & L website :

TOPPS TILES BUYS 80% STAKE IN COMMERCIAL TILE SUPPLIER STRATA
(Sharecast News) - Tile specialist Topps Tiles has bought an 80% stake in Strata, which supplies tiles to the commercial market, in a deal worth £5.3m that is expected to be earnings-accretive in the current year and beyond.
The acquisition also involves the grant of put and call options relating to the purchase by the group of the remaining 20% of the issued shares in Strata, which are exercisable in 2021.

Established in 2002 by the vendors, Jonathan Wiles and Paul Wallis, who will remain with the business, Strata will be integrated into Topps' commercial business unit, established following the acquisition of Parkside Tiles in August 2017. The Strata brand will be retained.

Topps said the deal will add scale to its fast-growing commercial business as it seeks to build a leading position in the commercial tile market. In the financial year ended March 2018, Strata reported turnover of £4.8m and pre-tax profit £0.7m.

The consideration will be paid in cash, with £3.3m (plus a £0.4m closing adjustment) being paid on completion of the initial acquisition of the 80% stake. Up to a further £2m will be paid on completion of the acquisition of the remaining 20% stake, subject to performance targets over a two-year period.

Following the payment of the initial cash consideration, the net debt position of the group will be approximately £22m.

Chief executive officer Matthew Williams said: "Our commercial business is already expanding at pace, with sales in the first half growing by around three times year on year. The acquisition of Strata will accelerate this expansion and demonstrates our commitment to building a commercial business of quality and scale.

"Strata is a well-regarded and well-run business with a strong brand; and we look forward to welcoming the Strata team into the Topps Group."

Broker Liberum said this was a very positive step forward in Topps' ambition to grow its share of the UK commercial tile market, which doubles its addressable market to around £700m.

"The acquisition makes sound strategic and financial sense, and looks to have been struck at good value for Topps (an implied EV/EBITDA of 6.5x). At this stage we leave our forecasts unchanged but will revise in due course, noting management's comment that it expects earnings accretion in the current year, although we expect a more material impact thereafter."

Jester, perhaps rather than throwing your toys out of your pram maybe you'd look less a fool if you engaged, in a discussion rather than dismissing any post that doesn't sit with your own position.

I trade this and i am happy to make a small 10 - 20% return,on any trade. As i and many other did on the IPPC rumour and news. We'll continue trading as you sit spiked and frustrated, why not join the traders and claw back some of your losses.

May i suggest to you, that anyone claiming to you to have made the 153% i think it was you calculated on the recent spikes, was either winding you up, or one of the greatest of gamblers, with the luck of the Irish. Hitting absolute bottom of buy in's and escaping at the absolute top, ignoring the share spread, would be pure genius.

You and Stockdale remind me of the Steeler's wheel classic - "Stuck in the middle with you" - you'll know the song and the line i'm referring to. "Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right". lol.

So as a well informed investor here in AST locked in and under water, having read my post on the outstanding permit, is what CH said the the interims wrong my friend ?

Has the permit been amended at a later date, to include more than just pg-10 and pg11a, and if it has, kindly direct me to the relevant rns.

I'm happy to be corrected, and as you say I've asked the question a number of times,without any reply. You never know if you clear up my concerns you convert me from a trader to a LTH !!!

Btw why would you not want to know the answer. Surely you don't invest with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears do you ??

i'll always take note of cogent replies and discussion based on facts.But if all you have are angry retorts, then i'm afraid you'll get nowhere with me.

G

Montecristo - agree with you, they each have differing opinions, that's why i mentioned in my post that it was written on this occasion by Mr Wild.

G

Hi New - i recall CH indicating on a pod cast soon time back that the BOD was looking to - allocate time towards - the consideration of - the steps required - to formulate a plan to - draw up a list of - both financial - and legal - hurdles - that may or may not be - required for - the opportunistic potential - to invest in initial studies - relating to - the possible opportunities - in developing pg9 & pg7.

However at the time his lips were moving so personally i dismissed this as windy optimism.

Can you direct me to a rns on the subject of permits for other wells in the field.

CH states in the interims that the present permit only relates to the re entering of pg-10 and pg-11a.

If this is the case i'd only expect limited progress, in the project.

I note posts regarding the "no debt position with "AST", this is the case with the majority of aim co's, as hard nosed financiers, tend to want to protect their clients, and shareholders positions, and usually have quite onerous requirements, to back and secure their lending.

Hence the need for regular, fund raising as the project develops.

G

I generally take articles from the "fool" with a pinch of salt, as one day a positive report appears usually quickly followed by a negative report.

Here is today's report from Royston Wild providing the long term investment case for LGEN :

https://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2019/04/19/a-6-yielding-ftse-100-dividend-stock-id-buy-and-hold-forever/

G

Surely if AST are only asking for permits to re stimulate the existing two wells and not to enter other wells in the field, should the permits gets passed unopposed by environmentalists, whilst helpful,this will only, allow PG-10 and PG-11a to return to existing levels seen in Nov 2017.

This won't be enough to justify the building of a processing plant.

Perhaps with these limited permits, a way could be found to source a compressor, but additional permits will still be required to make any real progress.

I've copied below CH's statement in this respect in the last financials:

"The second permit relates to the re-stimulation of Pg-10 and Pg-11A which will be required when the reservoirs on which these wells are currently completed have depleted. The timing of this depletion is uncertain and depends, among other things, on whether compression equipment is installed to prolong production. In any case the current completion at Pg-10 is unlikely to produce for more than a further twelve months before re-stimulation is required. The productive capability of the current Pg-11A reservoirs is dependent on whether successful remedial works can be carried out.   "

WHY have AST not applied for full permits for the whole field?

If this the case it should create a small spike, which may allow some to reach their break even levels, and I'd expect selling into any sp rises.

G