Member Info for gordon1237

Roland said that this well is largely irrelevant to finalising the jv. So the main point of the well is that if, and it's now a big if, they can get the well somewhere near the target of 1 mmscfd they could get positive cash flow and avoid the need for a raise.

Maybe they can, but the total volume is only a few thousand litres so maybe it is being continually replenished. None of us know enough for a definitive answer.

Yes that sounds right Elegance.

Exactly 0.1000 to buy.

It would be good if the jv gave some cash in addition to drilling a couple of wells but that's unlikely to be quick enough. On gas they probably need to get close to 1 mmscfd to achieve positive cash flow.

Thanks SS. May not be an issue in the new wells then, at least initially.

So what did we learn from yesterday's meeting ?

Some questions were answered, others weren't and more were raised.

We learnt that the delay was due to water coming from the old zones. This didn't seem to be expected. If the pump can't remove it they will blank off the old zones. Raises the question of whether water will be a problem in the new wells? All the gas seems to be from the new zones. Will rns progress in the next couple of weeks. If they have to plug the old zones a rig will be available in 30 days.

Repeated that the new wells can be expected to produce 4 to 6 mmscfd. The higher figure would be great as it would give us the higher profits of the upper case in the presentation. That is 120 million usd for the 10 well model.

Commencement of full field development is now H1 rather than Q1 2024.

Repeated that finalisation of the jv is not dependent on 77h. The potential jv can see beyond this depleted well and is very local to the Cambay resource. There is more than one interested party. Which is very encouraging but brings us back to the question of why it taking so long. This he didn't really answer. Basically said it takes a long time because these things take a long time! Trying to get the best shareholder value.

He also said that if they were not able to finalise a jv, they did have a Plan B to fall back on. Good news but hard to imagine what this might be?

The transfer to the jv requires GOI approval, but is a formality and wont stop things going ahead.

He repeated the statement that the field development is self financing after the first 2 wells. This I don't understand as the graphs in the presentation show that taking Capex into account break even is after about 3 years, but I'm not an accountant so am probably missing something.

Mentioned that Panmure Gordon were trying to bring Institutional Investors on board.

One question that wasn't addressed was whether they will need more cash in the short/ medium term? I was hoping increased flow rates from 77h would obviate the need. Could still be the case. Obviously couldn't answer a market sensitive question like that in the meeting.

All of this is from my scribbled notes from the meeting so It may be a bit out of order or something may be missed. Was hoping to listen to it again but it doesn't seem to be available yet.

I have tried to include everything, plus and minus and it is just my take on what I heard.

Hope it helps.

Interested to see what happens to the sp in the coming days.

I will be too old to care, if this ever comes good. Lol.

I remember banging on about how ridiculous it was to reconnect the old zones in July when it was announced. As I recall, nobody was very interested. Well, it has turned out worse than expected. Not only have the old zones contributed very little to the total flow, and confused the overall picture, they are producing water which is actually impeding the flow of the new zones.

Looks like an even bigger mistake than previously thought to reconnect the old zones with the water issue.

Interested to know what the plan B for finance is, if the jv doesnt happen.

Can they plug the old zones and optimise flow rate and cash flow quickly enough to avoid the need gor a raise ?

They are now talking about HI rather than Q1 2024 for starting the full field development.

Why are we talking about a placing ?

Armani. I am not disputing the accuracy of your source, just the conclusion you draw from it.

My comments are very simple math, which you don't appear to understand.

It will be available to watch later.

NS. I suppose they thought it would be more dramatic to have the meeting immediately after good flow rates, but they never seem to learn from past experience of everything taking longer than expected.

Ir would seem that yet again they have shot themselves in the foot. It is 4 weeks since they scheduled this meeting. No doubt at that time they were expecting to have at least preliminary flow rates by now. It seemed to take a long time for the well to be fully reactivated, with the clean up only starting about 12 days ago. In the normal course of things we would have shrugged and said, oh well, a few more weeks is neither here nor there. As it was they raised expectations by scheduling the meeting for today. The sentiment was almost unanimous that that meant big news by now.

Oh well, the wait goes on.

Gla.

I.Armani. Maths not your strong point then?

Your figures are total nonsense. Of course, there are many who take out more than they put in, but you cannot possibly deduce how many from the quoted statistics.

From the numbers you quote, it is impossible to calculate what % take out more than they put in. It obviously won't be the case in practice but it is perfectly possible that all could be making a positive contribution.

Let's look at some notional numbers.

Imagine a 100 households contributing a total of £100,000, an average of £1000 each.

50% of households pay 78% totalling £78,000 or an average of £1560 each.

50% of households pay 22% totalling £22,000 or an average of £440 each.

So, in theory, all could contribute something.

In this notional scenario, on average the richest 50% woukd pay about three and a half times the poorest.

You could multiply all the above numbers by any factor you like to give a more realistic average tax contribution but the ratio would still be the same.

In the real world the top few % would be paying much more and the bottom would be taking out more than they put in, but I repeat you can't say that from the quoted numbers.

I am not making any political statement about the fairness of the tax system, just on the lack of logic in your deduction.

Spot on Ssccss.

Beat me to it. Lol.

It's just over 0.1 pence or £0.001. Just me nitpicking, I know. A pet hate of mine. Another one is no zero before the decimal point. Lol

Elegance

If it was 0.01p we'd all be suicidal. Lol.