Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
There have been death threats made on this bulletin board ! Of course its real and needs to be dealt with as harshly as possible.
I appreciate that we wont have actual cash assets of USD100m which is why I used the term effectively. The deal means that should we need to pay our share of the costs of the development assets (FID) etc. these will be paid for under the deal so it wont reduce our cash further.It is therefore like having money in the bank with which to cover future expenses. You are correct that we will continue to have ongoing expenses to cover from the proceeds and money will be needed to do something with Sidi. At this stage the debt isn’t too much of an issue as we should be close to significant revenues by the time it becomes due so should be easily re-negotiated.
I dont read it as the private company having any controlling interest in Sound. They are purchasing 51% of our assets in Eastern Morocco. Sound will then set up a JV in which we will be carried in future development of Tendrara including the production assets. The devil may in the detail when this is set out but for now it looks clear that we will still be a going concern with effectively cash assets valued at over USD 100m if the deal goes ahead.
So despite believing that the company is led by a failure who has been involved in what you call a “rampfest” for years you still bought more shares only a year ago. A plank or a hypocrit ? Answers at the EGM you are organising?
I agree that if you say that no one will lose out at the current share price then you are over stepping the mark but the Gherkin presentation set out what the company hoped to achieve and that shareholder value would be delivered if they were successful in the seismic/drilling programme.
The offer Crudehope says we turned down was £50m so about 5p per share - not 50p.
Repayment is due in June 2021. This is 2 years away so there is absolutely no imperative to think about how to repay this at the moment. The loan is secured against Sidi Mokhtar so in the event that we cant repay then Sidi Mokhtar would become the property of the bond holders.
Remember that we arranged the original loan when we had virtually no assets. We now have assets independently valued at £200m+ so arranging an extension of the loan or a new facility should not be too difficult.
I was replying to Partridge’s post that the Horst had to be sold to repay the debt and emphasising that there is no imperative to do this. Field development is often financed by reserve based lending and there are likely to be a number of institutions interested in such funding which can give long term cash flow repayments which are attractive to pension funds and the like.
Don’t be ridiculous. The Horst doesn’t need to be sold to pay off the debt, just developed so that the billions of pounds worth of gas are extracted. The small amount of debt will either be rapid from revenue if the development has begun by 2021 or re-arranged as part of any development lending facility.
Debt repayment is of no concern at this stage.
Of course it has to be repaid either by 2021 or when the company is sold. It is a LOAN.
I could take issue with most of the other items you mentioned but I cant be bothered.
If you haven’t seen that the details of the loan are on every presentation you probably haven’t listened to anything else the company say and get all your information from misinformed posters.
16) The loans are mentioned on every quarterly Investment Presentation. Hardly “no mention ever” as you claim.
Prudent’s figure is correct. The Progressive report he used as a basis of his valuation only related to Sound’s 47.5% and not 100% of TE5 Horst.
Most of the major online brokers automatically get you to fill in the W-8BEN if you want to trade any US shares. At least two, Hargreaves Lansdown and II have online forms which are much easier than completing the US form.
As has been mentioned, the withholding tax only applies to US dividends so the W-8BEN isn’t really relevant if you only want to sell but the platforms automatically get the form so that nothing is missed.
If SOU are bought out by a US company in an all/part share transaction the process should therefore be fairly straight forward unless you have any individual share certificates. Any all/part share sale could have a foreign exchange risk.
Lets start with point 1 then which is the only one that can be verified by figures. All the other points are just your own opinions which others may or may not share but for which there is no right or wrong answer.
Back to Point 1.Your post says "He sold the Italian assets to Coro. - He had a massive fund raise in 2013 in Italy at 4p a share ans sold out to Coro at less than a halfpenny a share. A loss of c90%. Magic."
The 2013 equity raise generated £1,576,000 after expenses as per Page 25 of the 2013 Annual Report.
The sale of the Italian assets to Coro generated £8m which was wholly distributed to shareholders as per Page 22 of the 2018 Half Year report.
In addition, the company gained £4,322,000 from the sale of the Italian assets as per Page 21 of the 2018 Half Year report.
Therefore the amount raised from the sale of the Italian assets of £12,322,000 compared to a 2013 fundraise of only £1,576,000.
Not exactly the 90% loss that you are trying to make us believe.
The trouble is your suggestion didn't work because all future "contingent" payments would be paid to Sound Newco and not to existing shareholders. It would be for the BOD of Sound Newco to determine how these payments were distributed (if at all).
I agree that this suggestion has some attractions but a company sale means that the owners (i.e. shareholders) get the full benefit whereas with a partial sale the company gets the payment and then decides how much of this money to return to shareholders and how much to keep back for the ongoing business. As I said before, the BOD of any new company will be different from the current one and may have different priorities. I would therefore much prefer to get full value now and then decide whether to reinvest in the company which owns Sidi or in some different company.
My choice not some BOD who I know nothing about.
I would much prefer a complete company sale which guarantees that shareholders receive the maximum benefit. Whilst a deal with contingent payments sounds interesting, those payments, which are likely to be years down the line, will be paid to Sound Newco or whatever vehicle is set up to receive them.
Distribution of those contingent payments to shareholders would be at the discretion of the then BOD who may be much less PI friendly than JP and the current board are. There is therefore much less guarantee that we would receive full value.
Another sad individual using so called "facts" to try and prove a point. The two RNSs you cite relate to two different wells so there is no connection.
The French verb is in the perfect tense so the event is in the past. Therefore the translation ‘has signed’ three new agreements is correct. With regards to Sound the agreement they are talking about is the 8 year Petroleum agreement. I suggest you get your facts straight before trying to muddy the waters.
If the asset is sold you will get nothing automatically into your ISA. Sound Energy will get the money and the company directors will decide how much they distribute to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Sound Energy will still exist so you be able to sell your shares (assuming there are buyers) before or after the dividend distribution.
A sale of the company is therefore a much simpler arrangement for shareholders because you wont need to weigh up when to sell.