The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
No mention of any exploration budget which they label CM as an exploration licence, should have had the OMC meeting so no mention of a budget for CM or the HOFO payment is strange. They do have $6.6m "allocated to our legacy oil properties, exploration licence payments and corporate infrastructure" either way they do not seem as excited over the CM licence as Paul, hopefully this is due to their smaller stake.
Other things of note are the 18% discount to brent which combined with the 7.5% for HOFO payments knocks 25% of the price of brent before production costs and taxes. The Royston well was uncommercial in the Herrera Sands.
The price has been falling mainly due to the inability to organise testing successfully but it also looks like the focus switch to CM in the new year after hopefully testing is dragging the price down as well. Yet to be convinced that CM is going to generate free cash flow, TXP are years ahead with production already and they are taking on $25m extra debt to effectively drill six wells.
The thing is we have been told numerous times what is happening, the problem is it has not happened.
They raised £10m at the end of July and apart from a two week fully exclusive jolly to Trinidad they do not seem to have done anything with this substantial sum.
Will repeat again. The company stood up in front of investors in May( that was seven months ago) and laid out a timeline in a presentation for testing to be completed in June. As we are now in December I think that is a fair amount of patience and £10m is hardly a shoe string, plus they have raised other cash throughout the year. Mou 1 was completed in July 2021, two and a half years to test would strain the patience of a Buddhist monk.
The willingness from some to accept missed guidance after guidance is staggering.
Think the Chariot deal that put focus on getting testing results and the fact PRD could only secure a MOU has shown that the stance of test results not been important was incorrect. I can remember when you first arrived making the point about this and I disagreed mainly down to Pauls statements. Can see now this was wrong and have to admit it has changed my opinion on management underestimating the importance of testing.
Paul stood up in front of investors at Proactive and went through a presentation with a testing timeline of June It is now scheduled to start SEVEN months later. To say that testing has not been delayed is nonsense.
Paul has also stated that he does not think testing is important on occasion not exactly an overwhelming interest in testing there and probably a factor in the lack of urgency to follow through with the testing program.
You can hold shares and admit that maybe, just maybe not everything is perfect and allow the tiniest bit of criticism is justified.
A placing is the most likely as first gas from CNG is going to be around Q4 if they stick to the testing timelines. Hopefully positive results will boost the share price significantly before the usual broker fleecing.
Cannot see any further delays to testing being well received by either the market or the Moroccan authorities who are desperate for gas.
The cash flow from CM will not be enough to fund the initial work programme on CM never mind Morocco plus the fdp calls for 20 wells will be a while before any free cash flow is generated. Lets see what this report has to say first though as although Pauls management skills are lacking it, his geology record speaks for itself.
I agree nothing has changed on the potential unfortunately that's the issue also. We have had the money to test since Paul did the proactive presentation. I watched that again last night it has not aged well.
If they had got on with it first gas would have been a few months away, now looking like it will be the end of the year. This is an investment people invested in the timelines provided not to wait years.
"Seen many shysters posting their self serving drivel"
21st November
"ROB . . . What if ...
MOU has been signed and fully approved?
Testing has commenced?
First the market hears is upon results?
That triggers unconditional contract?
Folk learn meaning of 'shock and awe'
(Questions raised in private by another investor)"
Irony lost on the ROB?
It's an interesting question, on the one the latest delay was caused by their admin error so will be harsh to lose the licence in that case but on the other has PG been spinning them the same yarn about testing since May and they are growing weary of the delays.
Think race to the finish was another of his gems after the raise that squashed all the positive sentiment and the majority of funds have sat idle for half a year before testing starts. It's been more like a race between asthmatic pensioners.
As underwhelming as expected( well GRH was hyping it as something great), if they had not delayed for this then testing that was supposed to start 16th October would have been finished.
Agree with others more competent people are required PG is a good geologist but the running of a company is beyond his skill set. Deadline after deadline missed, excuse after excuse for this. Lets hope that the 8th time is a charm and testing actually starts near the time frame given.
Ps not a nda insight it seems despite the numerous claims on this board.
Has PG concluded any very large deals?
A MOU can take many forms but they are all as legal binding as the paper that I flushed down the toilet this morning.
Still do not get why testing is being held up for something where both parties can simply walk away if they change their minds/do not like the result.
Is this a new nda after the last one for failing to inform us of September testing expired? Testing has been planned for months now must be on about nda number 20 by now and secret talks round seven.
Here's a wacky theory, Paul has spent too much time on his vanity project, sorry meant the amazing Trinidad deal and the focus from testing has slipped.
See posters are rolling out the old secret talks excuse again, maybe the NDA from a few months ago is still in place. Why people just cannot admit that the companies communication is poor and timescales are unreliable.
What is this trust in management based on?
The biggest risk here seems to be management's inability to deliver to timelines or to focus on getting results.
People telling others to sell seem to be getting their wish. Trust is a hard thing to build but easy to lose. Shareholders no matter how flippant can surely see this is damaging to perceptions of the company.