Member Info for Gurkhainvestor

Petesays it will be a shorter list for you to detail achievements- I would add lth holders have experienced promising updates on 16-2 and infrastructure then radio silence for 6-12 months or more when a negative update then reveals the true not so positive reality- if you’ve read and listened to everything you will see that so not sure why you are persisting with setanta

BBC News segment and New York Times both had articles today on environmental damage that China rare earths mining causes - with an ESG rep on most US and European BODs that purchase rare earths and Government purchasing policies = no choice but to purchase from recycled rare earth sources when it is readily available - this is as important as any geo political concerns. And if from a mine any US/European run mine outside of China will win for the same governance reasons. MKA has it all.

Petesays - you only have to read the rns’s start with state 16-2 in 2021 onwards - long term holders have had their patience tested many times

Dodo I’ve also filtered you and I fell better already

Dodo - are you 12 years old ‘king empires king’ my point stands an oil and gas company should have cash in treasury and pay cash dividends - if the recipients then wish to invest that in crypto fine their choice - many lth here would divest if they were not underwater but thanks for the advice.

Bobo this board should not have to be debating the pros and cons of bitcoin - CH needs to drop this and if you want exposure to bitcoin you shouldn’t be able to find it in a high risk oil and gas company that has yet to start producing or returned any money to investors - it’s madness.

Bobo - compounding the risk investors take when investing in Zephyr for oil and gas returns with holding Bitcoin and other crypto on treasury is not acceptable - he is totally losing the room with this one.

In 2022 CH said in an interview they would be spending 2m dollars on building a modular crypto mine as a way of not flaring gas whilst they waited for dominion to come online - nothing ever happened as all linked to 16-2 . In this latest Rns seems they are going a different route with 3rd parties and just selling gas which is ok BUT the latest Rns also says ‘the Board would consider the merits of the Company being paid in, and keeping in treasury, Bitcoin and, potentially, other mainstream cryptocurrencies.’ I don’t mind being paid in crypto if it is then sold immediately I do not like they are considering keeping it in treasury - it’s a horrible idea and not something oil and gas investors feel comfortable with.

JO the bitcoin comments from CH are not a red herring they recruited a ‘crypto expert ‘in 2022 ready for when 16-2 comes online after its successful well test - still waiting for that! It’s all in an rms and on a proactive investor interview on 7th June 2022 - please let’s hope he abandons revisiting it!

BB if he reads your posts could you do anything to stop CH revisiting the Bitcoin payment plan or do you think it a good idea?

Mention of bitcoin is off putting to investors interested in exposure to oil and gas - it is irresponsible to bring that back onto the table at this time when they haven’t yet delivered any paradox production

I read the Rns twice it’s very long - no mention of salt wash? I can take a view on much of the content being good long term but that they have reintroduced the potential of taking payment in cryptocurrencies is something I have an immense dislike of and I think that is something that shareholders in an oil and gas company should have a vote on.

Where is that announcement?

If it’s not being paid down then with size of CH remuneration he will struggle to promote the I’m ‘aligned with shareholders’ line

James Oxford welcome to the LTH club of the frustrating zephyr - I see your replies are getting spiky and you haven’t clocked up 2 years yet. The cycle of comms and upbeat CH is the same we had with 16-2.

Setana I understand your frustration and agree to an extent but the last RNS I asked for your thoughts and you haven’t responded - I think the RNS was not clear enough for reasons stated - what are your thoughts on the latest RNS communication?

Released today -

We update our model to reflect the higher initial production rate potential of future Paradox wells, seeing an increase in production for FY26. Updating the initial production rates for future Paradox wells as mentioned above, and increasing the rate of drilling from FY27, increases our risked NPV10 based valuation to 10.5p (21p un-risked). As such, we increase our target price to 10.5p (from 9p) to reflect this change. We maintain our Spec Buy rating, highlighting the over 100% upside our target price implies compared to Friday's close. We note that should our Paradox CoS increase to 75% for example, our NPV10 based valuation would increase to 14.5p, and 18.4p if fully de-risked, offering attractive upside.

Setanta you haven’t commented on what you actually thought of the RNS just, I’ve raised a couple of questions, what are your thoughts?

Still too many unanswered questions for new investors to want to jump in - why no mention of the condensate barrels per day equivalent as in previous RNS especially as it does not mention oil just gas so clarity would have helped with what I understand is overall a good result - Auctus liked it anyway.

ReNAV from £0.15/sh to £0.18/sh. This excludes any contribution from the shallower reservoirs in the Paradox. These reservoirs had been previously estimated to hold 270 mmboe prospective resources with a total unrisked value of ~£0.78/sh