Member Info for highlandmatt

Oh, plus SCIR doesn't even own the AD plants - EAG does. So from the shareholders' perspective £1.2m has left the company, and we've got nothing for it. The BOD does a poor job of explaining the value of the loan and 50% ownership of EAG on the books.

I think you've nailed it 44RJ. Personally, I can see the reasoning for the strategy. At the time, Scirocco had no income and the BOD was looking at a large expense to develop Ruvuma. So a strategy of monetising assets and reducing the liabilities made a lot of sense. If Horse Hill and He1 sales netted a few million, and these were swapped for 3 or 4 AD plants, that all generated £1.3m revenue and £600k gross profit, we'd be sitting here of revenue of £4-5m, net profit of say £1m per annum, and a mcap of £10m on that alone. With Ruvuma still in hand, the choice would remain - fund or sell. Sell Ruvuma for a few million, get another 2 or 3 AD plants, turnover now £7-8m, profit £1.5m. Plus maybe retain staged payments of Ruvuma income. Happy days.

But the problem has been the expenditure along the way, not delivering the portfolio of AD assets, and generally silence. All of that would be forgiven if Ruvuma was sold for $20m cash. But it's not. So shareholders are now p@$$ed off.

Three companies - potential acquisitions in the wings? Not unusual to have each element of a business a separate limited company, see it all the the time with care home groups. Each care home is a limited company. Insulates the group against any serious loss or claim.

Circular - Wow, the BOD are really not happy! I summarised each of the resolutions and answers as follows:
R1 - what is the plan? - A1- repeating the strategy.
R2 - transparency of spend. A2 - breakdown provided.
R3 - What is ROI ? A3 - EAG revenue £1.3m, gross profit £600k. Not bad.
R4 - Cost control. A4 - Still no visibility, but now looking at it.
R5 - Shareholder visibility. A5 - what do you have to hide?

I wasn't expecting answers at this stage, so give the BOD credit for that. Maybe if there was similar effort put in to cost control, promoting the company, the successes, the detailed plan, then the S[p wouldn't be where it is now.

One final thought - the BOD has 3%, SHAG 5.6%. Who has the other 90+%?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/lrd1S1dKzo6qnuK9r2d27M_5llY/appointments

Interesting. Must be another Tom Hamilton Reynolds born in March 1970.

Tom's a busy boy....https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/7Um4J1UfAWK1UyxhdWCprSP5_O0/appointments

It is good news, but won't shift the dial much. £140k profit in 4years, staged payments. Every little helps, but set against what the BOD has spent...

We seem to have some new posters....

Or decide to preserve the cash. Unless the thought is to buy back now, and issue at a higher price later.

The equation may well be that the acquisition has already paid for itself. On buybacks, if the company viewed the shares as undervalued at 100p, why not continue at 70p?

Thanks Raxfactor. Hopefully it is a just a steer on risk management, a tightening of the inspection regime, more preventative maintenance.

That would be excellent news. Just wondering if anyone has crunched all the various scenarios yet?

What are the chances the vessel needs to be replaced (bought or leased), or the field abandoned? https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/422247/jadestones-oil-spill-puts-spotlight-on-ageing-montara-fpso-at-infamous-australian-field/

Thanks Nigel, that is interesting. However, that refers to seismic interpretation.
Does that apply to well readings and bore cuttings too?

Thanks Keith. Yes, I have a holding in Helium One hoping for just that. :) I pinged the identifed very fine sand issue from the presentation, and that does seem to be the challenge. I was just trying to ascertain if there is any circumstance where Mou1 isn't a gas discovery (i.e. the post well analysis is wrong). For the record, I believe it to be the discovery it is stated to be.

After the excellent presentation, I was again pondering the potential risks, and Mou2 may encounter technical issues. This is always a chance I have learned. However, pondering Mou1, I recall the results to be high pressure, dry gas, with no mention of any water. Is it possible to have high pressure in a well, without either hydrocarbons or water?

Impossible without knowing the detail of the assets, production and financial deal.

My really crude calculation is:
CPR NPV is $148m on 25% chance.
Say £100m to be conservative.
Change COS to 75% = £300m
That 10x current mcap, so 80p.
Same answer, but different way of getting there.

So, main takeaway for me, was $14m per quarter net profit from initial Cascadura. Call it £10 = £40m per annum. P/e 10 = £400m mcap. Double current SP. Then add everything else.

Have you read the two RNSs?

Progress is being made. Just slower than we would like.