Member Info for highlandmatt

Did we ever get an answer as to whether The Facility loan from WEN is repayable on Completion or not? There is also the follow on question if ARA/APT elect to step in, whether a similar loan would be forthcoming or not.

Assuming the deal goes through, SCIR has
1. He1 shares (described as 'approx 1%), so approx £450k?
2. some cash,
3. 50% of EAG (profitable)
4. loan to EAG repayable (trade payable of £1.2m)
5. expected income of $3m on Completion inside 12months?
6. A potential $3m following FID next year?
7. Income from future Ruvuma production (long way off)

Have I missed anything?

The BOD response has been 'these costs are reasonable and in line with industry averages'. However there is a reason there is house price bubble in Aberdeen - it's the O&G money sloshing around. It's a bit like London. Paying £500k for a terrace house might be the norm in those areas, if you can afford it, but it doesn't mean you should pay that in the South Wales valleys if you can't.

I wonder whether H2 had some cash, and parked it in PRD when the price was 5p, now needs it to progress a project, and has helpfully netted 80% gain in the meantime?

I suspect PB means without big pauses for raising / accumulating money, as opposed to having a drill bit turning constantly.

MRC - I still think the BOD are judging costs based on their careers in large O&G companies, rather than versus the available cashflow. I would get upset if legal costs to buy a house exceed £2k, and can do a due diligence on a company in about a day, so why do DD and transaction costs of tens of thousands seem reasonable to the BOD for purchasing Greenan? Calibration all wrong.

We were already thinking the numbers were excellent, now they've doubled. Does anyone have an example of another company with acreage at such numbers (or better)?

Thank you Keith.

A daft laddie question - Cube has highlighted the passage re porosity and permeate. It states 'at deposition'. Does that mean the number change with compression/pressure/compaction over the years, to end up at the CPR values?

Ah, rereading the RNS, I think they just renamed Mou4 (or 5!) as Mou2.

One thing I've been pondering, but haven't actually researched, so apologies in advance if I've missed something obvious, but.....The last RNS we were discussing why Mou5 would be next, instead of Mou4, which had been the plan. Now we are back to Mou2. The RNS doesn't explicitly explain this change, but I am assuming this is due to reprocessed seismic identifying shallower targets, and potentially nearer infrastructure, so a cheaper and more likely 'hit' than 4 or 5? Maybe not the biggest target, but big enough to progress the project? And possibly affordable with a financial envelope being progressed by NEDs/advisors? All supposition, but maybe merits discussion.

Hi Jonmo. Just for clarity, I'm not advocating or predicting a placing, just indicating that one should not be feared.

Always have a BATNA. Otherwise you will get put over a barrel.

Got it. Thanks Graham.

Thanks GRH. So similar to leasing a new car from the dealership, but on a larger scale. You are paying for the depreciation, not the whole car. Title remains with the lessor, so they retain the asset on their books. So it's just a revenue cost. As you say, harder to hide in the notes, as for the types of deals you cite, would be a significant portion of the running costs.

GRH (and anyone else) - a question about operational leasing that might help me out on another holding. How can a lease be off balance sheet? Would there not be a liability to show?

If we think the future value of 75% is at least $300m (taking the CPR NPV and changing the risk weighting from 25% to 50%), then 25% is worth $100m. If a well can be drilled for $6m/£5m, a placing for this would be 1/6th of our mcap, whereas the retained field equity is 50% higher. $6m invested to secure $100m would be a good ROI.

Thanks HS. Against that backdrop, I can anticipate full government support for Cascadura and more.

The impact of the new NEDs becoming apparent. Renting the CNG plant reduces capex required to get to production by 60%. Either we get to keep all 75% or the JV pays a higher price?

Good to have you onboard MT. Are you in contact with Big Double regarding analysing the accounts?

I suspect the BOD are doing very little other than asking Gneiss to vet various options, which they get to charge a fee every time.