Member Info for InJamesweTrust

KeithOz

If its only 500 not 700 p.a. that's it, I'm selling!!!!!

This is what GRH alluded too, Sandjet for thin sands explosives for thick intervals.

The EIA would need to covet the rationale and PRD aren't about to blow a hole in the dessert (deliberately anyway!!)

That being the case are we now in the run down to understanding if MOU3 holds the gas it was projected to or greater amounts given the increased layers found in drilling.

So potentially we either will or won't have 0.6 - 1.7 TCF plus by end of Oct/beginning Nov. If it proves up MOU3 what else then follows from it.

So one might say an interesting next 4-6 weeks.....

does anyone know if they hedged the debt package. that hedge is significantly in the money i'd imagine if so. would be really interested in the mark to market of that versus the supply issue (before the bod decided to **** around with the design and spunk more cash).

If its stranded in your gut Louis best try some Windeze or an equivalent.

Louis is full of nonsense, asking how long have they avoided testing and contending they keep doing do.

If so, why are they testing a prospect that is 0.6-1.4 TCF even before drilling identified larger than expected payzones. To enter in to a gas sale agreement.....that is in a weeks time so hardly running away.

Of course any rise likely to be tempered by sellers from placing where there is an overhang

On Sandjet - I'd imagine there was a drop dead date in the contract for equipment availability. The contract should be an option for Sandjet to do the work and equipment to be ordered by x date. Once the date passes Sandjet has other commitments hence the window passes. Unlikely they've been paying the Sandjet team full rate in the interim.

I've mentioned the Arrow model before here, seems a similar route for PG/LB in terms of getting the well head producing cashflow and boot strapping the proving up at their pace and discretion. We'll executed it is a strategy that should yield material gains.

If they're doing a materially higher amount of gas per day (envisaged) then revenue wise it is a big positive also.

CNG isn't the way to monetise multi-TCF I'd imagine but it's a great way to have funds to prove it up if they're there.

Interesting to see the reaction the confidence to get the gas flow required to achieve a corporate sale and funding are definite positives. The testing delay well known and frustrating. Overall should see a rise but Mr Market can be a fickle beast.

Not sure it is the PRD vessel that has been leaky before as much as advisors. Given the Nomad needs to know what announcements to make to market - PG/LB and AN Other from Fox-Pitt could handle negs with a CFO from potential partners. That is tight enough it shouldn't leak.

The offering company in such a situation has no desire to leak as it just makes deal more expensive.

It isn't clear how much of the extra capital is from the supplier and how much is from design changes. What is the Liquidated Damages regime and how strong is the supplier as a counterparts.

This is all info that the company should be discussing as their fiduciary duty is to the shareholders. Not just a few major ones either.

Any enhancement to engineering should not be done at the time the company is at its weakest and thus increase the problems already at hand.

Management wise that is a shockingly poor approach. I may email investor relations and suggest the FCA would be interested in timelines and potential conduct breaches.

Jermwy Martin should be barred from any work out bonus if he doesn't resign in disgrace.

Guess the big question now, versus NPV of asset - what is EV of HZM now. Atn30p c.£80m MCAP, plus debt plus CapEx remaining.

That probably makes the current EV less than a quarter of the NPV. So if someone takes equity out, or Lenders default and we are bought from Lenders. Then for equity they might have to pay £100m for an asset with $1.5bn value when debt is exuded.

Feels like a shafting

Likely there is something going on, whether it be considering best use of funds between testing and a drill or negotiations.

The sudden raise was because suitors wanted Flow Testing but with such results comes an increased price.

Perhaps upon raising funds, potential partners have asked to negotiate a degree of exclusive access for a fee with further structured payments on results as Keith alludes to.

Fwiw - the initial fee may not be large but there is a lot then to discuss with regards to payment for discovery or carry in stub equity or a mix.

I'm not as strong on the geology but many think we have between 0.5 and 1.8TCF proven to a reasonable extent. How much is there beyond that and what exactly do Paul/Lonnie think is the way forward and how does that reconcile to control bidders want along with complications ona full versus partial sale.

So, imagine intention is still to test but subject to some delay arising from earthquake and/or further analysis which may have changed priority.

An exclusivity fee is probably only 10-20p a share upfront (again depending on geological view) but the back end should then be remunerative if testing and drilling can prove the concept.

Interesting times

Experience to some extent is important. Have managed debt share in multi billion O&G projects in Russia and Mozambique (each project in excess of $25bn) as well as refined on rigs and support services vessels and pipe laying.

Significant Project Finance and equity investment experience as well as managing debt in Leveraged Finance transactions.

Experience in corporate restructuring too.

The CEO needs to walk, to exacerbate the increased costs by executing design changes and increasing the pain on shareholders is a horror show and unbelievably obtuse/tonedeaf.

I'm out just now, sold as it drifted down but only last week was espousing the value here given the relatively recent RNS being 65% complete and on budget for spending.

If there is Internal indication of problems prior to this (I don't see how there cannot be as it doesn't blow up in this time frame) then the market update would not have met the factual threshold. Board notes and minutes (if recorded properly) would show likewise the timing of concerns.

From what seemed like a rare AIM success story I can see this now being taken out very cheaply by Glencore who must be laughing themselves silly.

Should it drop, it is unlikely to be significant - maybe 10.5p would be my guess.

What I would say though if trading when it dropped after drill results previously, BoD were quick with the RNS and clarifying statement and I dare say are aware of time factor and messaging currently too.

Not that they should be wet nursing adult investors.

View on RNS depends on how one sees their holding. If seeking to trade on news or absence of it for 5-10% here or there then no detail of current activity/reason for delay may see a drop from current levels.

However, if not a trader and keen to hold until results, the timing of testing being delayed by a few weeks (seemjngly) is unlikely to vex you greatly and you'd rather be in for the definitive RNS about flow levels and/or a deal potentially.

Given the leaky nature of the City across professional services and advisors I'd be very surprised if the BoD was able to keep final stages or a deal on the down low. Such leakage usually results in market activity (such as forward selling placings).

Congrats to them if they have and obvs delighted if things are at this stage but don't think they will be just yet.

New drilling might be exciting in terms of proving gas shows and extent of the Titanosaur- doing it though without flow testing if that is what off takers need is risky. Drills can have problems or the geology can be slightly out.

Proving flow and generating revenue can be transformational. Arrow produce oil and are aiming to go from c.1.5k bopd to 10k bopd production boot strapped through cashflow.

Drilling and the risks attached could mean a raise without as positive a story to tell behind it. Confidence is an ephemeral thing much easier to lose than gain.

The BoD have had a good hand on the pulse/tiller to date and am sure will continue to guide things and have talked about monetisation. They will likely be having conversations with potential partners we are not privy too but hope they are taking the right soundings.

the bod are not alone in the sector struggling to maintain timelines. that can be incredibly frustrating as if we are treated like mushrooms - some will decide to walk. there is likely continued churn to be seen off from the placing, should imagine the broker can advise pg/lb just how much.

i'd probably want good news to be unfettered by a block sale for 10m from some punter still churning. equally (and more likely) these negs can just take a long time as can logistics despite best efforts (just try expediting parts for an off hire vessel that has unexpectedly broken down as well as arranging the right mechanic to random docks in a tropical jungle port or desert ****hole). with complications of a major earthquake i think they have earned some leeway.

end of the day, if it slips through october then an update may be required but they are funded and making plans. the.execution of those plans if they find what is hoped for will be a good outcome for all and regardless of sept should be partly complete before end q4 which isn't that far away.