Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
The conclusion at the end of the note
Based on the results of the analysis above, this study showed conclusively that the Avacta
AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Lateral Flow Test device is confirmed as being able to detect the
SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant of Concern in routine samples.
The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant has a higher transmission rate and is prevalent in many
countries. Rapid lateral flow COVID-19 tests are commonly used across the world for mass
screening; hence it is important that these rapid antigen tests are accurately evaluated
against the Delta variant. Very few SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests that are currently available
in the market have been clinically evaluated against the Delta variant and these studies are
usually conducted based on in-silico laboratory approach instead of using real-life patient
samples. In this study, the AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Lateral Flow Test was independently
validated against Delta Variant of Concern using routine, prospective clinical samples.
The AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Lateral Flow Test uses novel Affimer® technology which is
highly sensitive and specific for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens in human anterior
nasal swab samples.
This study provides further evidence that Affimer® technology can be successfully applied to
rapid antigen diagnostic platforms.
Here's the link for the new AVACTA AffiDX note
Download our application note, in which we present conclusive evidence that the AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Lateral Flow Test for #Covid_19 can accurately detect the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant of Concern https://hubs.ly/H0_FCqs0
https://www.malcysblog.com/2021/11/oil-price-kistos-iog-jog-zephyr-pharos-president-and-finally/
Zephyr are acquiring these assets remarkably cheaply, 2.1x forecast EBITDA with considerable upside and add to that the low opex of below $14/bbl gives excellent cash flow margins, what’s not to like. Zephyr management are as I have always said are exceptional and this deal propels the company further upwards, only last week I described the company as a ‘landmark’ company and that the share price should continue to increase substantially, my views have only got stronger as a result of this deal.
Edale Capital now under 3% at 2.8%. Looks like they sold c. 9m shares in last few weeks which is whats held us back. I doubt they'll sell too many more for now since they are below the reporting limit (based in Grand Cayman don't forget!!!). Colin & Chairman hold 10.7% so they are well aligned.
CPR report is very encouraging.
https://wp-zephyr-energy-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2021/11/Competent-Persons-Report-FOR-DEAL-ASSETS-MOUNTRAIL-COUNTY-ND-AS-OF-OCTOBER-1-2021.pdf
The thing that encouraged me most is that the $3m bridging loan is being extended by a group including existing shareholders and BOD. That speaks volumes since they undoubtedly know more that can be RNS'd. Bear in mind Due Diligence was done on this deal for 6 months prior to today. Interesting to me is that my own projected financial model for ZPHR has Non-Op EBITDA at $21.9 for 2022 which is almost precisely what has been confirmed. I have Paradox EBITDA for 2022 at c.$15-20m since it won't come on till Q2 but may then grow via a second well or extended lateral. Happy days and another smiley CH video incoming.
My simple maths
16-2LN - as is, once stable probably 1,000 boe per day - using say $70/boe = $25m per year.
Non-Op - 7 wells - 36,000 boe per quarter or c. 1,200 boe per day = $30m per year
16-2LN 1st of up to 200 wells - that will each likely be longer and more efficient with higher BOE per day
Non-Op - 7 to grow to 15 end of Q1 + further acquisitions
Cash generation in 2022 must be easily in excess of $100m and in 2023 when drilling well underway a large multiple of that.
Current mkt cap $114m will be blown away once official CPR released & continue to rise over coming years.
We've got to the point where almost any post from anyone is treated with suspicion. That's a shame. What is however beyond suspicion is that the current SP is the same as in Dec 2010 - 11 years ago!! AVCT now have so many irons in the fire that a SP the same as 11 years prior is totally nuts.
AS spoke at length of customer feedback on AVCT LFTs. To me that implies small trial LFT sales across a range of clients in multiple countries. Hence no meaningful sales numbers as yet but exciting prospects. Also ties in to more manufacturing capacity if required.
In fairness Wyndrum has been right to be cautious and calling the delays as they are but I'm pleased he sees a more positive perspective now. I think we all do but its not at all what any of us were led to believe till today.
The focus on therapeutics is of course because that is under AVCT control not various government bodies. AVCT has unique therapeutic products with very large target markets almost untouched by alternate viable competitors. If they come to mkt, which looks likely, then its a very different SP.
All in all after today I see AVCT totally differently, still very very positive but I have different expectations.
In EU authorisations come from the EC on recommendation from the EMA - European Medical Agency. Their process is described on the following link
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/obtaining-eu-marketing-authorisation-step-step
The process is lengthy and while we can assume Medussa have been on the case for a while a good question to ask this morning is how far along the process are we.
For me the most important aspect was HUA applications is submitted and awaited in EU. This could happen at any point. At that moment the investment made by Medussa will quick in. Their news of 17/12/2020 read
"With many businesses looking to implement affordable organisation-wide testing to monitor viral outbreaks and ensure the workplace is safe for employees to remain in, Medusa 19 is planning to ramp up production to 50m tests each month at its manufacturing site in the Wirral.
Richard Hughes, Medusa 19’s founder, commented: “When a second lockdown was announced, the Prime Minister emphasised the important role rapid tests will play in helping the safely ease COVID-19 restrictions. Yet, it’s becoming clear that the onus for workplace testing is being placed on companies themselves, particularly given the strain on the current national testing system. If an employee is suspected of having or diagnosed with COVID-19, otherwise healthy staff are having to isolate until tested. With tests proving difficult to obtain or results taking days to process, many businesses are left to struggle with reduced operational capacity and protecting employees. Rapid, affordable and quick-to-scale testing models that are readily available now are going to be key for many businesses, especially in manufacturing, construction or food production. We can’t risk supply of these tests not meeting demand, so Medusa has invested significantly in production, so that a solution is available now to help keep these businesses open.”
So GAD and ABDX will have capacity of 3-5m/month but Medussa plan for up to 50m/month.
Just a little more patience.
Looking at the presentation in more detail a few more points stand out
. 509 boe/d and growing from 7 producing wells is approx $1m/month. Another 15 wells on-line by March 2022. So potential rev of possibly £3m/month. More than enough to fund a lot of drilling. Not including any further acquisitions that CH mentioned are in the pipeline.
. IRR of over 40% on non-operated well acquisitions
. Paradox well is benefiting from $2m gov grant
. Oil presence at high pressure across all reservoirs analysed to date with Paradox lease being 25,000 acres
. P50 reserves - those with 50% chance of being recovered - are c. 1 billion barrels
. Risk adjusted reserves 143m
I'm sure there are O&G experts on this board but IMO the potential for Paradox to be huge, utilising new tech and self funded with non-operated wells, makes ZPHR a fantastic opportunity.
Looking at the presentation in more detail a few more points stand out
.
Another great presentation by CH with a lot of additional points made to what he's said in the past. In the order in which he mentioned them
. No debt
. 12% of Co shares bought, not options, by Board and management team - ie plenty of skin in the game
. still has $16m in tax losses to use up
. 7 wells currently producing in Willsden basin, 15 more will be in producing by year end
. Paradox basin has never been explored, developed using new tech - e.g. 3d mapping vs 2d and HSRP
. Hydraulic stimulation means don't need to rely on finding natural fractures so many more wells can be planned easily. Up to 200 may be possible
. Hydraulic lateral wells can be up to 10,000' long and therefore massively increase oil production volumes
. Biden administration has stopped new oil leases so Paradox has a unique advantage
. Not finalised but current working figures show risk adjusted barrels of oil of 143m
. there's zero environmental impact since there's no-one of the site for miles and miles since it was an ex missile testing ground - so no noise, water or transportation issues
. in Q4 there will be a revised CPR report showing overall size of opportunity which will be materially larger than current CPR
. CH to start US marketing to II's in new few months to gain benefit from OTC listing
. Board will sell/partner to a larger entity if in the interests of shareholders - it's not "a lifestyle company"
, news flow shortly to include 1/2 year results, carbon neutrality, more aq's/partnerships, HSRP results, revised CPR
I'm sure i've missed points but these are the one's that resonated with me.
Great stuff from ZPHR.
.
"....the observed patterns of virus transmission (usually 2 days before to 5 days after symptom onset), which led public health agencies to recommend a 10-day isolation period. The sort window of transmissibility contrasts with a median 22-33 days of PCR positivity (longer with severe infections and someone shorter among asymptomatic individuals). This suggests that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.
Once SARS-CoV-2 replication has been controlled by the immune system, RNA levels detectable by PCR on respiratory secretions fall to very low levels when individuals are much less likely to infect others. The remaining RNA copies can take weeks, or occasionally months, to clear, during which time PCR remains positive.
However, for public health measures, another approach is needed. Testing to help slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 asks not whether someone has RNA in their nose from earlier infection, but whether they are infectious today. It is a net loss to the health, social, and economic wellbeing of communities if post-infectious individuals test positive and isolate for 10 days. In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test."
With all the attention on PCR test pricing this viewpoint will surely see the light of day.
I wish all AIM CEO's were as transparent at CH. CH manages expectations exceedingly well. That in combination with an strategy of being a carbon neutral junior oiler with soon to be proven large reserves will appeal big time to II's.
IMO SP has only one direction
In Myle's latest write up there's a few interesting points that are worth re-iterating
1. ISO 13485 allows AVACTA to legally manufacture IVD products beyond the COVID LFT.
2. Manufacturing partner outside of UK has been in TT now for 6-8 weeks
3. 20 years after 9/11 we still have major security at airports - testing for virus's is likely to stay
4. still long patent timescales that can be extended as generate different products with 4 core IP platforms
5.AVA6000 is not seeking to prove it's a new effective drug - it's making doxorubicin more effective so much greater chance of P1 clinical success
6. Medussa and EU home use are unknowns at the moment but any whiff of positive news will start a rerate
Myles makes lot's of other points and one can have a view on them one way or the other. I as always try to focus on facts. The points above in conjunction with other research, espec on Gov legislative timetable for testing, give me a lot of reason to be positive albeit frustrated along with everyone else. Firm hold for me though.
In Myle's latest write up there's a few interesting points that are worth re-iterating
1.
In Myles's write up there's a few points that I think are worth highlighting
1.
The Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals) Regulations 2021 came into force on July 28th.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/910/contents/made
Under these regs approved tests can be sold from Sep 1st. Approved tests will be on gov.uk website. Avacta, of course, meets the requirements, see section 38B, and will be on approved list. Approvals last for 5 years.
The new laws are as a result of a consultative process undertaken in April/may of this year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-validation/outcome/private-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-validation-government-response
"After considering the responses to the consultation, we have decided to take steps to lay a Statutory Instrument under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (MMDA) to create a regulatory requirement for the mandatory approval of antigen and molecular diagnostic tests for COVID-19. However, at this stage, we have taken the decision not to make the laboratory element of validation a mandatory requirement. Initially, we have decided to implement mandatory validation of COVID-19 tests via a desktop review delivered by DHSC. The government intends to introduce mandatory laboratory technical validation at a later date."
and also
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1004232/Impact-assessment-validating-COVID-19-tests-in-the-private-market.pdf at points 54 & 55
"The preferred legislative option (1) will involve 2 Statutory Instruments (SI) laid under the
Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Transitional arrangements will be necessary to help
manage compliance for products already on the market by ensuring that the
requirements come into force in stages. Initially by July 2021 we expect suppliers to be
able to begin applications via a Gov.uk site and desktop reviews will begin. The first SI
will not be in place until mid-July 2021.
55.The desktop review will allow time for feedback to applicants and re-application after
adjustments where relevant. The second SI will be laid in Autumn 2021, this will build on
the desktop review with additional laboratory based technical validations of the tests.
Mandatory laboratory technical validation processed are expected to begin in late
Autumn with outcome reporting following afterwards. There will again be a transition
period but the length of this second period is still undergoing policy consideration and will
incorporate lessons learned from the experience of the transition for business under the
desktop review stage. After this point approvals and disapprovals will be possible and
enforceable."
IMO AVACTA LFT RNS's will start once we are on the approved list from Sep 1st and will quickly accelerate since it will be easy to compare LFT performance of approved tests. I image various advisors will pop up on web providing advisory services as to which tests are bes