Member Info for JAllis

Max,

Time will tell what the eventual cost is - the RNS states 30M, article states 'less than' 20M, although that could be anything from 19.9M down.

If its less than 15M then AA funding covers it but anything more than that and there is a funding gap.

Co. had 6.4M Cash at Dec 31st 21 and 3.063M at Jun 30th 22 meaning its running at a burn rate of £556K p/m. Company raised 1.5M in Sep.

1.5M + 3.063M as at Jun 22 = 4.5M / 0.556 = 8 months runway.

So would seem like company has about 2 months of Cash left. Thus will be looking to raise soon anyway for working capitals even without any potential expenditure for the mine capex.

So could be looking at anything between a 3M and 8M (6 months cash and 5M for mine) raise soon - that's anything from a 12 - 30% or more dilution and ofc we are yet to see how long permit and AA DD ultimately takes, which if drags on then with no income will require more cash.

Equity markets are dire atm so will demand a discount (just look at TWD yesterday).

Let's see how it plays out.

ARCM also had a DD period with AA which although for 90 days rather than the 60 here has recently been extended for another 90, thereby making it 180 so far and that is before any potential further extensions. ARCM has been partly due to delays with the in country mining office but it demonstrates how not do we yet need to wait for the 60 day period here to commence depending on when we receive permits etc but that, that 60 day period itself could be delayed.

went, my view is it is the funding gap and the risk of a raise which could be at discount is what's holding this back.

Also the lead time on the AA deal, 60 days before which permits are required means there is downside price risk on iron ore to be factored in, once these two hurdles are crossed if ore is still at good levels I reckon we will see the moves

Sakura,

I think the challenge here is not whether an offer will be received at a premium to current mcap but whether that offer, when factoring in the extant risks, will be one that the BoD accepts, and, if they do, what they will do with the proceeds thereafter.

thanks DDD, problem is CNR itself has described the land issue as a 'material risk'

thanks for this condor_forever, what does standout to me in this email is MC's justification for not having purchased the land to date;

"... We have deliberately not purchased this land as the co-operative want to continue to work and earn money until the last moment..."

How does CNR purchasing the land prevent the co-op from continuing to work?! Surely if CNR owned the land it would be at their complete discretion who did/did not work the land whilst they were finalising route to market. Heck, it could even be included in the contract to any buyer that artisinals miners have the right to continue working the land until the new buyer actually begins operations proper...

Dictumdedicto - have been reading this board with interest of late given the potential Corp activity and having been a shareholder in the past.

Your valuation of the 6th Dec, I'm the post titled 'Valuations Revisited' is interesting, I note, however, that it does not factor in the 'material risk' that is the remaining 0.4% of land the company has not yet acquired and the terms on which this may have to be acquired from the artisinal miners (see RNS 12th Sep) by the new owner (if not CNR) once they purchase the asset.

Given this is a 'material risk' as highlighted by the co itself, how would you factor this into your valuation of 50-70p?

What sort of discount to these prices would you see any potential acquirer demanding?

Thanks

AA already loaning 15m - one that is paid back through goods rather than cash

reason capex is an issue is 15m balance is equal to mcap of Co atm and if its covered via placing that's near c 50% dilution. so pretty important point

mate that's not a response. can't just say capex will be X because Y said so and then not give figures.

flipside I could say capex will be 60M instead of 30 and not give a source

what is the source of the capex reduction figures and Rod saying rest will be a loan? ty

point is italy, indonesia, phillipines etc are all priced in at currecnt level. market valuation of all those assets is current sp, what were talking about is how much extra Pakstan would add, which based on peers would appear not much

thanks DRB83. you say 'My understanding is that $15m is the initial capex with the other $15m required further down the line.' - what is this understanding based on please? if you can point to any co statements/presentations that detail this that would be great.

thanks

his has $27M debt bond which needs to be factored into calculating mcap/enterprise value. True enterprise value is c. $35M. Assuming they get the 800bn cf of gas field at 50% thats 400 billion cubic feet at current mcap of c. $35m. considering other cos such as BOIL have c5 trillion cf of gas and are valued at £25M current mcap sounds about right

Hi - looking in here and had a couple of questions if anybody can help - UFO states it will be aiming to start production in 2023 and that to begin mining it will cost c$30M. As part of the potential AA funding UFO would receive upto c.$15m.

How does UFO expect to fund the balance of c$15m to get the mining going? Would this be a placing or a loan?

Thanks

The chief executive of Australia’s Woodside Energy (ASX:WDS) appears to have made a blunder with her comments that the company is open to revisiting a greenfield LNG export development in East Timor.

Significantly, the melodrama around the project will likely continue.

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/asia/465928/woodside-boss-makes-blunder-with-east-timor-lng-comments/

Once bitten twice shy is the phrase that springs to mind. Conoco, Shell et al and those watching will definitely want certainty around export strategy from TL before committing this again.

Thanks HFB. It seems that this point would have to be cleared before any major would farm in to/purchase BOIL's license - else they would be risking ending up in the same position as before where they are stuck with a license that they cant do anything with because TL is insisting on an economically unviable route to market.

Have you come across anything that suggests when a firm decision is due to be made on this?

Thanks

Thanks HFB, so are you saying that your thinking is that TL would agree on the FLNG option?

Thanks HFB and Alvernikov.

HFB - you say '...brief details Doug and I found, it states the Northern petroleum facilities , which include an LNG tank farm are going ahead...' - could you proivde a link to these details please? Additionally, what is your thinking on how TL would get the gas to these LNG tanks and what is the basis for that?

Alvernikov - you say '...The facility is a regasification LNG import terminal, specifically purposed for the conversion of the island's three power stations from oil to gas...' - is this the tanks that HFB is referring to?

HFB/Al - - Al, says '...offloading LNG from a Chuditch FLNG/FPSO to a transportation vessel seems to be the order of the day...' This would fit with the suggestions made by BOIL management however if Horta and Gusmao previously rejected this option then what indications are there that they would accept it now?

Thanks!