Member Info for JoeSoap

Tony, as requested,
The 8th Dec post was to share info on the Martens Hill wells, info taken from the Q3 Sept Rubellite MD&A:
Operations update
As at November 9, 2021, Rubellite currently has seventeen (16.0 net) multi-lateral wells drilled, including the six (6.0 net) original wells drilled by Perpetual at Ukalta and the one (1.0 net) producing 2.5 leg multi-lateral well at Figure Lake. New wells that have been drilled, completed and commenced production since Rubellite’s inception in July 2021 include two (1.0 net) wells at Marten Hills which were rig released in mid- July and four (4.0 net) producing wells at Figure Lake. The first four (4.0 net) wells of the planned eight well drilling program at Ukalta....

At Marten Hills, sales production commenced in late August after fully recovering load oil from drilling operations. Rubellite is pleased to report that the two, eight leg multi-lateral wells continue to have average performance consistent with Rubellite’s Marten Hills type curve, with an average IP30 production level of approximately 120 bbl/d of 22° API crude oil for the two wells. An additional 4 (2.0 net) follow up wells are scheduled to be drilled in the first quarter of 2022.

i3e reiterated the option on partaking in the additional wells in their recent report.

Yesterday, the RNS detailed 17 wells would be funded, 15 wells were operated by i3e, leaving two wells operated by A N Other. So the conclusion to be drawn is that either (A) only two wells with Rubellite at Martens Hill, or (B) no wells at MH, two wells elsewhere.
BUT it was not a definitive listing, as "The budget also includes an amount of capital that has been allocated to fund highly economic, non-operated drilling opportunities as they arise," - in a non-specific way. Which should explain why 'hesitation' was used in my post.

wrt the remainder of the post, it was simply to say that these wells were not a rip-roaring success when judged by the expected volumes from the new wells, as worked out by you. But with the error to the downside as flagged by nomadicinvestor and further endorsed by my post, these wells would be even more inferior.

As to your final comment, these boards can usefully share information which may then kick off another piece of research, it's not about being topdog or putting others down, just helping and correcting inaccurate posts, by sharing and supplying extra info to help all, even the original poster. Every reader is, of course, free to DYOR and DYOC.
And it is not just about what Majid and Graham say publicly and then reiterate privately. That can easily lead to PI confirmation bias.

jimo
joe

Tony, it's a follow-on from my 08 Dec 2021 21:49 post.

Additionally, even using your 300 boepd from much earlier, Today 04:47, the return from these Rubellite owned wells was poor, and they can hopefully get better returns for the outlay from their high grading exercise.
HTH

Yes nomadicinvestor, tony will need to readjust his input parameters, however, it goes further because 2 wells are non-producers. But it is not clear whether these are 100% i3e or shared ownership. And what is with 88% i3-operated: is it not binary? The fact that only two are operated by others suggests that there could be hesitation with the 4 Rubelite wells.
Once again we can see that they can look forward to early vesting of the most recent tranche of options, which dependency will be satisfied next?
jimo
joe

G_G_G, thanks for your very detailed explanation of your trades.
Still very impressed (aka jealous!) with the discount you (or your broker) obtained, have to say that iirc the last limit buy that I placed was executed with the SP just 1/10,000 of a penny below the limit. [ one ten thousandth!] ; thinking I might need to change my broker...
lol

G_G_G. Surprised also today by the spread this morning being well over 10%; normally defines an illiquid stock not one on Sets. Perhaps explained by the 250k trade that appeared later which exceeded the traded volume earlier in the day, suggesting it was placed yesterday.
Also surprised that you were able to get your second trade at such a discount to the first and the earlier offer price. Can I be cheeky and ask how you managed that, was it a broker instruction,, a spot market trade, a Limit order or a Fill/Kill? I'm thinking that they could be bidding for cheaper shares tomorrow to cover it, – bwdik?
I tend to agree with the rest of your post, but you have to wonder what sort of debt and/or deal they are planning with 3 brokers and an advisor when they are only a £125M MC company. I also think the farmout may slip into next year in the current environment.
jimo
joe

Tony, Did you overlook the 22° API heavy oil from the co-owned Marten Hills wells drilled by way of a farm-in earlier this year for $1.5M? Perhaps you considered it insignificant at just 120bbl/d in a total volume approaching 20kboepd: it is.
However, worth remembering that they have an option for further wells and Rubellite have budgeted for four in Q1 2022 which would imply Capex spend for i3E of $2M. Perhaps they'll deign to confirm it one day soon...

Eric is very focused on his Funds goals and his belief that there will need to be a correction in the sector due to the current excess cash being generated, and his clients will massively benefit from Dividends and/or huge SP growth due to share buybacks. To that end, almost any company would seem be a 'good investment', but he goes further and refines his selection by having no appetite for gas producers as Canada has been mild and wet with less demand, potential SP gains of c50% are below his funds targetted returns and Parex Resources was a no-no. Yet, he was recently buying more of his top holdings, just as the market took a downward move as the price of oil retreated, because of his belief in his calculated upside and despite his current profit from the earlier cheaper buys he still believes he can get much more.
Continuing to listen and up pops Brian, with his top picks which included Parex...
Two experts and you have an argument?
DYOR and DYOC - it's your money not your clients after all
jimo
joe

Tony, agree with your 21.04 post - Graham is wise enough not to reveal further sensitive info to just one person, irrespective of whether it gets posted or not. For sure he will seek to pacify the nervous investor, he doesn't want to add to the sells!
wrt the top holders not selling, if his only proof is that i3E have not received any TR 1 forms, you may recall it took the warrant conversion to flush out Premier Miton's selling down; but as the thresholds are at 12M intervals and the volume has been poor most days (did the Doc sell out in London last week because there was no volume in Canada to suggest a large holder exiting?).

The last RNS identified the wonderful services offered by Carlingford that had been used previously, but not declared, as well as welcoming Stifel to the dining table...

I expect a substantial debt raising, to pay off the loan notes and provide capital for further acquisition(s) together with the excess fcf. Majid made much of the M&A and A&D in the last video, and the spare bit of Gain was flipped. So more acquisitions and maybe some rationalisation of assets with Disposition of non-core elements, as presented in their earlier circular arrow pictograms.

jimo
joe

Tony, Your friend only knew to look for the response to the Ms Lucas question because you shared your original research uncovering the question(s) that Ms Lucas had posed, on this BB. Thanks for that: not sure it was acknowledged over there. ;-)

However, wrt i3E and their Licence, it seems you have misunderstood the UK Licensing Regime. It is explained within their Re-Admission Document, and the 2020AR provides details of the P2358 Licence moving to the second term. (The P1987 Licence was relinquished.)
This is a UK Seaward Production Licence.
But before any production, the company will need sufficient appraisal wells to determine economic viability and each stage is only permitted when specific conditions have been met.
Perhaps it is explained with the analogy of the driving licence. You get one, but have to conform to further government regulations to use it, with tests for you and the vehicle and conforming to all pervading restrictions to keep it.
HTH
joe
G_G_G they were still working on the plan for the rest of this year in the H1 webcast...

Tony, Both Shell and BP are at a different point in their life cycle to that of i3E. Both have spare cash and have been offloading assets, i3E is seeking to acquire further assets. No comparison and BH it is not! HTH
Cenovos were able to offload non-core assets that they acquired indirectly from ConocoPhillips to i3E as part of their necessary debt reduction programme, aka 'the asset disposition process'.
i3E have doubled their production and see the consolidation of assets can provide cost saving opportunities. The fact that they were 'undercapitalized' is seen to have 'significant upside potential'. Alternatively, you may read that as 'recently unloved and neglected, ripe for modifications needed to bring it up to date': aka immediate use for excess cash flow.
That cash flow will also be needed to keep the manageable level of debt low in the quest for further acquisitions: a 'multitude' were under consideration in the H1 webcast.
Leaving little opportunity for buy backs.
jimo
joe

If the company is now prepared to take on debt for expansion purposes, it does not need a higher SP, so there is nothing gained spending capital on buy backs: it is only impatient stock holders that want to see instant gain.
It is worth looking at the requirements for the early vesting of the (soft) options to understand what their focus is, major Canadian A&D will not occur using others money until they start a farmout process.
Is the NS farmout not on the same free carry principle?
jimo
joe

Tony asks:
“Do you know whether it was ever approved for example was the initial Environmental Impact Assessment initially approved and now rejected pending additional information to address ESG concerns.”

In a word, no.

However, Shell would not operate in a vacuum, and OGA expect regular updates, so two-way dialogue is to be expected and the application would not just drop on the OGA doormat even if the unexpected response did drop on Shell's.
Perhaps it is explained by the ESG goalposts moving and becoming closer together.
Don't know if you have reviewed these:
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/news-publications/publications/2021/stewardship-expectation-11-net-zero/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/north-sea-transition-deal
A Methane Action Plan is identified in the latter.(COP 26 achieved a methane pledge.)

And, then this one, suggesting in might not be just those 'in the application phase' as you put it.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/102821-interview-all-undeveloped-nsea-projects-should-face-environmental-review-scottish-minister

wrt Ms Lucas and her little list, the answer is usually along the lines 'I refer the Honourable Lady to my previous answer'.
But it is interesting to note that her list far exceeds the number of approvals granted over recent years, viz
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/7796/full-list-of-offshore-field-consents-oct-21.xlsx

joe

Tony, if you follow this link you will see how Shell [nee BG] got on with their Jackdaw gas application:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jackdaw-field-development#history

Anyone wondering if this may yet go lower, now that the dividend re-investment demand has passed and G_G_G has had his 'last two top-ups', although that still leaves him short of his declared +4.75m goal...
Perhaps the cupidity of certain holders, both here and over there, is the reason for continuing the positive posting to inspire others and thereby stop the slide.

wrt the farm-out in the NS, the lawyers were on it last December and the terms are now done, [see H1 Report], evidence of the cash is awaited before drilling applications etc are made. There probably is a longstop date pencilled in, which is why they suggested possibly going it alone in the recent interview.
But are they really thinking that the likes of Viaro or Sinopec might renege on their dues for the drilling?
Or are they looking at a smaller player, a much smaller player - like a new start-up, that is still seeking funding.
aiui, there is a new company that is behind schedule with its initial farm-in to a producer, which would then have provided security for the funds needed for this appraisal drilling programme and has long harboured an interest in this licence. UOG had planned to exit the NS, but have not had the best fortune with their divestment to date.
If the issue is with a mid-sized company, not being able to go to FID and release internal funding for this appraisal, is it because they cannot see how the end game would play out in the current environment with OGA/OPRED not sanctioning recent field development submissions? The original plan was, aiui, to use BleoHolm, but it has only a relatively short life and is not powered by green electricity...
Gotta hope that i3E have a production plan in the event of the anticipated appraisal success, should it be sanctioned, of course. Meanwhile i3E NS is a financial drain on Canadian fcf.
jimo
joe

Are you now anticipating more like this one?
https://www.bursamalaysia.com/market_information/announcements/company_announcement/announcement_details?ann_id=3198149

Anyone wanting the history only has to click the Director Deals button above.
or this link to avoid scrolling ;-)
https://www.lse.co.uk/DirectorsDeals.asp?shareprice=I3E&share=I3-Energy

and you will see the research from The Abbot (aka jadam aka ronbruce) is lacking in accuracy . The irony. :-))

Tony must have had a reason to copy it over, it pre-dated my missive below by some 20mins so was not done to rebut that.
Do we need to get Longwait (from JOG) on the case....

Yesterday Majid said they were still looking at acquisitions perhaps we will get a new Punch and Judy show, rather than the ongoing repeats with minor script changes. jimo, :-) naturally!
fwiw, we need to look at the whole picture and not just the Cenovus raise.
i3E had some Loan Notes and a bad drill. These notes were renegotiated and (keeping it brief) the terms were satisfied by the Toscana deal and then the Gain deal, which lead to the first raise Documentation and the associated new Admission Document detailing the terms.
Of note, were
(1) the Dividend commitment in the Investment Proposition,
(2) the Loan Note "amendments include the requirement that the currently outstanding i3 management options will be cancelled and replacement options will be issued to i3 staff and directors which replicate the terms of the adjusted Loan Note warrants (the "New Options") in relation to the exercise price , to seek alignment between the Noteholders and management." and
(3) the award of 75M options, 45.2M to the board, also at 5p with soft targets.

The second 'requirement' is unlikely to have been required by the Note holders and is most probably a quid pro quo, which together with the third identifies the self-serving attitude espoused by the BOD.
wrt the Loan Note holders, they had saved the company, held it at their mercy in event of default, and would now be able to dictate future financing options to their own best interests, remembering a bit of quid pro quo.
Therefore the arguments presented by the BOD in the H1 video were probably specious, being justified by labouring the points and, and and, and and. None of them were blockers, but needed earlier planning and activity to be able to draw on when needed, but hey, the equity option was already in their back pocket and would enable more soft options by dint of the increased total.
The main LN holder appears not to have sold any shares: check the maths out. Doesn't mean he has not traded, but his Warrant conversion neatly outed a reduced holding RNS from Premier Miton when the Total was raised.
The LN holder is getting pik-interest on much safer Loan Notes and dividend on his 5p shares as well as capital appreciation. Hardly surprising that he wanted more at pre-Doc-ramp price along with other II besties and the offer closed so quickly..
We have seen the second tranche of 5p shares to the BoD, just 74.2M to come, then the 11p ones...
Better hope they continue to buy these and not take the JOG route revealed on Monday.

How will the next acquisition be funded? What level of 'simple' debt could they fund the interest on with their assets all needing investment. Yes, Majid has proposed using others cash by farming out, but do they want in on his terms?
Time will tell.
jimo
joe

Agree re Moxon.
However, many employees did get cash from the company for the sale of the options as stated. [240,000 options and 19,074 shares.]
Your long post of last night suggested someone took c 3%, 500,000 is only just over 1.5%, but it disappeared along with Longwait's entertaining posts when the broom came out overnight.

https://themarketherald.ca/i3-energy-plc-tsxite-provides-q3-updates-2021-10-26/
Direct link to i3E clip.
Hope you're more moved than Caroline and that it's not a foretaste of the ProActive...

How true!
Of course it would also serve to show their largesse with the disclosure that i3E received just £2,377.3216 (before expenses) when the market capital increased by >£3M.