Member Info for jt2017

To be fair, it was Masterfly who found it. The EBITDAX for 2025 is useful for calculating future earnings for char though.

London, 12 March 2026 - Energean plc is pleased to announce that it has signed an agreement to acquire Chevron's 31% operated interest in Block 14 and 15.5% non-operated interest in Block 14K, offshore Angola. This acquisition provides a platform for long-term growth in the region and is the first step in Energean's strategy to expand its operations into West Africa.

The Block 14 assets produce around 42 kbbl/d of oil in total[1], equivalent to 13 kbbl/d net to the interest to be acquired. Adjusted EBITDAX in 2025 was $119 million[2], and the transaction is expected to be immediately cash flow accretive to Energean.

The effective date of the transaction is 1 January 2026, with closing expected by the end of 2026, subject, inter alia, to government and regulatory approvals and the waiver of applicable pre-emption rights. Angola has a supportive fiscal regime and regulatory environment, and the transaction brings with it a highly skilled and experienced operating team.

I can't see them being happy, given the history between the two companies. Will enog become the operator of block 14, or will Etu take control? Still, it is only at the initial stages and it's possible enog may be trumped by a pre-emption. IMHO

Https://geoexpro.com/moroccan-atlantic-margin-where-geological-diversity-meets-outstanding-exploration-potential/

Hi KC, from the rns "Chariot intends to provide US$12m in cash as well as financing related transaction costs. This funding will be repayable from future cashflows", so it looks like we are covered.

Bod, owes us answers to questions on the deal though!

So please correct me if I’m wrong, but the Angola deal is a copy of the spa signed by BW Energy & M&P. The costs are the same, except BW Energy and M&P were due to split the deposit / funding 50/50. In our deal Etu seem to be getting their 50% for no cost. I know Etu have the pre-emption rights, but they seem have done really well in the deal at our expense. IMHO.

Also, is it me or do others think $4M for transaction costs is excessive? I realise that it all gets paid back eventually, but I would like to know the breakdown for those costs.

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/CHAR/result-of-general-meeting-and-total-voting-rights/17498417

All resolutions passed. RNS has been out for a while.

Hi Surfit, they may well have explored a bond loan along with other forms of financing and found that dilution was the only realistic option available, with no historical record of earnings generated. If AP and the other major shareholders have invested in the offer and keep their same % holdings, they will still be o.k. if / when the company market cap increases. It’s just the lth’s that will suffer with the dilution.

Looking at the Angola deal, BW Energy first became interested late Sept 25 and signed the SPA in Dec 25, triggering the pre-emption clause. So maybe, this deal came up at short notice, for a deposit of $12M and char had to act fast. They owe us some answers though IMHO.

Hi Surfit, with the bod previously stating that they were intending to finance any O&G ventures via the sub, they owe us an explanation, at the very least, for this equity raise. It maybe just down to timing, or the size of the new venture deal, but keeping us in the dark is not a good look. Also, I would like to know why the G&A has not reduced significantly, after all the talk about recovering G&A costs from the renewables sub. I hope we are allowed to ask these questions at any forthcoming webcast.

Hi Surfit, I bet his % stake in char will remain around the same. The placing was oversubscribed, so they must have had investors lined up some time ago. All will be revealed once they list the major shareholders again. I would be very surprised if anyone holds more than AP though. IMHO

Hi KC, yes I realise it’s just a loan facility and they will only draw down what they need. It’s just that some here are suggesting that the figure needed is a lot lower than $170M, so was wondering why the $170M figure was agreed in the first place?

As for Anchois, yes I still believe it will eventually happen, but I expect it’s a few years away and the return to us will be a lot lower. Plenty of upside with nearby prospects though. IMHO

Now that the dust has settled and looking at the current prospects in the cold light of day, I suppose they just run out of options trying to get a good finance deal to fund this Angolan oil project without a share raise. Anchois is no longer the transformative prospect and any development has been kicked further down the road. Agree with others, for anyone new it’s a good opportunity, but for lth it’s been a disaster.

Does anyone have an idea why the Shell are providing up to $170 million, when we are told the final consideration for the deal will be significantly less? Is it to provide funding for further deals?

The only fact we have is their estimate of " in excess of US$100M" from the RNS.

Now, the question is whether that figure is worth the dilution. IMHO

Hey GP, as an attendee at the last agm, I don’t believe they were spinning any yarns. They did answer difficult questions that were put forward by shareholders. With the renewables, so far, I believe they have done what they said they would do.

It’s the O&G side where we have been let down. A small raise would have been acceptable, but something must have happened between the agm and now for them to go ahead with this massive dilution. It’s the reasoning behind it that I’m having trouble understanding and this is where they owe us an explanation.

Either it’s the deal of the century, too good to miss and will “transform” the company, or they have been forced down this route because they are unable to raise funds by other means. I keep remembering their intention was to fund the O&G in the sub, as was done with the renewables. Maybe, they couldn’t get a great deal, so went for the raise. We need them to come clean though! IMHO

Hi Surfit, FWIW, I don't think you'll lose it. As gp hinted, I think , for lth, it will now take longer to get back to net zero!

Hi Surety, you're probably right. Would be nice though, for AP to answer some questions about the deal to alleviate shareholders concerns.

I received a reply from char comms today, after I asked them if the bod were considering a webcast to provide more detail on the deal:

"Yes, Chariot will look to host a webcast in due course"

I hope it includes a Q&A session.

We can all speculate as to how and why, but I think the bod owe us an explanation.

FWIW, in my naivety, I was expecting a dilution in the O&G sub, via a % sell off to fund or partially fund the producing asset, like they did for the renewable sub.

My mistake on the earlier comment, as I thought it was directed at me.

"Absolutely ridiculous to suggests the BoD “wanted” to do a placing at this level rather than higher up if they could have"

Who is suggesting that?

I would just like to know the reason behind "We are looking at production assets" and "We do not want to dilute the top company" as of Sept last year to the change of heart and the mega raise as of last week?

Not too much to ask, is it!