Member Info for JTS13

Thanks Trek for confirming my interpretation.

Whilst noting that we have established an all time low today (fractionally), given that the previous low was due to Blackrock sell-off, and most shorters cleared out within 24hrs of that final notification - gapping our SP up to 20+. It would seem safe to think that we won't see much more selling pressure from shorters at these all time historic lows. They may be willing to see where this heads for a bit before buying back their stock, but it's fair to think that we may be at the bottom now. Topped up another 4g at 16.8p which is my lowest purchase yet. Hadn't expected this to sink down to such a low as otherwise would of held off that other 10g purchase last week. All in hindsight, right

Fairly high-risk short term play, but have consistently commented that thought rise would be H2 post-FY results

Strategy clear in terms of targeting larger diamond finds. This is inline with what we're wanting. Potential risk factor in that they're assuming price stability within market that is bearish. Defo recent mine closures elsewhere will help, but there is a lag there.

With regards to fcf, my interpretation was fcf AFTER debt and bond payments. Given that these are significant ($40m), it would therefore be equivalent of around $270-320m fcf. This is my interpretation based upon how fcf is worded elsewhere in RNSs... This being the case, then net debt reduction by 50% over 3 years is not bad. Esp when this be a fairly reserved target.
If however my interpretation is wrong, and fcf is pre-debt/bond payments. Then this will sink further yet

Shorters are having a field day in the markets at the moment

A nice bounce off 18.7, but amazing that we even dropped so low. Very tempting to top-up further, however a bit risky for me at the moment given overall market sentiment.

No probs @DC2007. Bit unfortunate in timing, but let's see what happens come Monday

Whilst fully agreed with the points of post... let's not hope that such ongoing performance knocks another 40%+ off our SP. Cause despite the half bill debt reduction n all the rest of it, that's currently where we are. Over 40% down

This drop on open is a farce

TD just said that Info Memo to be sent out next week for Sea Lion... This could be what our shorter followers are after

btw: just to note, that whilst TD is dull and not exactly a message man. His background is finance. He's also been learning dangers of being too positive which burned PMO badly 3-4 years back. So sure, now his messages are somewhat underwhelming. However, better to have targets and exceed them rather than have targets and miss

Indeed, we're cash flow positive at 35$ oil!!! (Inv PPT Slide 4). This sort of fact should be shouted out to market as it's a considerable reduction to where we were before

1) Production: Maintained at high (84.1 average). Should easily beat EOY target
2) Net debt reduced 1.1million USD (1.8mill during the period, but former since last update)
3) Current debt to EBITDA ratio of 2.4x. Significant improvement from 3.1 at year end
4) OPEX further reduced down to 12 from 13$ just 2 months ago. That's due to higher production than forecasted, but excellent news!
5) 68.6% of all production from UK assets. So this should make good use of our tax losses at year end
6) Bison, Iguana and Gajah Puteri fields remain on target for completion at year end, with potential for flow rates being higher than expected
7) SEAsian production hedge nicely. Low hedging for 2020 (14%)suggests that mgt are confident that they'll get op to hedge at a higher price later in the year.

Overall, no revolutionary news as HoInvestment had given a good PPT just a few weeks back. However, this is definitely a solid update

So: Trump says "progress has been made". Pompeo says "ready to negotiate on their missile program". Iran replies: "?Iran’s missiles … are absolutely and under no condition negotiable with anyone or any country, period".

Kinda clear that this is all politics. My guess would be that discussions weren't really going anywhere n Trump Administration purposefully made above statements to (i) Make Iran state the negative, and therefore (ii) Make Iran look like the bad guy = (iii) Give US additional goodwill in light of onlookers n put more pressure on Iranians

All politics... just a tad annoying that had to happen to drop oil price 2$s on the eve of our much awaited TU! At least Sep contract has stablised around 64.5 for the past few hours

What we need today is a nice statement about more debt repayment during H1 - gotta be upwards of 100m. Comment on equity raise would be ideal, but doubt that will happen

Can't understand why 94$ keeps getting thrown around on here. There was a doc released a couple years back clearly stating production costs p/mtu throughout the ramp-up phase. But as I can't be bothered to read through all the RNS's n reports to find that, just open ANY of the investor presentations and do a basic calculation:
OPEX / MTU PA and bobs your uncle (no...not you hbob! :P)

So just to throw out a few ref points:
Year 1 = 102$
Year 3 = 128.6$
Year 4 = 86.8$
Year 6 = 83.5$

The 94$ is AVERAGE over a 6 year period!! Peak opex (high cost) will presumably be during year 3 as that'll be when we upgrade the plant to T3.5 and there'll be a fair amount of down time from our 24/7 operations during this phase. Equally, I'd expect these numbers to be improved as these were the numbers thrown out 2-3 years ago, long before we upgraded the plant equipment which we bought specifically designed to minimise downtime during the plant upgrade... So, unless there're any hidden surprises, the 94$ average could be broken

Assuming we get into production pronto, we're still in nice area of gross profit. Challenge to the earnings will be loan repayments and forward capex (for other projects in addition to LP - hence why I'm anti-gold rush, lol, that sounds weird!).

But just to balance out the point, a forecasted initial 10% increase to opex over what most people seem to have taken into consideration, along with lowering APT prices (now below the 230/240 of our FID, and substantially below the 300 used by Turner Pope for their valuations), added to our ongoing delays which equal delayed revenues n cashflows, blowing 3$M on forex, doubling up on mates-rate warrants, n whatever else... yeh, it does make sense for the share price to be below our expectations. However, would still like this sp to get a move on as 0.4s are ruddy rediculous!

It was a while ago since watching it, but I think there was a reference towards equity raise to make up the short fall for Sea Lion during the interview with Malcy a month or so back... So it is on the cards.
The possibility is the whole problem. As posters have said on here already, shorters came in hard on the possible threat of needing equity placement to purchase the Chevron north sea assets. And even though that op/threat is long gone (specific to Chevron), the risk of equity placement remains a possibility.
Whilst we cannot remove the possibility, we should be able to fairly reduce some of the parameters of such a possibility

In other words, if there was a clear statement that equity market would not be tapped for funding at given low mc, this could rocket...
Would be a win-win for investors and PMO - cause even if there was an equity raise, would be at much better terms!
Someone should teach the shorters a lesson, esp' if they're purposefully playing with the SP

https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-y7kzn-6747430?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share

Saw link on KOD by CRK22. Worth a listen to

So, if we average BCNs share price back over recent years at 90p (average likely being lower), dilute by half, we're basically around where it was before. The big difference therefore rests on the financial de-risking... which will of itself be in stages as shall take another 6 months review before revised cost structure be put in place

Interesting to see how this one continues to play out

Noting SP peaked at 56.6 following most recent announcement, implying a better rise upon final confirmation of the strategic investment. But what's also the risk of a possible dip? The funding is technically at a substantial discount to the SP after all

PS: I completely get the NVP valuation, fairly near term plant to completion time, derisking logic etc etc... just considering from other perspective n not wanting to get overly greedy (already being 100%+ up n all)

Ops... do need to apologise for that one. For some reason I read as lower lows (even though I copied it correctly as highs).

Still, note that your lower high was a difference of 0.01p compared to recent high on 2nd July. Hardly worth commenting on. Contrastingly, the lower recent low of 72.22 vs. 67.25 on 18th June is quite noticeable (perhaps the graph being my reason for misreading your message).

Anyway, each to their own... For transparency, I typically aim to keep around 10-20% short on PMO to hedge against sudden downtrend. Just sold off my shorts (minor profit of 0.4%) as anticipating rise on TU wherein will reopen

Somewhat contradictory message, no??

Sell off and lower highs = uptrend, i.e. a buy signal. But you imply that this is a negative... why is an uptrend negative?

Given PMOs volatility, having traders top slice after 10% rise is normal. Why should some profit taking today be a surprise? Won't you be saying again tomo as IIs reset their books and bag profits?

You then say "sell off...early next week" followed by "sell on news". News is on Wednesday. When exactly you expecting people to buy back in between their early week sell off and news? Come on!

That's gotta go down in the books among the record for contradictions

Just a note that in every year since the oil crash that brent had hit $67 (i.e. where we are now) PMO SP has made it into the 90's... given that this track record is prior to paying off huge amounts of debt, ramping up Catcher and confirming one of the best oil discoveries in recent records, it's a fair probability that PMO will maintain this record of achieving the 90s again upon release of its upcoming update (if not before)

No probs @Safety.
PS: When applied, also gives reason to expect our broker forecasts to rise upon us entering into 'confirmed' production and revenue. But yeh, all comes down to cashflows

TBH, think Devils 0.6-0.7 statement was taken out of context... Firstly, the "quote" was not a quote. It was modified. Secondly, he gave timeframe of Dec 20 (giving reason of warrants creating a cap, which is a fair opinion given their high volume), and Thirdly, he doesn't state a high of 0.7, he states a high range. That is completely different. We could peak have an intra-day spike at 1.5p, but still never break a range of 0.6-0.7p... Sounds contradictory, but ranges are calculated by using interday metrics, not intraday.
Consequently, whilst disagreeing with almost every post which he's given this year to date, I do quite agree with this logic and it is one of my biggest worries about WRES. Will WRES come true, I'm 99% sure. But as raised earlier, the timeframe has presented problems for me

Anyway, reason for signing on was to actually say that read a good article: https://masterinvestor.co.uk/latest/how-to-value-junior-mining-stocks/ Given WRES's low mcap at current, it may be of interest to a few on here. Same author has another article on how SP on mining companies on verge of production don't appear to be receiving recognition from market place. He draws out a few behind the scenes points to highlight that they are and that patience be in order to hold out for the real returns

G'luck @All

Trust you got sufficient cashflow to maintain the margin @DBNO. defo a v. risky play!

Storm in Gulf of Mexico not due to make landfall until Sat, so that'll maintain pressure throughout remainder of week. Iran unlikely to cool down in next few days, and besides rig count, what other news likely to push oil down? Brent has entered new range and could rise to $69 ceiling. There may be profit selling on Fri, combined with some risk aversion pre-API/EI releases next week, but PMO's trading update is likely to bring buying pressure, not the opposite!

If risk plays off, it can't be for long as TU gotta bring a temp raise anyway... Might of been more prudent to let PMO rise 5% on TU and then open shorts