Member Info for KissnCuddles

Klein57

Seeing that they raised for the stated purpose of securing participations in new renewable energy producers in SA , news on that front should be first IMO. If we hear nada on this front soon it means they effectively lied to us.

And I agree with you that news on Loukas should come very soon. Morocco onshore is the quickest route to sustainable revenues which will reduce/remove the risk of further dilution. That should help boost the SP.

And when news of offshore Morocco development and Namibia lands the SP will get back to double digits (especially considering there’ll be less shares in insurance on the oil&gas entity after the demerger)

Fernan

Read this

https://medias24-com.translate.goog/2025/04/24/gaz-naturel-les-premiers-details-de-lami-relatif-au-developpement-de-linfrastructure-gaziere/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Scroll down half way. They specifically mention the inclusion of that pipeline in the National Gas Infrastructure Development Project.

Fernan

Pwrhaps Rigas pulled out in part because he knows that some of the infrastructure required for Anchois development will now be funded via the current open tender (due to finalized in July this year)?

Why take on all that debt to fund a 40km pipeline when someone else will do it?

And i also agree with the other points. Start small and use the fcf to develop the license are. They could even decide to sell first gas to Europe at a higher price to help fund further exploration.

On thinking about AP's comments '...hopes to attract new shareholders...' (paraphrasing)

Perhaps he meant that he hopes to see new investors, including Institutional Investors, buying CHAR shares on the open market once the demerger as well as sub-funding is completed? We know that some IIs cannot invest in O&G businesses due to sustainability/ethics etc. so maybe when the renewables business is demerged these IIs will be able to invest. And as for those IIs who can invest in O&G but have so far not bought CHAR shares because of the zero revenues and risk of dilution, perhaps they will now be inclined to take a position in CHAR? (some ETFs are forbidden to buy shares in loss making/zero revenue companies)

The above sounds a lot better than simply further dilution. Thoughts?

Potter

ENOG made their intentions known many many months ago. The recent transfer of the entity containing the licenses was expected, and CHAR has been working on plan B for some time already.

Surgit

I'm mostly positive on CHAR and mostly dismiss Harry's ravings. BUT I beleive that on or shortly after the demerger there'll be further dilution in the new renewables entity. They won't have meaningful revenues until a few years from now, and AP never likes to pass on an investment opportunity. Might not be terrible, but I deffo believe there'll be further dilution. What do you think? Hard to see no further dilution, not ever, when the new entity is formed.

Oiltdr

Great that you are posting here.

I wanted to ask for your opinion as to the timing of the demerger. IMO it won’t happen this year. CHAR needs to make more investments in renewables projects, which takes time, and they also need to demonstrate to the market that the business is ‘real.’ The closer these businesses are to revenue generation, the higher a valuation CHaR can get for it. What are your thoughts?

Fernan

ONHYM’s open tender (due to close in July this year) will provide for the infrastructure funding. They specifically refer to the onshore pipeline which Anchois will use to transport its gas.

Wiggly

Only time will tell. What if we see no further investments in Renewables this year? Won't it mean that CHAR used all of the proceeds from this raise to 'strengthen the balance sheet'?

And anyway, if they are so close to cash generation from one of their many assets, or have received cash with the ENOG sub transfer, why did they need to raise?

A lowball takeover is possible, but seeing that AP would crystallize a massive loss (his family, friends and business partners too) I’m hopeful that this is not the plan.

Wiggly

Why do they need $5m to demerge? Surely if they could release value in the renewables business via a separate listing they would have don’t it INSTEAD of yet another dilutive raise?

Surfit

I agree with the timing you’ve outlined. But from a cash burn perspective, as soon as we get funding for offshore we can use it to cover working capital expenses at Char parent. I’ve a feeling at least that part of the offshore story could get done before the end of this year. And onshore could also get funded before the year is out. Once the market knows that another raise is out of the question the SP will rerate. And with a clear timeline on Anchois development, Loukas development, along with further developments on the renewables front, the SP could rerate hard.

thebold

perhaps it was rigas who made an offer which some certain onhym officials couldn't refuse? ;-) and managed to sign off on a deal in his favour, at the expense of chariot. then after the carlyle deal fell through he reneged on his commitment to morocco, managing to **** off everbody connected to it. what a guy!

"Rigas us optimistic Energean will find the right project in the coming months and sees the success in places such as Israel and Egypt as perfect stepping stones for the next African adventure, noting the company is looking at other North African opportunities - even after returning Moroccan onshore assets back to fellow independent Chariot recently - but that he is more actively eyeing West Africa"

Sorry but when I clicked into it again it asked me to pay for a subscription!

From memory the rest of the article relates to Rigas trying to explain away the Carlyle failure, Energean's debt burden (being that it's not a problem!) and that one day he might reenter Morroco. PERHAPS he knows about the current expression of interest being orchestrated by ONHYM. If it ends up that IIs and Banks will fund the infrastructure for offshore gas Morocco it'd have been foolish for Energean to commit to such investments.

Nice find.

Pretty obvious the reason why they pulled out of Morocco was because of the failure of the Carlye deal and remaining debt burden. Nothing much to do with the lack of gas resources in Morocco.

Interesting to read that he's open as to returning to Morocco one day too.

Oiltdr

Interesting assertion that they will book a management fee at sub level for their time spent on the gas business. I presume you are referring to the newly transferred sub from Energean? Does it mean it had a cash surplus at the time of transfer to Chariot?

If you click on this and scroll all the way down you’ll find the section relating to Namibia.

https://chariotenergygroup.com/operations/

So yeah, maybe the ‘offshore oil and gas’ section will be updated shortly with more details on Namibia.

Approx. $87m cash given to Energean Morocoan subsidiary before the transfer to CHAR.

Look at page 245 of Energean's 2024 annual report. At the end of 2024 they fully impaired their $14.4m investment and $20m loan at sub level.

https://www.energean.com/media/6026/2025-04-17_annual_report.pdf

And on 09 May 2025 Energean invested a further $56m into the sub before transferring it to Chariot.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/15285671/filing-history

So that's approx. $87m cash invested in the Moroccan sub. Energean's financials tells us that total capitalized exploration assets relating to Anchois was $65m (fully impaired) leaving c$22m surplus in the Moroccan sub NOT SPENT on Anchois development.

One can only deduce that the sub had a substantial cash surplus when it was transferred to CHAR.

Surety

A $67m write-off of an exploration asset would be one helluva negotiation play.

IMO Rigas has decided to exit Morocco due to the failure of the planned sale of non-strategic assets to the Carlyle group. It meant a fundamental rethink of their business plan, and it appears that Morocco (and their commitment to fund Anchois capex up to $850m) is not part of it . . . yet. Perhaps they will exit with a small % ownership of (or an option to buy back into) the wider Lixus/Risanna license area.

We also need to consider Morocco's recently announced multi-billion $$$ tendering process for major natural gas infrastructure investment. Why would Rigas offer to take on this burden alone given that a consortium of companies are about to offer to do it? Makes sense to hold back and wait for others to fund the infrastructure. Smart move.

The Bold

Of course it doesn’t. But it matters not! Riga’s has a thick brass neck on him. He’ll tell Africa he’s fully committed while simultaneously planning to throw them under the bus.