Member Info for labrat99

Of course you have no problem with posters whom only provide the positives despite the many setbacks to date no longer promoting a reasonable dialogue. But then they share your views and clearly this exposes your hypocrisy. Obviously you are attempting to stifle opposing views as all you do is attack posters who have a different view to yourself. It will not work.

Some good questions. At these oil prices Oklahoma is running at loss? What is the breakeven bpd at $50 to cover company running costs? Wages from the first six months of the year must have eaten into the working capital, what is the current cash balance? It has been good today to have a discussion without the need to revert to insults, posted enough today enjoy the weekend.

The oil sales from SC do not even cover the wages. It will take 3 wells similar to lm20 just to cover the wages, never mind the other admin costs. How much to install the gas infrastructure?

Well I have posted a few times today perks of being your own boss. Lets be honest posters know that funding is going to be required unless Mexico is unique in giving decent stakes in revenue generative business away for free. Rather than admit that a super secret façade is employed to disguise the lack of resources to pursue these options. Why the secrecy it must be a well known business practice that NCT are deploying unless they have stumbled upon a new business practice. Guess we are just waiting for the rns stating NCT have a stake in a business worth squillions generating free cash flow for no investment. Happy days

Very telling that you are refusing to explain how a deal will be structured as least an admission that finance is required has finally being given. As yet no viable solutions have been offered to explain away the apparent lack of funding required by NCT for these Mexico deals. Cash generative business do not appear out of thin air, they require seed investment to get started and I personally find it extremely disingenuous and misleading that claims are repeated without substance.

In the first post of the thread you said that this was to scale up the MXO/ADL deals which we have established required initial funding from NCT, something that you have repeatedly said is not necessary. As I have said it is very confusing as you appear to be contradicting the no funding required. So funding will be required, but the possibility of farming out later to recover this investment and receive a free carry going forward? This brings me back to the original question of where the funding for the first stage is coming from?

I am now confused. How are these deals going to be structured then?. They do not require finance from NCT and now the free carry model is not going to be used.

NCT set up the introductions and have to bear some responsibility for introducing partners that did not have the resources to proceed. So what you are now saying is that NCT are going to set up deals in Mexico and if they cannot farm out then they will not take them up. Are the partners not going to insist on NCT providing some guarantee of their ability to proceed as they will find themselves in a similar situation as what happened with the MXO licences?

If the deal with MXO had went ahead though NCT would have had to fund their portion of the costs. They did not farm out prior to the deal being signed. What I am saying is that if any other deals are signed in Mexico then NCT will have to fund their portion of the deal. The do not have the resources to do this. They may farm out or sell a percentage at a later date, but this will be after they have committed the initial seed capital. You are claiming that no funding will be required at any stage and to date nothing has being structured in this way. A more stringent assessment of the capabilities of the partners using differing oil prices would have highlighted GEO lack of resources and measures should have taken to address the issue. The licences were awarded in the current oil price environment so using that as an excuse does not wash. Most could see what was coming. Nothing was done to address this. The model failed.

It did not work, the first implementation of the model failed. The blame lies with all parties, NCT did not use parties that had the financial strength to implement the plan. That is bad planning on their part and who is to say it will not be repeated? The only model that has worked to date is the remediation plant that required funding from NCT. So your claims to not needing funding regardless of how many times they are repeated to date are unfortunately baseless and the model failed at the first attempt. Indeed it all depends what a third party thinks the value of the warrants are, not exactly a position of strength is it?

I did comment on the model, it did not work. They introduced MXO and lost the licences. Any examples of the model working? If MXO get to 2p, until then the warrants are worthless. How much would a third party take knowing that NCT are in no position to exercise the warrants and they are taking all the risk if the share price falls before they sell?

You keep repeating not about funding because you know NCT are not in a position to provide any funding. Why would companies choose NCT if they are bringing nothing to the table, they are others more than capable of introductions and the track record of the MXO introduction by NCT is hardly appealing is it? A significant stake in a business in Mexico is in my opinion going to require an injection of funding and NCT will be required to foot some of the bill.

The plan is to farm out, we all saw how the plan to farm out the first licences went. All well and good planning something execution is a different matter entirely. Do NCT have the cash to exercise the warrants? ADL they have a 3.75% stake little appetite to farm into such a small stake( 10% reduction also due to back in rights) the licence expires early next year and an oil major has not had their licence renewed on a producing field.

The opportunity in Mexico is no secret, other companies are employing a similar strategy. The question is does NCT have the resources to take advantage of these opportunities. How do you see NCT funding this move into Mexico?

The loss decreased due to the lower impairment charges $5m less than in 2014. Losses from operations increased thanks to the gravy train.

Despite 2015 being a tough year the directors remuneration increased 20%, nice to see we are all in this together. RC "earned" $283k, how much would he cost if he was doing a decent job. Industry wide belt tightening and NCT staff costs rocket. Another AIM gravy train.

http://www.lseg.com/sites/default/files/content/documents/AIM%20Rules%20for%20Companies%20-%20January%202016.pdf page 39 "The Exchange will suspend AIM companies which are late in publishing their half-yearly report or their annual accounts, pursuant to rule 40."

The MXO example where NCT provided introductions, they still had to fund their share of the stake. ADL, again despite introductions they had to fund their share of the stake. No free carry's. I think it is wishfully thinking to expect free carry for introductions and there is no evidence to date of this happening. NCT are not the only company capable of these introductions, they will have to bring something else to the table, more likely is a deal similar to the remediation plant. Funding provided to a local partner, unfortunately NCT have a limited capacity to provide this funding. Would be happy to be wrong but feel I am being realistic.

Yes they also state on the website about financing experienced partners for example the remediation plant. Funding is going to be required, they had to fund the MXO stakes it was not a free carry. So will ask again how are these projects going to be funded with NCT limited resources are you proposing that NCT are getting a free carry on these ventures.

"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it" Winston Churchill Until NCT are cash positive then more placing's are likely. Not one poster has offered ANY explanation as to how these new ventures are going to be funded because funding will be required.