Member Info for labrat99

Some people have the ability to form their own opinion. What big shareholders does NCT have? Are they happy? Maybe that is the reason why the funds are avoiding NCT and the list of shareholders consists mainly of nominees accounts.

Blingy, no need to apologise. Without wanting to appear condescending reading annual reports should be a must for all investors. The audited figures cannot be misrepresented. Despite the falling oil price, NCT increased director pay in 2015 during a period when most in the sector were slashing costs. A clear signal for me as to the motivation of the directors, another AIM company run for hefty salaries. A 50% wage cut for RC would still have resulted in $140k I am sure he could have managed through on that! Expand that to the rest of the board and that would have covered the money raised in the last placing.

LM20 has significance as the test production can be compared to the actual production which is aiming for around 45% of test production using the current figure of 150bpd. Gas production will decline faster than oil production. I am upbeat as for the outlay it is a very good result but much more is needed to balance the current outgoings for wages etc. Uncommitted cash balance(minus ADL, lm21 and lm22 etc) must be getting low and the continuous delays makes raising funds more and more likely imo. This may be a sale of interest to RRR or GCW or another share issue, but the company probably requires �300k for wages to bridge the gap between Shoats Creek new production and the RP coming online. Also potential new ventures in Mexico but best not to drag that up again as already covered!!

Stabilised production rates are required for lm14 as lm20 proved test rates are a poor indicator of actual performance.

RC took over $200000 in cash in 2015 as part of his $283000 remuneration package. He received 2 payments of �20000 in shares towards his salary in 2015, so perhaps his statement of not drawing a wage needs some clarification. The company is a some way from having cash flow to cover company overheads even with the workovers at Shoats Creek and the RP plant when finally finished.

That is the definition of a fact providing evidence hence it is an opinion until it can backed up with evidence. If the deal has not been reported then how have you independently verified the authenticity of the evidence?

Such a large deal would surely have created some press reports, why can you not post these? Posting press reports does not breach lse rules.

That the 90 days for the completion of the remediation plant have passed and as usual nothing from the company just the usual pretend no dates were mentioned and therefore no need to explain the delay. Emails on the subject are ignored. ps would hardly describe Eddie as a heavyweight, two months late on drilling lm21 on which SCDI is the operator and he is the president. Hardly bodes well.

Stopped listening when Paul Johnson whoever he is said 3 billion shares in issue, getting that simple fact wrong weakens any points he was attempting to make.

Received further replies regarding lm14, would urge others that are interested to contact the company and ask why they are not including these details in the RNS as I have. Due to lse rules cannot post the reply but it is incredibly frustrating when they have clearly had a great result that it is totally underplayed. http://www.aminex-plc.com/FCKuploads/file/publications/140806_Circular%20for%20Proposed%20Disposal%20of%20Aminex%20USA%20Inc%20and%20Notice%20of%20General%20Meeting.pdf page 56 has p1 reserves at 18Mbbls of oil and 175MMcf of gas for lm14 appears these are somewhat conservative. Get the information in the public domain, if the company is able to provide me with expected recoverable oil and gas figures then surely they should be able to provide an acceptable version to the market.

Had a reply. Working on adjustments to the pumps and infrastructure and aiming for 150bpd. Why this was not included in the RNS is anyone's guess.

Need to look at the bigger picture. What if the issues at lm20 are field wide? Is lm14 going to end up producing at a third of test production rate same as lm20? Why was the lm14 a 24hr test when the two Robert Cain wells were tested for 72hr? How does this effect the cpr if well performance is lower than expected?

Just to clarify, I said there may be reasons why the new drills have been delayed in order to counteract the dropping production. Lm20 was modelled at 200bpd for optimal production using the test data ,well logs etc. The fact that it has rapidly fallen to 100bpd suggests that the modelling was incorrect and a certain parameter is not performing as expected. What that is and if it can be addressed we do not know as the company has not informed shareholders. I intend to ask this question of the company later today and IF I get a reply I will share this here.

Feel I have to defend the company from derampers. Maybe the cause of the drop off in production at lm20 from the expected 200bpd to 100bpd has lead to revised drilling plans to combat the cause of the fall. They have more production information now than when the drilling plans were announced. A different completion technique or use of a alternate artificial lift system for example. Something that perhaps should have been explained in the RNS.

Wells are not held back, they are operated to best ensure the life of the well and to manage the reservoir. Changing production for oil prices up or down will potentially damage the reservoir. Looks like lm20 is not performing as expected, would have been nice to have the reasons why explained. The test results are pretty useless without explanation of the test conditions, is it ramped up to maximum or is it sustainable. Do not see anything particularly positive, pretty average to be honest. Its the same as usual, what is not in the RNS is more interesting.

Not particularly inspiring. LM20 production dropped of quite a bit with no explanation. Test figures need to be taken with a skip load of salt when the test conditions are not given. Shoats creek is soon to be positive operational cash flow, the rest of the company is still massively lossmaking and no figures given for all the extra costs for these unbudgeted wells.

Not buying anymore until I see actual results. Already been stung on the "intend to" and "plan to" fairy tales used to prop up dilution after dilution whilst the directors suck generous salaries from the coffers. If that means missing out on a potential rise, then that's a chance I am willing to take. I think there will be more shares issued in due course. IMO

Why state these things then. Release the first report, then state they intend to release quarterly reports. There is to many "intend to" and "plan to" statements from the company that never get carried through. Plenty of talk very little action.

7th March RNS "For 2016 Northcote intends to initiate quarterly production reports at the end of each quarter reporting net volumes sold during the period." Two quarters have passed and no reports. It will be someone else's fault though, not Teflon RC.

The lm21 is still going ahead due this month according to the presentation. The estimates are the same because they are likely using the same oil price to produce the estimates. I thought the GCW/RRR enable them to participate in any well in the Frio, also higher percentage equals higher upfront costs. They have Jay Wetting plus a finance function. RRR are expecting lm19 to contribute $42k a quarter. I stick with my figures