Member Info for LGO-fan

hahaha...and he says his poetry isn't very good. I find it most enjoyable and amusing. The combo off filtering the goon squad and reading your poetry really makes this bb pleasant again :-) THANK YOU

I did like this line though: "Going forward, we’re focused on centralizing operations in areas where we’re operationally experienced and knowledgeable of the geology. Further. Our focus is going to be on new drills where we can predict the decline curve with certainty and require very little maintenance."

So future may look bright (but value of current assets is not great - to put it mildly, but we already new that )

agree. Like I said, I asked his consent first before posting

Good call! We all know it is a matter of time and bit more patience. Brrrreeeeaaaaathhhhe

Peter, ask LK to become as good at meeting time-lines, as you are at writing poetry ;-)
Patience is a virtue (which is why waiting is hard)

I think we all have a lot of respect for LK, but he tends to get ahead of himself with deadlines. I’d rather have it like this though: the BOD has made massive progress since the start of Columbus. Still, a bit annoying. I am sure he is crawling up the walls by now, and I am sure he will talk it about this at the appropriate time

been filtering the goons from this Bb, makes for a much better read. If you chaps could stop replying to them, that would be grand. (there is a filter chat button, you just need to write their names and press save. After a while the filter chat op option reads like filter twat, but that may just be me)

it is: I asked about net revenues and he replied about cash flow. There some good nuggets in it though that are useful.

What we need a mathematical explanation, showing things like drop in commodity prices, that get us from net revenue of $190k pcm to $134k for H1

not going to argue w that :-)

btw, I don’t know the man at all, so there is nothing there that could have triggered him to reply. Again, just being open and sharing. Also, I asked his consent first (even if I didn’t have to), still: manners, respect and all....

No idea. I am glad he did, even if the response didn’t really answer my questions. Also, I don’t want him to respond too often, to too many pi’s. We want him to focus on leading the company . as you saw, he replied once and it easily leads to an exchange of emails. Multiply that time x number of pi’s emailing him and you can see him getting sucked into an “email gate”. I do feel however he needs to listen to the concerns of pi’s, maybe get a Q&Q going on the website and/or given shareholders the opportunity to send their questions ahead of an AGM etc.

Done the same. Should have done this ages ago. If we ignore them and don’t reply we will all feel better for it.

Brilliant, Peter! Well done :-)

there you go - sharing it all - not hiding anything (unlike others - you know who you are)

Not sure it helps us too much, we are where we are, but some good insights for example re the new fields

There’s nothing there that’s not public information.

The true conversion metric is 5.8 to 1. I rounded for simplicity’s purpose.

Thanks for the feedback. As energy professionals (I’ve only worked with, for, or in the energy business), we sometimes forget to state the obvious and provide the proper footnotes.

Best

Paolo

thank you. Are you ok if I share this info with other pi’s or do you prefer I don’t?

Regardless, I would recommend that in the near future you find a simple, easy way to explain this to shareholders. More importantly, we give them confidence that H2 will be better

Many thanks

It’s not as simple as multiplying turnover by a multiple of 3.

Without going into great detail, we provide values in barrels of oil equivalent (boe) as it’s a market standard, but it’s a mixture of oil and natural gas that goes into that value. The agreed market conversion metric is 6mcf to 1 boe, but if the variance between oil and gas is very large, it’ll skew the numbers.

So, 100 barrels of oil equivalent is not the same as 2 times 50 barrels of oil.

Mayan predominantly had oil assets and Attis brought mainly natural gas creating the skew due to commodity prices.

Hope this helps further,

Dear Paolo,

Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Your response does give me more insight into the operational challenges, but I still struggle to understand the big difference, mathematically, in revenues in Q2: 3x190k vs 134k for H (even if I assume most revenues generated in Q2).

I hope you could further provide me with some, more numbers based, insights?

Kind regards

Thank you for your note.



I’ll try to provide as much visibility as possible, but you can understand that one cannot forecast future cash flows based on historical cash flows as many of the shareholders are trying to do.



First and foremost, these historical assets that I inherited (Zinc and Austin) are third generation wells that require maintenance (and cost associated with it) as well as following a somewhat unpredictable decline curve. They’re geographically dispersed and geologically different requiring separate pumpers, drilling companies, engineers etc. The latter leads to operational inefficiencies and an inability to tap into economies of scale.



Second, we face commodity price fluctuations that have hurt us significantly in the past few months. Nat gas is in the toilet right now in the low 2’s and oil is in the low 50’s. For comparison we stated at the time of the acquisition of Attis that based on a net 57 barrels of oil per day, we would be cash positive. On April 20th, we were in the mid 60’s for WTI and Nat Gas at 2.60. We dropped 20% on both commodities during the summer.



Third, we started the building of a separate business line (well reporting for third parties) requiring staff, software, hardware (testing tools), and transportation. Following a short a recovery of startup expenses this reporting business is cash positive.



Going forward, we’re focused on centralizing operations in areas where we’re operationally experienced and knowledgeable of the geology. Further. Our focus is going to be on new drills where we can predict the decline curve with certainty and require very little maintenance.



Hope this helps.

All,

Sharing my email exchange w PA. Note I received his consent to do so:

Q: Dear Paolo,

Since the RNS, dated 27th September 2019 came out, there has been a lot of confusion and concern with private investors regarding the net revenues position of the company. This email is to ask you to provide full transparency on the current net revenue position of the company.

In the RNS dated 27/9/19, you state that the H1 revenues are $134k for the period ending 30th June 2019.

In your RNS dated 30/4/2019, to announce the acquisition of Attis, you have announced the following: " Acquisition increases Mayan's acreage and net production to 8,841 acres and 98 boepd respectively, based on Mayan current net production of 57 boepd and transforms Mayan into a cash flow positive operator". The RNS continues by stating that the "Pro forma group turnover of approximately US$190,000 per month (based on current combined production and Attis operator revenues)".

In the RNS dated 14/08/2019, you stated the following: "Between 1st April 2019 to 31 July 2019 a total of 17,765 barrels of oil equivalent ("BOE") were produced with 11,620 BOE net to Attis. Beginning on August 1 2019, the Company consistently averaged 110 barrels of oil equivalent per day ("BOEPD") net to Attis, further demonstrating the Company's operational success. Following the completion of initial reworks across the three fields it is expected that production to the Company for the existing pumping assets will be within the 110-120 BOEPD range. "

Based on the above, logic would dictate that company should have revenues of around $600k in Q2. What explains the difference between that estimate and the $134k announced in the RNS dated 27th September, please?

I hope you appreciate my genuine concerns and that you can alleviate this as soon as possible.

With Kind Regards,