Member Info for londoner7

Pelle, thanks for your numbers. I attempted to reply to your first post but my post was returned no service and appears to have been lost in the ether. However, you have followed up with exactly what I was after.

Therapist, thks for your reply. Good to see someone still has contact to the OGA numbers. I get it periodically then lose it. I assume your clarification of the number is that there may be additional gas but just taking the oil number.

16,253 net points to (16253/0.7)=23,054 gross Dec 2018

This is how I got to my 18K gross for Dec.

On 5th Dec ENQ stated that Kraken average gross production for the 10 months to end Oct 2018 was 31,427 and they expected to maintain this for the full year. I took this to mean that Nov was similar and the downturn that resulted in a full year number of 30,310 was fully attributed to Dec.

My math: (12*30310) - (11*31427) = 18,023 for Dec.

Using the OGA number I calculate: (12*30310)- ((10*31427)+23054) = 26,396 for Nov, 18,609 net to ENQ.

What number did the OGA give for Nov?
Do you know if there are significant gas volumes associated with Kraken?

I should qualify this, "40K BOE run rate is achievable". I understand this is before the additions from of DC4.

epiphany121, an excellent post. I hadn't seen this transcript before.

All, no doubt the argument over who has made the right reserves assessment will continue, but what matters in the near to medium term is the rate of oil extraction from Kraken. CNE are of the view that if the FPSO performance issues can be sorted then a 40K BOE run rate is achievable (I assume this takes account of expected down times)

With the recent updates from PMO and CNE I have been looking at what might be the likely update from ENQ next week. I think I have a good handle on it but I'd like to run some numbers here first and ask if anyone has any firms numbers from say the government stats for Dec or Jan.

As a basis to my estimates I'm using an 18K gross number for Kraken in Dec 2018 and an assumption that this continued into Jan with a step improvement from Feb on.

Cost!

The fee for a placing is modest compared to cost of a rights issue. There is also a greater level of certainty.

According to the latest report the fee for last Novenmber's placing was under US$45K. I'd expect the fee for this one to be similar. Although it is 50% larger it is less complicated without the warrants and I'd like to think that JB gets a discount for repeat business.

Pharmajohn, I generally agree with your comments but I'd like to expand a few areas. I have a more substantial stake in another company operating in the field but I've been watching Sigmaroc for about 12 months and just recently opened a modest position as I watch and learn.

The trigger was the recent acquisition of the Welsh quarries and the appointment of Tim Hall. In my book both mark a step up in Sigmaroc's development.

I'm not a big fan of the model that effectively adds a layer of management with the hope of extracting additional cash flows to compensate. It expects a lot of management in identifying suitable buys and in execution. Also, I have been concerned that the level of placements and option activity could overwelm returns to shareholders - at least the private shareholders. The larger shareholders will normamlly get the chance to participate in placements at often sustantial discounts to the current price.

That said, I was encouraged by the recent acquisition and deferred option using existing cash flows. That isn't to say that 'an opportunity' doesn't appear that requires a placing but I sense Sigmaroc is close to a level where the impact may be less dilutive to the smaller share holders.

On the option front the recent announcement of 13m represents 7.5% of current capitalisation, not insignificant, but it is only just in the money.

I agree with your time horizon. If the team performs it could prove to be a good return for early investors.

However, I was disappointed that today's presentation was only open to analysts and very surprised that even the replay isn't available to individual shareholders. I hope the level of engagement with shareholders improves.

My next step will be to read the annual report when it's published.

In the early days Vodafone was a fast growing technology company and charged a decent premium for its products. Once its products become standard issue for the masses it is essentially a utility company providing services to society. Today, mobile technology is practically a human right. It's difficult to live in today's society without one. If practically everyone has access and the cost of supply is borne by the tax payer then governments have powerful incentives to drive down the cost of supply. Margins will always be tight and small incremental changes in technology will not change that. At some point in the future a disruptive technology will come along and Vodafone may be the GE of the next decade.

That might not be the answer you're looking for but as former Vodafone investor (several years ago) that's my take on it.

Qd22, you're welcome.

Your query prompted me to look in detail as I hadn't looked at this aspect of Breedon for a couple of years. In conclusion I was relaxed with what I found. I have a habit of recording my analysis for future review, and, as on this occasion, sometimes post my findings.

The basis for LLP awards rarely gets a mention in the investment press but it can reveal a lot about a company's prospects. Make no mistake once the founders have moved on the managers left in place are driven by the financial rewards and the annual bonus and LLP rewards provide the biggest incentive. While many of the targets are historic, they can still provide guidance and as important tell you what aspects of the business carry the greatest incentives. I have see some perverse incentives which have led to poor or conflicting outcomes - so worth watching as an investor. Traders will have different time horizons.

In their recent presentation Mosman assume an additional 40 bopd for the Falcon project.

Anyone interested in the Santos drill will have been looking out for Centrals update last nigh. At least a couple on this board were and you can bet JB was watching closely.

Mosman started the year with $240K. By my assessment they have been running on fumes for several weeks so funding was coming. I pointed out the situation with the warrants last week, previously AC has referred to the costs of debt options, while that was a possibility their assets hadn't changed significantly since the last round - Stanley requires a reserves assessment and that costs money. To my mind that left a placing and it was just a question of timing and price.

JB will have been looking for a price spike to sell the placing. The 244 BOPD for Stanley 1 announced last month obviously didn't do it - note it is now reported as 135 BOPD - but I bet JB was close to pulling the trigger. That left Santos and last night's update. With no news now expected until after mid year - fumes can only last so long - a decision will have been taken and the price was probably agreed in the early hours on this morning.

As things stand I think a price of 0.3p was okay.

Cinemark also reported last week.

Both AMC and Cinemark claimed market outperformance in their Q1 updates, -11.7% and -13.2% respectively on US attendance and -14.8% and -11.6% respectively on US box office revenues against a market number (Mojo) of -16.2% for revenues. Both performed well on concessions with -8% and -2.1% change in concession revenues. The Cinemark performance looks exceptional and goes some way to explaining their -7% drop in total revenues against -11.7% for AMC and much better profits. On the day the Cinemark share price gained slightly. On its results the AMC share price initially dipped down 10% before finishing 7% down

To a large extent Cineworld has been moving in sympathy but tomorrow it can make its own noise. Albeit with just revenue numbers. I'm not expecting anything on profit beyond, perhaps, commentary.

Last November's funding was for £500K @ 0.275p plus 90m free warrants.

Today's is £750K @ 0.3p and no warrants.

Well bets are placed and the Q1 number will be out on Monday.

I think the Q1 numbers will be awful and broker estimates for the year pulled back, but another part of me say's anyone with a spreadsheet and a basic knowledge of the business should know that so is it already in the price.

I'm not a trader so I'll leave that to others to play, but I am a potential investor so I'll wait for the dust to settle - no pun intended.

I don't know the pros or cons of an investment here but I did enjoy today's outlook statement which started:

"We expect the market to remain competitive and challenging, and in Q2 we will annualise last year's favourable summer weather and the World Cup."

It wasn't immediately clear to me what this meant but as the next sentence started with "However" I'd guess it isn't positive.

Delboys, from memory I believe you are correct. I just took a quick look at the RNSs, couldn't find it but I do recall something about this from an earlier read.

Something to do with the move from the UK payment process to the US style. I believe the Q2 and Q3 payments will be the same as the Q1 payment and the Q4 payment adjusted to reflect any progress in the year.

Odd, but I noted some US companies announcing Q1 dividends before publishing Q1 results.

Cheapskater, good post.

I agree with your assessment on the horizontal wells at Welch. Also a good explanation of the relationship between royalties and the cost of lifting, but the merits of using lifting will depend on the actual costs rather than the numbers you use to make your point. I don't know the actual costs of free flow versus a pump jack, but I'd guess there is also a capital cost component to consider too. Do you know which facilities use pumpjacks?

Following the recent updates I ran some numbers to assess a breakeven cash flow point, albeit with a host of caveats, OZ exploration costs ignored and zero work over costs. I was pleasantly surprised to come up with a number of 60 bopd in spite of the US$1m or so of overheads, fees, admin etc. On the 6 months to Dec 18 operating costs were $14 BOE. But the elephant in the room is the capital cost of that production. Even excluding $135K for Stanley 1, $80K on work overs equates to $13 BOE. I also estimated a $5 BOE cost for marketing and transportation, but that's before net realised revenue - just incase anyone wants to use WTI as a baseline.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the comment in the presentation that Welch, Strawn and Arkoma work overs are done, with a little bit to do on Stanley. I don't strictly believe it but perhaps close. The next financial update will reveal all and if the production numbers hold there could be positive leverage on BOE operating costs. But don't forget those caveats.

I've had positive vibes before, only to be extinguished by an unexpected placing and my gut suggests something is in the offering - this has the feeling of a sales package being put together.

I'd be interested in any alternative worked numbers. or confirmation of mine. I've put mine out for consideration - I don't think I've dropped a decimal placing (note the GBP 0.05 share price on page 4) but it's possible.

There was something else I thought significant in the presentation which hasn't received any comment here. It could be a typo, I'm awaiting confirmation.

philpot1001, I've seen it reported that the legal wrangling over Queensferry has now ended, which lead to the announced hit but this from 2 weeks ago says there is outstanding snagging work on Queensferry. Although I suspect the sums involved are much less.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/snagging-delays-on-queensferry-crossing-unacceptable-1-4912325

On the Aberdeen bypass exceptional costs to date are based on a positive outcome from their claim on the utility companies, so the answer to your final point is, yes, a failure will result in a further hit. But I'd like to think that these cases are initiated on the basis of good advice. But as with Queensferry the legal advise isn't always good.

Well it's good to see they haven't shut up shop. I note that 84% of the work reported is buildings rather than civil (roads, bridges, etc) which are the projects that have caused them so much trouble in the past. Also the projects average £20m each, more manageable if a couple go ape ....

But I wonder about the quality of these construction surveys. Another survey has them in 5th place for April so perhaps they are measuring different things. I've never been clear on the precise distinction between construction and the work performed by the Partnerships side - perhaps I should direct that question to Galliford.

I do know that the Partnership side is generating better margins, in the 6-7% range, so news on progress is this area is welcome.

https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/galliford-try-wins-162m-of-northeast-housing

As a holder here I look forward to some clarity on the financial position later this month. Clearly they have incurred redundancy costs to shut down some of the construction side, then there is the additional costs for the Queensferry Crossing. Does the £30-40m guided cover it? I'm not sure the market thinks so.

I hope the new CEO who was CFO during the construction and completion (?) of the Queensferry Crossing can explain how he was blindsided by 'extra costs'. Snagging costs are part and parcel of construction work.

Some good questions being asked and the presentation provides some interesting answers.

Spary1, you said, "Londoner7 always seems to below par on his workings out if you remember from the previous welch update where we were way over what he said we were getting"

I have a vague memory of an exchange between us last summer on Welch numbers. I'll take a look and get back to you. But only if it has any relevance to today's numbers and investors. I'm not one for village banter.

BaffinsMafia – your post from earlier this month, “Still heading up as I type... can't be bad... onwards and upwards for Mosman oil and gas.... 500 bopd here we come...”

You missed the IMHO on that one.

I understand the nature of village chatter but sometimes it can get out of hand and trip up a simple wayfarer.