Member Info for londoner7

Sweaty,

I'll come back to Andy and technical matters later, but your comment on my 'agenda' are at odds with your post on Tues when you pasted my response to an Aug update on Stanley. IMO it was a positive reaction to the Stanley update, which MSMN has since revised.

You now say, "I was questioning your sporadic appearances and then the intensity of your posting of a deramping style and then you disappear again, and as you have alluded to that is part your agenda as you have painstakingly written about in your post, so fair enough."

I thought my response on any agenda was crysal clear. How have I alluded to deramping being part of my agenda?

Look again at my response to the August update which you copied into your post Tues 10:52.

Sweaty, last Tuesday AM you directed two posts to me following my comments on the Stanley 1 update but one has been deleted. Why? I've been travelling the last few days but I did catch it on a stopover and I don't recall anything that warranted it's deletion.

I'm now home so wanted to respond and it's gone. From memory your post queried the timing of my recent posts, my sporadic posting history, my agenda, and my expertise in the oil sector versus 'Andy's', so presumably also my right to comment on technical matters relating to Mosman's oil and gas activities.

Is my recall correct? For the moment I'll assume it is.

Timing of posts - I was travelling.
Sporodic posting history - I generally post when there's news, typically an RNS, rather than getting involved in idle speculation unless it is blatantly misleading and I feel bothered to reply.
My agenda - yes I have an agenda. Don't we all? My interest in MSMN was triggered a few years ago by an associate asking my opinion on their investment in MSMN. He had lost a considerable amount on his investment and wanted my advise on what to do. After some research I advised him. I lost touch with him so don't know if he took my advice. However, having researched MSMN I picked up on the news later that they had turned their attentions from Oz to the US. I've been following the story since. The oil sector is awash with attempts by small oil enterprises attempting to make good and the posse of small shareholders that follow them. MSMN is one such enterprise and for me the story has been a page turner, but I have never owned an MSMN share. I posted previously about the small market cap amd the poor liquidity in trading which IMO makes an investment difficult unless there was a very compelling attraction. Look at Tuesday's trading, some buys/top-ups on an over hyped update on Stanley that were down 20% by the end of the day. Back to my agenda. If I'm not a shareholder why do I post? As I say I'm enjoying the story and as a poster I can be a part of the posse. For me the purpose of these BBs is to discuss the company in question, examine and analysis updates, RNS, media updates, etc, with a view to discovering a clearer picture to the benefit of investors, potential investors and people like me that enjoy simply following the story. And if I feel I can contribute to the board, why shouldn'y I? You posted my response to a positive update on Stanley 1 last month, so it should be no surprise that my response to the latest update was a huge disappointment. In simple terms my agenda is to seek the truth.

I'll follow up with 'Andy' and my right to comment on technical matters later.

Best, Londoner7

Hi Mc78,

Good work with the numbers - what's 10% between geeks ;-)

But I must question your comment on payback.

Revenue is not the same as cash. I've posted before on my estimate of Mosman net back on oil and the possibility of being out by +/- $10. $36 @ $69 WTI. The Stanley financials will differ to the Welch numbers but it's all I have.

Using that number net back, cash, on 3.6 bopd = $130 per day.

From my understanding of the US market for gas, net back for gas will be a much lower percentage. I don't know the current regulations but in the past operators have flared gas rather that bring it to market.

Other factors:
I assume Mosman are contributing to the cost of the addiional infrastructure.
The quoted 230 boepd is still several weeks away.
Beware estimates.

Spary1, Baja said 12% liquids.

Take a leaf out of Mc78's book and use your calculator.

Spary1, you ask, "we were initially told to expect 120 bopd, the 230 is boepd, crucial should the question not be which of the 2 figures will produce the largest revenue stream for Mosman ?"

I suggest you get your calculator out and attempt to answer your own question. I've provided some clues in an earlier post.

Then try the question, which of the two figures will produce the most cash for Mosman?

Mc78, Henry Hub $3 Mbtu.

My conversion of 88% gas is 1,121 Mbtu. Mosman net share 148 Mbtu after 20% royalty.

Da_Gee, by my math the gas, at 88%, is worth $444 per day in revenue against $252 per day for the oil but the profit margin on the gas is small, very small. Which is why few are drilling for gas in the US. Posters are putting out misleading expectations based on what has been reported in the RNS.

I don't know what you mean by close to the surface or hit more oil later. IMO the RNS is putting the best gloss on the oil/gas mix it can and at the moment they point to 12% oil in the mix. Anything else is conjecture.

" I am on the same amp as you,"

Spary1, in your response to Snufkin's 10:37 post, which I honestly coudn't fathom, what do you mean? Same wavelength, same planet or something else?

Frankly, I think today's posts claiming today's RNS is good news is so misleading you should be ashamed of the yourselves. I'm picking out you, Snufkin, Sweaty, Doug666 and others.

The expectation for Stanley 1 was 20 bopd net. Today Baja announced 3,6 bopd net if they achieve 230 boepd.

Do you guys know the difference between oil bopd and a gas mix boepd? Mosman do which is why they posted "Mosman has been advised .... "

I don't know who bought in at 0.7p but at the close they were down 20% on the bid price. I truly hope these are investors in the know averaging down and not newbies fooled by the tosh posted here.

amp over!

Spary1, describing the RNS as brilliant isn't showing the whole picture.

When an RNS is posted it should be critically analysed by investors from all sides.

Baja expects 230 boepd. In my calculation I have given them the benefit of achieving that rate. They expect the mix to move more in favour of the oil ratio, but there isn't a time scale.

The extration rate will decline over time, so if the oil ratio does increase in the long run it will be on a lower extraction rate. Or do you see this field behaving differently to others?

I thought the talk of a Stanley 2 targeting a different zone sounded a bit strange with Stanley 1 still incomplete.

I guess Stanley 2 will be targetting an oil zone.

10 posts since the RNS and nobody has mentioned gas!

Who saw that coming?

Oil - 12% * 16.5% * 230 * 80% = 3.6 bopd net to Mosman after the upgrade to surface equipment.

Value of gas << value of oil

As far as I can tell from the RNS updates Woodford has reduced their interest by 72m shares and Old Mutual has established a new holding of 86m shares.

I thought the update on the original business was disappointing. I think in my previous assessment I had underplayed the impact of the Beast from the East, and the 10% drop in RMC, against a 6% market fall, was a bigger surprise. Some reasons were offered on the RMC decline and considering 41% of Breedon cement volume goes into it's RMC business, with a 10% drop representing a 4.1% drop in cement I thought the cement business performed very well - they clearly handled the kiln shutdown better than last year.

Clearly, a key metric in future MPA updates will be RMC volumes.

Lagan seems to be going gang busters but two factors caution me - acquisition was after the Beast from the East and the Irish kiln shutdown. However, I believe these factors are negated to a large extent by the 46% revenue growth in the May - July period.

I'm travelling so only had a cursory look at the numbers. I hope to have a closer look in the next few days but at the moment see this as a mis-step by the original business but recoverable with any uptick in the market and a great start by the Lagan business, which prior to this update was my biggest concern.

I logged onto the webcast using Firefox and had no sound. I remembered the same happened on a webcast a while back so figured the problem was my end.

I logged on via Google Chrome and the sound was fine.

Does anyone know what the problem might be with Firefox, or my installation? As I recall I tried reloading it last time.

In summary the article is tosh.

One of many variants of bots which take in data from an online database and present it as analysis. The purpose is to produce a result that attracts visitors to the web site for other commerciall reasons.

The text will rarely include any detail specific to the company beyond the company name or symbol MARS.

Looking at the presentation it struck me that perhaps there is too much focus here on the timing of first oil. Hurricane present very clear numbers on cash flows from 1st Jan, 30th Mar etc. It seems to me that at $70 oil the financial benefit of achieving first oil 1st Jan over 30th Mar is a one off $60m increase in cash. Translating this to the share price is a one off gain of 3p. I'm assuming that the costs of any 'delay' are already covered by the terms of the 'turn key' contract arrangements. So is 3p the 'pop' on sail away news?

Of course the variability of the date of first oil increases the opportunities for traders, but does it really matter much to LTHs?

Short of a catastrophe do many investors not expect HUR to achieve first oil before the end of 2019 H1? There will then be a delay of 6 months while HUR assess the reservior and announce results. So to my mind HUR can effectively be considered 'in production' and the share price is largely subject to the price of oil, until any announcement next summer. Of course as that announcement date approaches more of the traders will be less inclined to take profits which would add support to a price rise. In which case any oil price movement will sit on a gradually appreciating share price over the next 9-12 months. The question then is what is the gradient of the slope? I think more than 30% over the next 9-12 months prior to the announcement overstates the risk, i.e. is being greedy, which leads me to 65p at $70 oil.

I appreciate I may have made a fundemental error in my analysis (it happens) and always happy to be corrected.

I'm a holder but only occasionally pop onto this board, so apologies if this topic has already been covered.

Walkley, Breedon's interim results are normally released in July. Following the Lagan acquisition in April Breedon announced that the interim announcement would be put back to Sept, I assume to provide more time to correlate the two sets of numbers. They stated that the July interim release date will be resumed in future years. I trust we'll get a clear view of first half progress in the original business alongside numbers for the combined business in September's update.

Is the delay a cause of the share price going down? Perhaps, but probably more due to the lack of any update since the AGM.

Last week Hill & Smith announced a poor first half putting some of the blame on a delay in Highways England road projects. This week Polypipe said something similar in their report. Both companies refered to these delays in their outlook statements in March and AGMs in April. It's understandable that there may be a read across to Breedon's business but I wouldn't put too much weighting on it. Breedon's updates did not mention project delays. At the AGM they said this, "In common with the rest of our industry, we have experienced disruption from the severe weather in the first quarter which has impacted the phasing of some of our work. However, with the worst of the weather behind us, we have seen an improvement in recent weeks and anticipate a continuing recovery in activity. The Board's expectation for the full year remains unchanged."

I'm looking forward to the Sept update. Yesterday I listened again to the wecast of the Lagan acquisition (on the Breedon website) and today took the opportunity to add to my holding - the prospects looked great last April and I don't think anything has changed.

It could just be aggregation of various holdings held under seperate Standard Life and Aberdeen entities prior to their merger.

"Aggregate of Standard Life Aberdeen plc affiliated investment management entities with delegated voting rights on behalf of multiple managed portfolios"

I second that.

An insightful book on buying and selling behaviour with great examples.

The Art Of Execution” by Lee Freeman Shor

I said earlier, "Combined the three groups account for 64% of the market."

Correction - Combined the three groups account for 56% of the US market.

I hadn't excluded AMC's internation business from the numbers. The fourth largest operator, Marcus, has <5% of the US market. The reason I look at this metric is that the more fragmented the market the less likely it is that the big operators will attempt to 'eat each others lunch' - it's easier for them to maintain those juicy EBITDA margins.