Member Info for Manofnomeans

@Jemand.

With respect, you have not attempted to answer my question. Why would creditors be content to have administrators act as self appointed financial advisors? It is not there job to decide how long they can keep creditors money because they think they can invest it more wisely than the creditors especially as said creditors might have a different opinion on that. The administrators job is to crystallise assets and distribute the pot to creditors without undue delays.

The court case is basically a side issue. The courts may find directors of LOG to have acted fraudulently and could rule that they must repay monies to the administrators. Good luck to them recovering that from some British Virgin Ilands Bank ?? .

I'm sorry to say that I find your contention that administrators fees are not correlated to the duration of the admin process to be somewhat naive.

@Jemand.

I don't understand why you see surprised that administrators are keen to crystallise assets? Maybe you can explain why creditors would be happy to continue paying in out millions in admin fees whilst administrators hope for a higher share price? One or two disappointing RNS's and they would open themselves to accusations of incompetence.

I think it makes perfect sense that they have sought to realise market value following first gas. Obviously that requires a sustained but gradual sell off. Selling 'millions' to another II at a discount would only make sense if the savings in admin fees covered the discount. Its only about creditor value.

The following appears in this month's AJ Bell shares magazine.

"Surging energy prices, sparked by Russia’s invasion of its neighbour, have benefited IOG (IOG:AIM), which is up 28.2% since we said to buy last December.

The North Sea firm, which produced its first gas in March, has been beset by teething problems on its fields, as well as some reserves downgrades and delays to maiden output. However, it should now start generating meaningful cash flow, underpinned by an exceptionally strong natural gas market"

@GGiGS & Peakview.

Unless we get an updated share registry we are all just speculating as to who might be selling large quantities of shares. I made a lucky guess by considering the drivers and constraints that administrators typically work under.

We do know that LOG will, at some point (soon), need to sell its shares and they will want to do so without killing the SP (and hence value to their creditors). My intuition is that they have automated sales to get rid as soon as possible at an average share price close to 38-42p. If they maintain the current selling rate we will be looking at roughly 6 months before they have sold down. Provided they don't routinely outsell bought volumes we should see a stable share price with a small potential upside. I would expect SP to take off once they are out of the picture.

I would be surprised to see them sell large volumes to other II's as that would require discounting which would disadvantage creditors and could lead to complaints about their administration. They may sell a smaller proportion at discounted rates if the savings on admin fees offset any discounting required and the impact on SP is tolerable.

I'm holding my shares in anticipation of significant upside from about Q3 onwards.

GLA.

Whilst I can see the point you are making I am not sure I agree. First of all the administrators have to balance risk against a legal obligation to maimise return to investors just like any other investor. They will also have pressure from creditors to settle ASAP to avoid the crippling costs of administration running on endlessly. There are no guarantees they will find institutional investors willing to buy millions of shares without a discount so obtaining market value via a gradual sell off cannot, in my opinion, be ruled out.

If, in addition to the administrators, we have a group of II's intent on selling off millions of shares but no TR-1 forms indicating other II's buying it is hard to see the SP improving in the short term.

Ultimately we are both speculating and this is why I would think an update on the shate registry could be of significant interest.

Fingers crossed for a positive RNS on Monday. Thanks gor the update Sailor.

Below is an interesting link that begins to spell out the ambition of the LOG administrators.
It tells us they are looking to recover 20-25% (about 46-60 million) of the £236 million that was invested with them and that most or all of that will derive from IOG.
Is it coincidental that a share price of circa 40p makes their shareholding worth just over 50 million at the current market capitalisation?

Assuming the majority of the larger 'round number' sales (multiples of 25k ) are linked to the LOG administrators, then my impression is that they could be selling something like £1.5-2.0m worth of shares per week. If there is any substance to these thoughts then I can see the SP being constrained until say Southwark first gas.

I plan to hold because I see market capitalisation increasing substantially as more revenue streams are realised I have modest short term expectations on SP, but in a high inflation, recessionary environment that is coincident with record energy pricing, patience will surely pay off.. Administrators will be history long before the resources.
Maybe IOG should look at a share buy back to get the LOG administrators issue off the table ASAP?

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/london-capital-finance-victims-north-sea-gas-independent-oil-gas-b924112.html

The London Oil and Gas administration is an unwelcome complication given the large proportion of the issued shares involved. A number of LOG creditors are rumoured to have accepted the FSCS compensation but is there an immediate transfer of their shares or do they simply sit with the administrators pending a sale and transfer of the proceeds to FSCS? I have not seen a recent reduction I the LOG share numbers in spite of the persistent selling that vommenced around first gas. Tried looking for an updated share registry yesterday but have not been able to find a readily accessible version. The share registry is Ibwould have thought an interesting topic for fiscussion at the forthcoming PI evening?

Not how I was hoping to start the week. The only saving grace is that the resource is still there but this type of RNS we don't need. If Mr Gibson's KPI's don't incorporate continuity and safety of operations they should. Get it together IOG.

There suspicion that the share price is being constrained by regular large sales seems reasonable. Reports at the time of the London Oil and Gas administration indicated that the shares in IOG were likely the main asset of value. Given that the administrators have a legal obligation to try to maximise value recovered for distribution to LOG creditors I wonder if they have intensified their sell-off since the price hike following first gas? Some creditors may be pressuring the administrators for early settlement so first gas might have been an opportune time to secure an improved value without undue delays to settling with creditors? In any event the involvement of LOG & FSCS in such a large tranche of shares is, for now, a somewhat unpredictable and unwelcome constraint on share price. Now that IOG has positive cash flow they could perhaps reduce the impact on SP via a targeted share buy-back. In any event this might be a worthwhile topic for discussion at the forthcoming PI evening.

Personally I suspect SP may be anchored at around 40p for some time. Long term I think it will reach or exceed broker targets but the timeline is the issue.

Just made a small top up @ 39.7p as SP dipped below 40p . SP was down on the day even though transactions showed bought value significantly higher than sold.

My purchase now shown as a sell and suddenly sold value (on low volumes) outweighs bought.

MM's drunk again?

How fo I reconcile affc's data with the widespread claims that reserves have been reduced? Is there confusion between the recent numbers and historical downgrades of potential fields?

The drop seems based on low volumes.

Bananas.

My parsnips are beginning to look decidedly soggy. As I said a positive RNS is badly needed.

Need a positive RNS to halt the gradual slide in SP. Everyone knows the potential here but fine words butter no parsnips.

@ Girdz & Cheapshares

Responses much appreciated. Educational for an old git who's last gaming experience involved rocks, paper and scissors.

I guess it is reasonable to conclude that the grids ads are indeed linked to the pre-existing codemasters-bidstack contract. It does suggest that the exposure EA have had to Bidstack, through their takeover of Codemaster, could catalyse (or hopefully has catalysed) direct business between EA and Bids. Would be nice to have confirmation of that to set alongside the Azerion partnership. Nevertheless Bids seems to be on an upward trajectory.

Thanks guys.

So to get back to the key issue and for the benefit of elderly gaming ludites like me....is the preview of the new grid legends confirmation of bidstack input to a new EA release? All I see is lots of Mobil banners.

Spacehoppa.

Inevitably there had to be a transition from the Labrenz era to a new regime that had mining operational experience.
The timing and nature of the transition will have had much to do with Belanger's influence prior to her recent move to Mine GM. It's fair to question her input through 2020 to her recent role change, but folks shouldn't be blind to the possibility that O'Dea and Labrenz were reluctant to heed her advice for egotistical reasons. Guess we will never know , but if she continues to build on Decembers operational performance she will drive a significant upside for shareholders.

Share price in Canada currently up 6% today. Is sentiment amongst the locals turning?

Until his recent appointment Fierro was an independent director, which is the Canadian equivalent of a non-executive director. I suspect his role was essentially a corporate governance requirement. He was not a PGM employee and will have had very little if any input on operational matters.

Belanger was Director of Mining since 2020 so it is fair to ask what exactly she was doing whilst Labrenz was President and CEO. Since operations were focussed on equipment installation until fairly recently is it conceivable that her input was less than folks might be tempted to conclude. The east ramp was not available until recently so did Labrenz rush to start mining of the old main ramp in his haste to declare commercial.production?

One thing seems clear so far, since Belanger took the role as General Manager head grades and yields have been improving. The new CEO seems confident the operational improvements she has initiated will see the mine generating positive cash flow in the short term future.