Member Info for Mirasol

"But the curious thing is that management itself triggered the suspension by appointing new auditors more than 3 months after the end of the financial year.

Did/do management believe they may have found an alternative source of funding to that of placings on the market?"

the simplest explanation is that the previous auditors couldn't sign the company off as a going concern. Rather than bring in the Receiver they went out to find another set who they hoped might be more pliable - tho it clearly hasn't worked so far. As for raising cash, small AIM oilers seem to have an inexhaustible supply of financial engineers who clearly learnt their trade at Hogwarts. But its always the PI's (and sometimes the suppliers) who get hammered

Ah Mullins - who hyped MATD for months down to an all time low

"thereby provide a strong financial incentive to increase production."

FIRST they have to earn enough to pay of their current debts and those built up since 31st March accounts. That's at least £ 17mm clear profit they have to make before they spend another penny.

"Gone into administration today. What now for Aoka Mizu contract? Any thoughts?"

The administrator will keep the vessel running as that's a cash source. We have no idea what the arrangements are between PARX, Navitas & Blue Water but its been clear that the AM would be leaving PRAX for Navitas sometime this year. I'd expect that's one problem the Receiver will be happy to play out.

Almost certainly the auditors can't sign off the going concern statement. No significant production, significant liabilities they can't dodge. No way of raising more capital as they have in the past.

Only hope is some sort of dodgy reconstruction (see PPP & ANGS) that will wipe out the current PI's

"and relevant workovers done"

and how will they pay for those? The cash in the bank in the interims won't pay for them and any contractor will want cash up front given that they are suspended. And they've finally come clean on the liquids problem - I've not always agreed with BP over the years but in this case he's been proven 100% correct. The money wasted on the compressor would have been better used for velocity strings

"and the market will judge."

ANGS 8th Sept 2017 35.75 p

ANGS 19th May 2025 0.25p suspended

Over on ADVFN 1347 posted a good summary:-

Almost 50% of the gross profit went on finance costs £1.585 m. Realised derivative costs were £5.437 m, they only staggered into a small net profit due to the Derivative financial instrument gain of £4.412 m.

They have current liabilities of £17.732 m, up from last year. They only have £0.785 m of cash. They've already diluted shareholders to hell and back and can't even attempt a placing as they are suspended. Go calculate the current ratio and understand what that means.

Whatever it says on the books their assets are worth little to nothing, they just represent sunken costs, over £5 m on Balcombe for nothing. The person responsible for that wants to come back as Operations Director.

They can't progress the drill at Poundland, the EWT at Balcombe, or anything at Brockham (did you raise a glass on St Brockham's Day?) or 'Back in the Frame' Lidsey, for the very simple reason they can't pay for any of it.

On top of all this we have the Mexican stand off, which they are not confident will complete (which means it's unlikely to). That's why Herbert's gone, it's a mess.

Basically it's screwed without Trafigura, or someone else, taking a longer term gamble on storage and restructuring the loan they can't pay, which they only took on because they couldn't pay the Bridge Loan Too Far.

PMO were actually in a seedy side street in Victoria IIRC

"Everyone also gone quiet about a third partner entering the project !!!???"

Right now I'd suspect they're waiting for the FIG tax review and the FID to derisk the project. These are very tough times to get any thing new off the blocks with so much uncertainty in the markets but I'd expect activity later this year/early next year.

You are correct - it's a statutory requirement that the BOD have to warn shareholders their funds are at risk - not "material uncertainty" - you don't see that in Shell's accounts

17-Jun-25 0.1062

18-Jun-25 0.1153

19-Jun-25 0.1141

20-Jun-25 0.1142

21-Jun-25 0.1070

22-Jun-25 0.1234

23-Jun-25 0.1279

24-Jun-25 0.1214

25-Jun-25 0.1176

26-Jun-25 0.1150

27-Jun-25 0.1008

28-Jun-25 0.0813

Rolling 30 day production average 0.1129 mcmpd

On 22 February 2024, the Company announced that terms had been agreed with a subsidiary of Trafigura Group PTE

Ltd ("Trafigura") for a refinancing of its existing debt......................... The Group incurred transaction costs of £1.85m, which have been capitalised against the loan proceeds and will be

amortised over the life of the loan facility. £0.548m of the cost was paid in cash, £0.550m was offset against the loan

proceeds drawn down, and £0.750m was settled by the issue of shares. At 31 March 2025, the remaining unamortised

amount was £1.448m."

In the event of any significant delays to the cashflow assumptions, this would be subject to further negotiation with

the derivative holder and lender or further funding may be required. The Directors have therefore identified a material

uncertainty which may cast doubt over the Group's ability to continue as a going concern.

"The new booster compressor at the Saltfleetby Gas Field commenced operation on 11 April 2025. The compressor operates

at a lower suction pressure than the two existing compressors at the field, allowing more pressure drawdown of the wells

and helping to alleviate the impact of liquid loading in the wells, which has been increasingly impacting gas flow rates in the

last three months. The introduction of the booster compressor has resulted in a circa 15% increase in production compared

with the average production forecasts without the booster operational."

Two points - for the first time they've really confirmed what Bubblepoint has been on about from Day1 - liquid buildup. Second point v carefully phrased - not a 15% increase in production but 15% over where they forecast they'd be without it - a forecast they never shared with the PI's.

"However we got a fact laden update with numerous bullish comment"s on the outlook. Everything talks about progression, acquisitions, new wells, workover Q3 (which starts tomorrow FYI), shareholder value growth and so on"

And not word on how this will be financed..............

" I believe they appointed SP Angel Corporate Finance as their Nomad"

basically a PR company who have done a few small deals - their client list isn't a roll call of the good & the great for sure

One thing that is very useful in Beacon's statement is that they reckon they won't be able to post out any documents until end September re their deal and reinstatement to trading. That gives us a framework that probably applies to ANGS. The other two recently suspended small oilers, PPP & UKOG, have already spent several months (almost a year for PP) untradeable.

Perhaps Ocelot could speak to his "contacts" and get a steer?

The Uk is in Europe Ocelot and

"The statement speaks of "a third party", " could be Trafigura - who now call all the shots at ANGS Dwellings

I don't beleive Beacon have interests in the GOM but I don't know how many "onshore gasfields" there are held by AIM companies.

Certainly a big coincidence that Beacon & ANGS seem to be fishing in the same waters. And both suspended...