Member Info for observer842

Personally I think it is a great opportunity, but many worry (me too) about how we are going to raise the funds for our side of the deal. Hopefully all will become clear in the next few days/week or two! ;-)

Thanks for pulling me up on that @Bannor. According to the accounts it's: $3,765,017, and at today's exchange rate of around 0.78 this is £2.94m, which rounds up to £3m in my book which I should have used in my previous post. In terms of selling something other than EMH/BCN. We'd likely knock them for six if we attempted to completely sell out raising, what? less than £1.5m by my reckoning. No, I'd prefer we kept hold on to as much as we can, especially those which are particularly undervalued, in anticipation that we may fund them should we eventually find ourselves in a position to do so! There's some potential corkers in the mix ;-)

Ob.

Perhaps the remaining CLN @0.364p might get exercised after all eh @Bannor? I'd certainly prefer this to being forced to sell BCN whilst it's on its knees! ;-)

I should clarify that if we don't place or earmark the remaining 2B from last year before the AGM, then it lapses. Looks likely that the ZULU deal (if it goes ahead) might come with a placing of sorts doesn't it? Remember it was higher (double) that the prevailing share price last time - depends on how strongly someone wants in I suppose, at these almost giveaway prices! ;-)

I like your reply @12:01 @Bannor.

Overall I have no problem with managed debt. It's when it grows to above a significant share of our NAV (>50%) I'd really start to worry. I'd consider it perfectly reasonable if the remaining £2.5-3m were rolled over interest free and again exercisable at 0.364p. No doubt if it is rolled over the exercise price will be lower, unless our BoD have a card or two up their sleeves. ;-)

If resolution 5 doesn't pass the vote then we are going to be looking very carefully at what authority they already have. Of last year's 3B shares authorised, I presume we've already earmarked near to 1B in the San Luis deal, leaving 2B now. Pessimistically @0.2p that's £4m we could raise (to fund San Luis and Zulu). As I've said previously the share price appreciated significantly last time we raised funds (~2 years ago now!)

And then there is the pre-existing authorisation associated with the original CLN. I'm not sure how that carries forward. I presume each month we have repaid the @0.473p options the authorised shares associated with them lapsed. That leaves around £2.5-3m(?) @0.364 = 700-800m shares with preexisting disapplication of pre-emption rights. Perhaps the loan will be reorganised in such a way that some is paid back and the remainder exercisable at such a price that results in 700-800m shares still being associated/authorised with it?

This really could be a great time to buy in for some with what is on the table: and I appreciate your response @Ivybush. If I didn't hold any I'd sure be taking a punt on this share by buying in quite strongly at this point! ;-)

Ob.

You're funny @Bannor. I've seen enough share chat to know that if you think what you think, then what I write in response isn't going to change a thing. But for you, heck, why not! ;-)

1) I am a fully autonomous private investor.
2) I prefer to post on public forums.
3) No.

We sold BCN down to 9.2% @70p in Autumn. And then in Q4/Q1 we likely sold down another 1.2% (perhaps more) @ very likely above a pound. Therefore a good call not to sell down to 8% @70p by the BoD - at the time...

1). In general this BoD appear to make good decisions with the available information to them (at the time). Buying EMH to above 20% was a good decision IMHO. Our falling share price is primarily due to BCN and EMH subsequently falling - which is pretty much out of the BoD's hands.
2). It's only now that it feels like a bad decision to not fully sell out of BCN @70p in the Autumn to fully repay the debt. Over the holiday period BCN was double that, and it felt like a good decision then, and perhaps in time if BCN shoots over a pound, once again a "good" decision ;-)
3). IMHO we *have* to generate cash flow ASAP. Holding only Sonora and EMH will not achieve that: San Luis & Zulu should.
4). I believe it is crucial that the BoD have freedom to raise funds at short notice. By voting for 4 & 5, they still have the option of letting existing shareholders join in, although as @Kiran has previously mentioned, it is often not cost effective for the company, and shareholders more often than not have had/have opportunity to buy around the offer price anyway.
5). My Strong Buy has always been predicated on the Sonora JV's ultimately being worth a potential fortune to us. This very much may still happen. However, whilst BCN funding for the 17.5kt plant is in question, never mind the 50kt that is really needed to bring the JV's in to play (there is some value in them @35ktpa), and all the other open questions I listed, I'm just not prepared to add any more, meaning my Opinion has change to Hold (and sometimes No Opinion if I feel undecided in that post or forget!). Of course, if the current SP goes significantly below the Net of our listed assets + debt + cash etc, I might change that opinion even on no news, with a cheeky top-up ;-)

No, I don't have a "game" at play: I want this company to succeed, and I believe the best way to do that isn't by slapping handcuffs on our BoD at this potentially crucial time! It's getting behind them. What you are suggesting is insanity IMHO - cutting off noses and all that... I could equally question your motives. Did I just question your motives? Pretty sure I didn't! ;-)

Happy? ;-)

Ob.

For instance, I dread to think what state we'd be in now if we *hadn't* repaid some of the loan by selling BCN @70p to the protestations of many here! Or diversified from BCN into EMH ;-)

Depends on the definition @Dallas! Just think which rocks this ship might have crashed upon in the storm without their stewardship! ;-) Land is in sight and then it's onto that rocket and get ready for take off - probably crash into the sea knowing our luck ;-)

Exactly @Bannor. The clause should have been a third of their total remuneration... Might have been hard to get the wording right so all parties were happy, but I'm sure it could have been done! ;-)

That's one way of looking at it @Dallas! Lol. Bottom line is that if the hand is played well we get a win-win for both the BoD and the shareholders. Nothing wrong with a bit of pressure to keep them on the straight and narrow. Thought I strong disagree with handcuffing them by voting against 4 and/or 5! It's going to be precarious few days/weeks/months that's for sure... ;-)

By the way, you know they can issue over 2B shares in the run up the AGM right? I think! ;-)

@Dallas - I believe he has to officially say he knew nothing. And if he did know something, and he let on, he'd be a bigger fool for doing so than he might appear to be a liar (to some) for not.

As for BCN and KDNC. I'm sure some members got on with each other, and some members didn't. And as for now? We shall see! That tweet was a good indication in my book. Green flag? ;-)

But no that clearly! ;-)

@Dallas. Indeed - and now I see the light! Finally. Hallelujah. @Kiran. Be clear, clear as can be at the upcoming webinar ffs. ;-)

What I don't get is why the shorts on this share haven't ripped that report apart in the most obvious of places... Makes me wonder whether we don't have any, or if we do they aren't up to scratch! Certainly a lesson in DYOR ;-)

There is information in here I don't remember reading elsewhere so might be of general interest:

"Summary of Investment Proposition Inspirit Energy is seeking to raise £3 million of investment as working capital to complete the final phase of commercialisation."
https://slideplayer.com/slide/1637473/

Be aware it's a few years old - come on JG with that rabbit already: I've got a hat you can borrow... ;-)

@Frankie: "I agree that it is confusing that some posters said “Strong Buy” and now say “no opinion”.". If you are referring to me it is because my Strong Buy has always primarily been related to the Sonora JV's - whilst there is current doubt over BCN funding, but also San Luis permits, Zulu funding, EMH progress, HAS JV's, CLN refinancing, raising funds/placing, shareholder sentiment, BoD backing, it just feels a little too risky for me to be adding at the moment. So I'm holding (Hold/No Opinion) for the moment, with fingers firmly crossed for good news! For instance last time we arranged funding the share price appreciated significantly (more than doubled?) in the days leading up the announcement. I believe we have a good hand - the BoD need only to play it well. Sigh. Over to @Bannor ;-)

@Dallas - so has your trust in @Kiran improved following our discussions and (my!) conclusions last night? My trust levels in him have been restored to pre-late May levels when the publication of the annual accounts seemed to demonstration he either misspoke (hence was incompetent) or was straight out lying (hence a liar) in the summer webinar! ;-)

For those that don't understand the significance of this - I'm of the ilk that if you catch someone lying once it casts serious doubt on what else may be lies: a red signal. As it happens even after the accounts were released I was still giving him the benefit of the doubt overall, but eyes very much wider open! @Dallas on the other hand appeared to lose more trust believing he outright lied - correct me if I'm wrong!

Thanks again @Dallas for making me revisit this - please be the last time, please be the last time! ;-)

Ob.

Lol. In which case @Dallas, I'll counter in advance with this:

===[
Subsequent to the year end, Directors cash remuneration reduced on average by some 28%
]===

i.e. the salary + fees element has reduced by 28% on average. I presume that is an estimate of the rate of pay. Was it a sudden drop? If so, the best explanation I can think of if indeed @Kiran claimed a salary drop later on in 2017 (which I think he might have done - but I'm not sure of the exact wording), would be an anticipation of the drop. i.e. the BoD determined late in 2017 that their 2018 rate of salary would be on average 28% less, allowing for @Kiran to rightly claim he had recently taken a pay cut in late 2017. Makes sense to me! Of course it would have been clearer if @Kiran had said, "we have recently agreed to take a cut in our cash remuneration from the end of this year... Be clearer @Kiran - you are wasting human time. Assuming @Dallas, I and all those reading this are humans!

So in summary the BoD have taken 2 pay cuts of late. They took an overall pay cut due to severely reduced share based payments. And then again towards the end of the year. It means diddly though. The share price is down, shareholder sentiment is down, and at just a time we should be getting behind our BoD, letting them know they have our support. I guess we ain't no Tesla - yet! @Kiran: be the @Musk - be honest - be engaging - have confidence in yourself and your company ;-)

Ob.

@Dallas. He didn't state a salary reduction, he stated a pay cut. Different things. Kind of. But even if he had said salary I would have accepted that as a slip of the tongue. He makes the odd slip I've noticed... But yes, they awarded themselves a large overall remuneration package in 2016 - the pressure group persuaded them it was in both their and the shareholders interests to transmute the options to be more challenging, but worth a similar (greater on success IRCC) amount. In 2017, due to under-performance, their total pay was reduced significantly. It all fits together nicely now. @Kiran we aren't mind readers - you could have been clearer! ;-)

I feel a renewed trust now I see that the accounts corroborate what was said in the July webinar not apparently disprove it! ;-)

Imagine you agreed to work for someone, and you were paid part cash and part share options. You'd know what that total was worth to you each month. i.e. you would be able to put a value on the share option part, you'd be mad not to. If that then was taken away from you, you would know how much your effective rate of pay had been reduced by. I'm speculating, no in fact concluding that this is the 38-40% pay cut @Kiran is referring to. Wow. Have we really been discussing this for over a year now. Surely that's the end of the matter? LoL ;-)