Member Info for ocelot

So, in GL's opinion:

1/ because Saltfleeby "will make for the company much more money than Brockham would ever have made for
us", the collpase of the share price since the Brockham RNS (3.55p was the previous day's close) is unjustified in purely financial terms;

2/ his NPV of discounted forecast cash flows gives a valuation today of Angus between 4p and 7p per share.

My capitals in the 2nd paragraph:

But I do believe that the acquisition of Saltfleetby is a game-changer for the share price. In fact, I
believe it will make for the company much more money than Brockham would ever have made for
us. That’s my own investment banker estimate of the situation.
The difference between my read of it – with a lifetime spent doing discounted cash flows and trying
to estimate the cash value of an asset – and the way in which the AIM market investors tend to look
at an asset are worlds apart. There’s very much more emotive investing on the AIM. So, if I were to
tell those investors that I believed this collection of assets together MAY BE WORTH BETWEEN 4 AND 7p
RIGHT NOW, that would be a view which I have professionally with 30 years’ experience based on my
relative confidence in their immediate producing capability.
1.3p is clearly very far distance from where, as I say, with my hat on and with those expressed
conditions - which is that my confidence in those two assets is not unfounded and is supported by
my technical team ... But I can say 1.3p is grossly undervaluing the company.
Whether or not we can get confidence and liquidity back into the share is a matter of careful
management and, I hope proven, competence in the future.

Majorboy,

I sincerely hope you don't get your buy-in price, because I'm hoping it has a long way to go, up!

But GL all the same.

Hawkey was right, the winner's name does begin with a "B", "B" for bunks.

Well done, Sir, hearty congratulations and ... where is the share price going now, please?

You're entitled to your opinion, YL.

Imho, the "answer" is to progress their projects as effectively as possible.

YL,

They know full well there's a job to do to re-build credibility.

YL,

Personally, much prefer GL's understated approach.

He's simply being conservative (with a small "c"!) and managing expectations.

Brockham came as an unpleasant surprise to them, they were not expecting the news to knock the share price so far back (imho), they do not want anything like that to happen again.

I’m not sure. We’ve seen another competitor, a colleague of ours in the onshore industry, IGas,
that’s privately owned. You can end up with an awful lot of problems with changing shareholder
base that as a listed company with a broad shareholder base we don’t have. That’s one reason.
I think the second reason is, our retail market won’t not give us access to the enormous levels of
capital that some players have got, particularly for their offshore projects for exploration abroad.
We’ve certain of our companies go abroad and end up with £300m raises, which they are able to do
through these very, very, large funds. We’ve closed ourselves to that. We’ve always said we are a
nimbler, smaller company and we’re happy to raise much less but we like to be able to raise, and
quickly, when we see good opportunities. And I think that’s the best part of the AIM. What we have
to do is to restore confidence that we’re able to deliver and then that advantage will be back with
us.

Are they participating in an investment conference soon?

expectations management: under-promise, over-deliver.

And another 737,958.

Looks as if the prospect of a deal with the EU is stimulating buying interest in TPT.

£3,400,000 - £2.50 still leaves £3,399,997.50 :-)

One investor asked what the present cash resources of the Company were. At present these stand at approximately GBP3.4 million. (RNS of 01/10).

Because the upside potential is greater than the downside risk.

So is the Weald oil dream over?

“No, I really don’t think so”, Lord Lucan said.

“I am comfortable that the oil is in place. But it does seem to want to remain in place and that’s the problem.”

The difficulty, he says, is that the Kimmeridge oil appears to vary over just a short distance. It flows at Horse Hill, he said, but it doesn’t flow a few kilometres away at Brockham or at Broadford Bridge, in West Sussex, which is closer to the supposed sweet spot.

“If we look at the whole Kimmeridge play it is really an unknown.

“It is something we said in our original prospectus that this was an unconventional play. It was not well known.

“I’m telling you, as a layman, that I don’t think any of the technical teams know very well yet.”

Asked how many wells would be needed across the Weald to be sure, he said:

“Well in the order of hundreds, which no one can afford. Which is just as well because the residents would be flinging up their arms in horror.”

https://drillordrop.com/2019/10/11/interview-angus-oil-man-backs-gas-for-the-future/

there is also the lengthier transcript

another 1,333,187 at 70.00p in 3 trades.

at 1.29 and 1.30p.

The executive chairman ran into a disastrous minefield of compliance with some share dealing. I
know him personally and I believe him to be a man of integrity but somewhat hopeless with
paperwork, as it transpired, and I’m quite certain he didn’t benefit from any of the breaches of
compliance that ultimately led to his resignation.
When he resigned, he left his colleague, Paul Vonk, my predecessor, as lone executive member of a
board, which is an extraordinary thing for any company, and I think a very poor example of
corporate governance. He left it in that situation for many months and then fell out with Jonathan
Tidswell, which is never a good thing to do. Jonathan is not a majority shareholder but he is a
significant one. Generally speaking, a good CEO takes reasonable heed of what a significant
shareholder says and feels.
Initially, I was slated to come on to that board as non-executive director just to add some eyes and
ears. But, as you know, the falling out between Jonathan Tidswell and Paul Vonk led to a shareholder
requisition and ultimately Paul’s resignation.
At that point in time, Jonathan, the NOMAD and I had discussed what role I would come in as and it
was suggested I come in as interim managing director to try to get a decent board together. And I
hope I have gone someway to doing that. I’ve appointed a proper finance director and a proper
technical director and an experienced non-executive chairman. Generally speaking, chairman of
public companies should be non-executive. He’s got a great background in the industry. And we’ve
retained one other non-executive director so it’s a nice functioning board

Lord Lucan said:

“We are absolutely at the bottom. I’ve been in there with a broom and what skeletons there are in the cupboard are out. If I look at the asset portfolio, I don’t anticipate any more bad news.

He said Portland production at Brockham would not be a game-changer for the share price but Saltfleetby would be.

He said the current assets implied a share price of 4p-7p.

“I can say to those people who bought at 35p and are here at 1, well you have lost a heck of a lot and I’m very, very, sorry.

“1.3p is grossly undervaluing the company.”