Member Info for Only1Gibbo

Okay all, particularly those of you who are suggesting a 50% cut to the £/TCF guidance. I have an excel spreadsheet which I am willing to share with anyone that wants to look at it. Happy for you to audit it and provide feedback. Using the following assumptions $8 per mcf $/£ 1.28 Capex £500m Opex £75m pa Discount rate 10% I have run it assuming it takes 10, 15 & 20 years to get the gas out of the ground. It gives a npv /share to Sound (after 47% share) Over 10 years £1.78 Over 15 years £1.52 Over 20 years £1.31 I have no clue whether my capex and opex estimates are correct or not - happy to take constructive feedback. Spreadsheet is set up so you can amend the variables to see sensitivities. Anyone interested email me at Only1gibbo at aol dot com Please let me know your screen name. If anyone can find flaws in the workings I'll gladly repost NPVs.

W8ey, spot on. That was the change. There was always confusion whether it was £1/TCF (that was the original value guidance) per total TCF in the ground or what TCF was recoverable.

So although we have 0.6TCF, only 0.377 is recoverable and that is the value to which the £1.50 should be applied.

Again, easy to estimate, $ / mcf is always only going to be earned on what can be got out of the ground. Take it from there, make some reasonable assumptions and do the maths. Stick it all into a spreadsheet and you can even play around with different parameters to see how sensitive the outcome is.

It's worth 10 minutes of anyone's time before getting mugged.

That is not from first principles. He/she is starting with the figure of £1.50. Until you can work out how that is derived, you cannot tell what adjustments you need to make to it. Start from $ per Mcf, then show all the workings to get to your number. Bet you can't.

Rocket Rac, I don't think I've ever read such rubbish in all my born days

"As a rule of thumb, 1 TCF of recoverable gas Sound equity gas a NAV of £1.50" is unequivocal. Period.

Why on earth would you apply 47.5% to Sound's equity? Sound's equity is what we own, the shareholders 100%. Nobody else. Do you not understand what shareholders' equity is?

If any if you are being frightened into selling based on the crap posted here tonight, do yourselves a favour and get your calculators out and do some basic sums for yourself first. You will be mugged otherwise.

Assume $8 per 1000 cubic feet of gas. Work out how much 1 Trillon cubic feet will earn. Then apply 47.5% to that to get Sound's share. Then make some assumptions as to how long it will take to get the gas out if the ground. Try several sensitivities 10 / 15 / 20 years. Make some assumptions on opex, which given it is gas blasting out of the ground under pressure and travelling along a pipeline, is unlikely to be a huge sum imo.

Then discount the cash flows at 10% over the time periods in the sensitivities, If you don't understand net present value, just ask or go and look it up.

If you want to criticise the answer you quote in the FSC you might look to the fact that he didn't point out that it was recoverable gas as opposed to gas in place, but you certainly cannot suggest that anyone should apply 47.5% to it after allowing for the recoverable amount.

I'd certainly like to see someone making these wild claims provide a detailed calculation to back up their claims from first principles. Bet none of them will though. That alone should tell you a lot.

http://www.irna.ir/en/News/83109503

Iranian, Italian FMs discuss EU new special mechanism

http://www.irna.ir/en/News/83109538

IAEA once again confirms Iran’s compliance with JCPOA

Touché on the spelling Joe. Thanks for correcting.

Video wasn't PF imo, although I could understand why someone thought it might be at first glance.

Like you, don't care where second MOU is, size of airport and £/Pax are more important.

Sniff sniff sniff, what can I smell? Vander's (or is it Foxy's) bullshit. You own no shares. You want the share price to fall. You lie and liable the directors of the Company to do so. A shamefully shallow excuse of an individual. imo.

Feeks, back at the AGM PF was quite upset with holders that had called up embassies etc of the countries being speculated about on the BBs trying to get information. The reason being that they were actually in discussions with some of them. Whether one of them was Oman I don't know, but there was a lot of other circumstantial evidence to suggest Oman was one of them, hence why we became fixated on it. Of course it could all have been a smoke screen.

No idea where the 2nd MOU will be, there are plenty of developing countries to chose from in Africa and Asia. Let's hope that he lands one of them.

And you say Vander's knowledge of the history of WSG isn't encyclopaedic Joe?

Etin, I also wonder whether they have delayed the SPV to have one final push at Donnie on home soil, especially with the background of the remberance service. DT certainly didn't look very happy yesterday morning before he disgracefully cried off paying his respects at the US cemetery. Given Macron's comments in public today, I dread to think what he said in private yesterday. Vive la France!

That's more than a statement and a half DHC. Macron didn't pull any punches with that. I once read that diplomacy was the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a manner that they actually look forward to the trip. I can't see Donnie looking forward to any trips after that other than the one back home.

Quite right Etin I doubt it is easy to set up from scratch. It's not just the banking arrangements but the whole infrastructure, including a telecoms network that the US doesn't have access to.

But hopefully Macron told him in words he would understand yesterday.

It would have been 35000 feet over his head. I doubt he knows a single word of another language.

How do you know they are still investigating insurance options?

MTP, up until when the Iran deal was announced I believe that HH were insiders so couldn't sell if they wanted to. It would also explain why they didn't accumulate (as was questioned by some on here) whilst the deal was being negotiated. That said, I have it on very good authority that Giles Hargreave is no mug at all.

Vander, for a newbie I congratulate you for being able to amass an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the history of WSG and the ME contract.

What is it you feel that isn't transparent, given that
1. You have been told the contract is signed
2. You have been told that we have had to revisit banking, financing, insurance and supply chain issues because some third parties, despite this not being a sanctioned activity, had concerns about continuing
3. That good progress has been made on all these fronts
4. We are not reliant on the SPV.
5. An addendum is being prepared, which requires sign off from both sides.

That seems fairly transparent to me, what is it you feel that isn't? A lack of inside information as to when it will get the go ahead?

You also question PF's comptence, bear in mind
1. He has negotiated a contract that would increase annual recurring revenue some five to six fold. That is one hell of an achievement.
2. He has done in it a country that has looked at the UK with almost as much hatred and distrust as they have the USA for the last 60 years after we over threw their democratically elected government to get our hands on their oil.
3. It is pointless comparing the operations at SL (which I doubt you have zero knowledge of anyway) as the Iran deal is totally different as to the service being provided.

Maybe you could provide some insight as to how you would approach things going forwards?

No Fairview. Its parent was in administration not Keyguard. Keyguard as an entity was an asset of Armatus which the administrators sold in its entirety as an individual legal entity to WSG in order to recover money for the creditors of Armatus.

Disagree Adj - looks like a fire sale by the administrator and an opportunity to pick it up for a pittance. Former owner is on board too so it can be left in his hands to get on with it. No distraction as far as I can see.

We don't need the SPV but it would help us. SPV will not necessarily equate to lift off. Changing the supply chain etc etc etc has necessitated a contract addendum. That will need sign off by the client as well as WSG. As we have seen in the past the client hasn't signed off as quickly as we would like. That element of it is outside of our control.