Member Info for pickedpeck

It depends on fees and the tax situation what the actual outcome will be, but should be close to 20p a share. So right now you are able to buy £20 notes at £13 each. 50% potential gain. They may save on the planned redistribution from the first sale and just do it all at once. It would be nicer still if they had someone lined up as an acquirer for the shell, I'd take a small discount for speed.

Cash total come April should be in the region of $65m. As a cash shell that would be an acquisition of £50m should someone want to buy the shell at just it's cash value.

They are literally not allowed to use NPV in their company reports no that have to be submitted to the SEC no matter what your opinion is.

You also plainly don't understand what NPV is and what it is used for either, you just googled it and are trying to stick to your BS. What discount rate should they plug into the NPV model George? 8? 10? 14? What would the SEC say? You've never calculated an NPV in your life, let alone made a business decision based on it.

Give it a rest george, one big lump of highly visible BS undermines everything else you have ever written, like it needed it.

Nope , you were just busted bull shttng , again.

'No, pickedpeck, see, PV10 is the most advantageous estimate for DEC in this instance, so they ignore the more accurate NPV estimate. they also use PV17 when it suits their purposes. An honest company doesn't pick and choose the formula that suits their narrative. It's - what's the word - misleading ? Fraudulent ?'

Standards is the word you were looking for, but somehow said the words 'misleading' and 'fraudulent' instead. Perhaps it was just a slip bullsht.

Fact: They correctly used industry reporting standards as defined by the SEC.

No George, I am just doing what you claim to do. Fact checking some of the BS that is posted here, mainly by you.

PV-10 is the SEC standard for oil and gas company asset valuation, yet you suggest they are somehow fraudulent for using an SEC mandated approach. That's either because you didn't know and quickly turned to Google or want to try and create some sort of negative perception using BS as your tool.

PV-10 is the industry standard model for asset valuation. They didn't choose it, the industry did.

They use other discount rates for business decisions like acquisitions and disposals.

Actually it looks like these shorters are being in part encouraged by Blackrock who seem to be underpinning at least half the short volume. Do you think its comfortable being the shorts knowing a little company like Blackrock is the one collecting the fees?

Yeah, but these aren't those shorters are they George? These are a bunch of quant driven nerds working on share price and index models rather than company fundamentals. A bit different. They probably don't even know what DEC do for a living.

Did somebody mention ARO today? No?

Anyway I know its buried deep in the annual report so I thought I would share.

https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_0c3799e6a3728ad147795f86587dca10/dgoc/db/604/5962/report/DEC+Annual+Report+and+Accounts+2023.pdf

page 70 - Full description of the company's ARO accounting treatment.

The key paragraph is:

'When evaluating our ability to meet our asset retirement obligations we review reserves models which utilize the income approach to determine the expected discounted future net cash flows from estimated reserve quantities. These models determine future revenues associated with production using forward pricing then consider the costs to produce and develop reserves, as well as the cost of asset retirement at the end of a well’s life. These future net cash flows are discounted using a weighted average cost of capital of 10% to produce the PV-10 of our reserves. After considering the asset retirement costs in these models, our PV-10 was approximately $3.2 billion, $6.1 billion and $3.8 billion as of December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, respectively, illustrating residual cash flows well beyond our retirement obligations.'

That leads to a discounted provision in the FY23 accounts of $506m , related to an undiscounted amount of $1,804m .

In other words the full ARO costs are included as required in the company accounts and used a discounted cash flow model to demonstrate that the liability is far below forecast ability to pay, leaving a PV-10 of $3.2Bn AFTER ARO is accounted for.

Can we put that to bed now?

Its a bit blah blah don't you think George? All seems to be about Gamestop really.

Those instis buying at those prices actually also reassures me. They don't need to look at the price today either, and will hold for a long time to see a return to value. The current price is a popularity contest..., blah blah.

Keep quoting the share price though if it eases your obvious pain.

Don't care George, I am more interested in what the share price will be when I sell. I haven't timed the bottom as I think the company is worth a lot more than th current valuation, although the last couple of thousand I bought were pretty close.

I didn't expect the short attack, but I am reassured that the companies shorting are all quantitatively driven rather than driven by fundamentals. Presumably as the gas price continues to recover they will all have to fold at some point, and we may well see a squeeze.

First test point for me continuing to hold is March, no intention of selling before then unless something really stupidly black swanish happens, positive or negative.

George, you haven't been right once while I have been here, let alone for two years. You didn't predict anything that actually happened, just howled at the moon about stiff that didn't.

Literally nothing you have predicted has happened, you have just tried to claim any random negatively perceivable event as if you had predicted it.

You just like posting negative nonsense, probably because you really are insane.

Oh an whilst you are at it the HH spot price at the time... Might also be useful.

They have achieved both as I am sure you are aware. How about alongside those share prices you cut and paste so often you put production and revenue alongside for comparison?

George, when they reduced the dividend the yield was over 30%. The share price fell well before they cut the dividend.

Oversized because I am sure any US institution would rather (for tax treatment reasons) they retained more of the cash and and directed it to either buy backs or growth, but preferably both.

Look at all these idiots... if only they knew that george was here to save them too!

Name % Total Current Shares Change Amount Change % Date

Columbia EAFE Value 4.42 2,145,627  522,354  32.18% Jun 30, 2024

Fidelity Small Cap Index 1.02 495,034  495,034 –– Jul 31, 2024

Undrly Fid DC L&G UK Sml Cos AC Life 0.65 316,601  316,601 –– Sep 30, 2024

LA Capital UK Equity 0.27 132,072  121,400  1,137.56% Jun 30, 2024

NT R2000 Index Fund - NL 0.23 113,963  113,963 –– Sep 30, 2024

NT R2000 Index Fund - DC - NL - 2 0.19 91,255  91,255 –– Sep 30, 2024

Xtrackers MSCI Eur Small Cap ETF 1C 0.15 72,894  72,894 –– Sep 30, 2024

Jupiter UK Income Fund L Inc 2.86 1,385,705  51,977  3.90% Jun 30, 2024

Fidelity Small Cap Value Index 0.09 42,884  42,884 –– Jul 31, 2024

NT R2000 Index Fund - L 0.08 37,400  37,400 –– Sep 30, 2024

Jupiter Merian Glb Eq AbsRet I USD Acc 0.65 314,958  36,770  13.22% Dec 31, 2023

Segall Bryant & Hamill Int SC InstUnits 0.04 17,994  17,994 –– Jun 30, 2024

Segall B & H Intl Sml Cap Founders 0.04 17,994  17,994 –– Jun 30, 2024

VT Momentum Diversified Growth A Acc 0.24 114,000  17,000  17.53% Sep 30, 2024

Federated Hermes SDG Engagement Eq IS 0.23 111,860  16,300  17.06% Jun 30, 2024

UBC Russell 3000 Index Trust - C 0.03 14,877  14,877 –– Jun 30, 2024

Vanguard FTSE 250 UCITS ETF 0.81 391,672  14,647  3.88% Aug 31, 2024

T. Rowe Price U.S. Small-Cap Index Tr-Z 0.02 11,721  11,721 –– Jun 30, 2024

BlackRock MSCI ACWI ex-U.S. IMI Idx F 0.11 51,905  11,197  27.51% Sep 30, 2024

Vanguard Instl Ttl Intl Stk Mkt Idx TrII 0.68 330,841  10,927  3.42% Aug 31, 2024

George, reducing the by then oversized dividend and the share price falling is not evidence of fraud no matter how hard you wish it so.

The share price actually tracks the natural gas price pretty well, you never mention that the only commodity the company produces has fallen by almost the same percentage as the share price in the same time scale. Funny that, must just be a coincidence.

George.

No they aren't. There is an easy way to tell they aren't. Lets weigh the evidence:

For: There is literally one person on one message board backwater accusing them of fraud.

vs...

Against: The banks, institutional shareholders including Blackrock, thousands of private investors, HMRC, the SEC, the FSA, the financial press, the Democratic board of enquiry, and even the snow drop report think otherwise. Even RRB who is obviously short on the stock doesn't accuse them of fraud as he knows it would be impossible to get away with given the scrutiny of not one but two main market listings, including having to go through the diligence necessary to get a NYSE listing.

Unless you are a unique genius with insight literally no one else in the entire investing world has then you are either obsessed, insane, deluded, moronic, or all of the above. Repeating the same insane message over and over again doesn't make it any truer today than when you first claimed it.

You are actively demonstrating the definition of insanity.

'Massive costs to commercialise' - Nope, it is all relative. The mine is dug, the shafts already in place. They are reopening an existing mine not building a new one so the costs are relatively / comparatively limited.

It all depends on the scale of operation they go for, do they need to process 1 ton of rock a day, 10, 100, 1,000 or 10,000? If the scale of mineralisation is 15g/t then processing just 100t a day should produce 1.5kg per day, or around 50 ounces. At open market price with no Welsh gold premium that's a raw income of £100,000 a day, £25m a year

Divide by 10, process 10t a day produces £10,000 a day income, £2.5m a year.

The scale of equipment to process 10t a day is barely more than four burly lads with picks and shovels btw. 100t of rock a day you start needing to buy heavier equipment, but you're still at the shallow end of the market.

So sliding scales... lets see what mineralisation they report from bulk sampling, then what scale of operation they propose building and how much (additional) capex it needs before declaring it a dead donkey.

(Note - Historic data for Clogau is mineralisation >17g/t and more than 130,000 ounces recovered using the pick and shovel tech of the era. A 2012 report conducted by Snowdon Mining Consultants on behalf of the previous owners of the mine suggested that as much as 500,000 ounces of gold could be lying untouched in the area surrounding the mine)