If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
Stevo12, I'd appreciate you showing your working.
Try as I might, I don't get close to your additional $1.5b of FCF number.
BHP +15.8% p.a. over last 5 years.
Sum is =(power((2358+845+345)/1701,1/5))-1
1701 sp 5 years ago
2358 sp today
845p dividend sterile $1.3 exchange
345p distribution for oil assets to Woodside
Headlam highlighted the strength of their balance sheet.
In 2022 Likewise had a cash operation loss of £1.3m. Last year's acquisition was financed by a placing at 35p and a deferral arrangement on 5m shares, guaranteeing a 100p / share value in Jan 2024. At todays SP that's >£4m cash to pay out in 6 months.
Likewise's published revenue growth looks good but it's the cash flows that matter. The interims will provide a clearer view of the balance sheet but till then I see this as a high risk investment.
I'd guess a big part of the Aus Helium sell is founded on the 3 CTP prospective Helium drills, which were to be funded by Peak Helium. But agreements are cheap. The cash for these developments is harder to come by.
Old news, 30th June (I haven't seen it posted here), CTP says $3m payment from Peak Helium is overdue and planned 3 well drill at risk. Refer to ASX announcements.
I note Peek Helium website is 'under reconstruction', so no clarification there.
The text of the Tweet is taken from an RNS 4th May 2023.
Anything new will come via an RNS not a Tweet.
PT, thanks!
PT, thanks for highlighting the problem with Barclays. I was about to call them but I'll now wait.
I had a 1 week delay with the previous HBR dividend but this one has now moved into a 2nd week. However, in my experience Barclays credit my account within a day or so of the payment date. For some reason Barclays has a specific problem with the HBR payment.
"In October 2021, the company issued a $500 million bond under Rule 144A which has a tenor of five years to maturity. The coupon was set at 5.50 per cent and interest is payable semi-annually."
Seaford, going by memory HBR has c. $600m senior notes at about 5% costing c $30m interest per year. Call it gross debt. It will likely run to expiry/repayment.
Botham, note 9 of accounts has £1,101k which I take to be CLNs. Add a further 12% interest, gets to my £1.2m. You stated £700k to CLN in your post hence my assumption of a loss.
Singapore investors hold 16% of current shares. I haven't gone back to look at their investment but I'd judge it to be less than the 'over £1m' number you posted.
I don't know the GE share allocation. Just going by your post.
Sorry, post cut short. I can't be bothered to write it again but I ended asking why you think GE and Mosman 'founders' deserve a more generous share allocation compared to HE1 founders.
I think the HE1 admission document is a good point of reference.
Botham, if I understand your GE numbers, the CLN holders are taking a hit on their c.£1.2m investment (April 2022 account) while the Directors and Singapore investors are getting a return on their investment. This would be the position at launch. But I recall you saying Directors are tied in for 2 years(?) and Singapore investors for a shorter period. I assume CLN holders can sell out immediately. I guess that brings some balance. But still begs the question why new investors would put up £5m for
I think a good starting point for a valuation of a spin off is HE1's admission document which valued the company at IPO at £14.1m. The share allocation was largely along the lines of monetary contributions. The investment over 5 years by the founders valued at a capitalised exploration value of c.$8m, and the £6m invested in the placing ahead of the admission. Holders of the CLNs received a 30% premium on their loans and brokers received a 2.5% share. I see this as a good template for Mosman. Given the c.$1m capitalised exploration a £5m placing would lease Mosman with c.15-20% share in the new entity on admission. Management are likely to receive c.5% share in the form of free shares/warrants at admission price. I'd expect Mosman shareholders to receive the 15-20% share in the new company. No doubt JB would like a cash injection into the US business but that would be at a cost to the holding of shareholders, so subject to shareholders agreement.
That's my expectation.
As I understand the GE structure the founders are set to receive a disproportionate share on admission. GE also has negative equity ahead of any placing monies. If this structure goes through then it would be very different to the HE1 structure. I may be missing something but I don't understand why new investors to GE would accept less than 50% of the GE business.
Botham, you seem to be overcomplicating the C1 numbers.
6,690 Gross boe / 90 day = 74 boepd.
C1 is performing below initial expectations - 120bopd expected. The RNS details the cause and follow up actions, or as you put it, "what the xxxx has gone on?"
All seems crystal clear to me and 'par for the course'.
“We initially paid a lot of money for this permit just read the old RNSs.. Trident aquisition and paying the debts off .. I calculated £26 million alone on that plus all the work done to date”
Da_Gee, I pointed you to the Trident RNS. I guess you didn’t read it.
RNS 2nd July 2014 – Acquisition of Trident Energy Limited
This is the text on considerations:
The total consideration comprises circa £1.6m (based on the current share price of 23p and an exchange rate of £1:A$1.813) payable in three tranches: - The issue of 2,892,978 Mosman Shares to acquire 100% of the issued share capital of Trident - Settlement of outstanding loans and directors’ fees by the issue of 2,147,427 Ordinary Shares (the “Loan Shares”) - Settlement of outstanding creditors by the issue of up to 308,113 Ordinary Shares (the “Creditor Shares”) and - An agreement to provide a loan of up to A$750,000 to Trident
I’ll help you with the sums:
((2,892,978+2,147,427+308,113)*0.23p)+(750,000/1.813) = £1.643m.
This is primary school stuff.
If you don’t trust my sums look at Mosman’s latest accounts:
Shareholders’ Equity Contributed equity 9 40,065,365 38,743,432
Reserves 10 771,702 706,297
Accumulated losses (32,833,193) (32,168,097)
Total Shareholders’ Equity 8,003,874 7,281,632
I’ll explain it to you:
Before this month’s £300K placement shareholders had already put AU$40m into Mosman’s coffers. At today’s exchange rate of £1:A$1.85, that’s £21.6m, invested across the entire business. Leaving £4.3m of equity after £17.3m of losses.
Also, from the latest accounts:
“Capitalised oil and gas exploration 1,293,435”
That’s Mosman’s latest expensed valuation on its Australian assets - £700K.
If you’re wondering what happened to the £1.6m paid to Trident (I know you are) this is from the 2017 accounts:
“Exploration expenditure previously capitalised, written off in financial year (7,428,444) (1,456,942)”
That’s £4m written off in 2017 alone. (Mosman had quite a spending spree in its early days)
This is a highly speculative investment. Invest with you eyes open!
Da_Gee,
RNS 2 July 2014 - Acquisition of Trident Energy
Total consideration circa £1.6m.
Over the following 3 years Mosman had total obligations on EP145 to perform minimum exploration work of US$410k. Most of the total obligations were not spent but a breakdown of spending isn't detailed.
All we know for sure is that Mosman carries a US$870K value on the balance sheet for expenditures on 145 & 155 to Dec 2022.
How do you get to £25m?
In latest accounts Mosman's exploration expenditure in Australia is capitalised at US$870K.
Don't get carried away on any potential up front monies. Remember, EPA155 went for an up front AU$15K payment.
These posts are misleading and that's being polite.
Last week Botham posted links on the farmin closure on Central Petrolium. I'd suggest reading those links rather than 'buzz' comments on this board. Drilling on 3 licences is expected to start late 2023 or early 2024.
Peak Helium is fully funding the first two drills, with Santos drill operator, subject to Peak actually providing the funds. Central Petrolium has been here before with prospective funding which didn't come through.
I assume Central Petrolium and Santos have conducted due diligence ahead of any agreement.
But this is background stuff for Mosman who need to sort funding of some sort for Cinnabar this year.
Correction
$300k before costs.
Not $300m
I agree with ff. It's good to expand on your views, beats the useless 'blue bloom' comments, but I disagree with much of the post.
I don't think Mosman had much control over the timing of placings, until C1 Mosman has always had negative cash flow. No cash, no business.
The assessment of funding via the Australian assets seems a good move. DM has experience in the area. But I think the idea that anything could happen as soon as next month seems optimistic. Key will be the performance of GE post IPO. I think an IPO has to happen this time round given the negative equity on the balance sheet. Though I remain sceptical of any successful commercialisation of Helium there's always someone willing to fund a good story.
Agree, seismic is expensive and doubt Mosman could get away with a repeat placing for seismic. Let's see where the talks go. GE will face the same challenge with seismic.
If Australian assets don't provide funding then it will be a placing to fund Cinnabar. Raise will damage share price, but Mosman will still exist. The day they take on debt will be the beginning of the end for Mosman.
You skip too quickly over '$300m before costs'. Work out the costs - they are significant. The interims should be released this week which will help in assessing costs.