Member Info for ps200306

"TheShen/p5tvr is alive and well on ADVFN board, must have been outed from this one."

Simples. I reported his ****** posts and he got banned immediately. Good riddance.

In answer to my own question, it occurs to me that the rig / FPSO costs are the ones most likely to come under the deferred costs, absorbed by the consortium until production starts. That would suggest that the $60m is already the trimmed-down bit needed in advance of starting the EIA. So my question about incremental spending is probably moot.

Manyana, I see your point. However, it would need the coordination of the top ten shareholders to each add an additional three times the current value of their holdings. (Current mcap = €41m, top ten = 50%, let's say €60m needed). It seems unlikely -- they are a mixture of everything from private individuals to pension funds. How many underwater shareholders even here on the board would be willing to do it? I know I wouldn't, given the uncertainties about Green foot dragging and public opposition.

Here's another thought. Project risk would obviously be dramatically reduced if you got over all the regulatory hurdles first. That means carrying out the EIA and applying for the requisite drilling permits. Could PVR raise the money for that first, and worry about a drilling rig and FPSO later? How much is needed for the regulatory bits, plus keeping the lights on for another year etc.? And could they even get the regulatory permits without also proving that they have the cash to stump up for drilling? I don't know, but it seems that incrementally raising the funds and reducing the risk as you go along might be more acceptable. But then whoever pays for the upfront parts takes the biggest risk, so would be interesting to know what fraction of the total that is.

I thought China's net zero target was 2060 all along? And I'm not sure they're serious about even that. China was the only country in which coal demand increased during the 2020 pandemic year. It uses more coal than the rest of the world combined. It generates nearly 60% of its electricity from coal. It puts the Green hysteria in the UK and Ireland in perspective. Ireland has a single coal-fired plant. The UK has two remaining since Drax switched off its last coal burners this year, and even those are only used as a last resort such as when the wind didn't blow last month. China has 1,082 and is adding more.

Little Ireland is going to double or triple the price of its electricity in an endeavour that will barely be a rounding error on the overall scale of global emissions. It's a good thing the Green hysteria is completely wrong about the worst effects of climate change because there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the world meeting 2030 or 2050 emissions targets. Nuclear technology is the only conceivable way to achieve that, with new nukes strapped onto the steam plant from decommissioned coal. However, the Greens don't fancy that, so probably won't happen.

Instead they want to keep the developing world poor so that, for instance, the 80 million people in Congo who burn wood for energy keep on laying waste to the environment, and the 2 million who die globally from indoor biomass burning each year continue to do so. Bunch of evil goons.

Manyana: "I did not say issue a ton of shares at the new share price to pay for the deal you announced you already had."

Actually you did. And now you've said:

"the major shareholders ... could easily do it by buying extra shares at say 12p equivalent to what they already own."

So people should pay 12p for shares that they can buy on the open market for 3p? Let's hope the board is considering more intelligent options than that.

On a slightly different topic ... I mentioned I unfiltered you in order to complain to LSE about our other resident troll, TheShen. Seems it worked. His profile says he made 692 posts since he joined last January, but no sign of any of them. Looks like he's been banned. No doubt we'll be seeing him back under a new username soon. Job done. That means YOU'LL be going back on filter unless you show an unexpected increase in civility. Life's too short to entertain time wasters and trolls. Have a good one.

Manyana, for once I agree with you. I think I posted here some time back that the entire emissions cuts achieved by Ireland over sixteen years was offset by just the *increase* in China's coal usage every month.

It would be funny if it didn't have very real and very bad implications for living conditions in Ireland. I've stopped thinking of the Greens as a bunch of well-intentioned fuddy duddies and started treating them as ignorant and/or evil.

Manyana, so you're saying:

a) announce a deal and watch the share price soar,
b) issue a ton of shares at the new share price to pay for the deal you announced you already had.

You are Bernie Madoff redivivus, and I claim my £5.

"PS in regards to debt funding, I wouldn't write off Graham's ability to pull this off as he has pulled off a few miracles already."

I don't write it off, nor would I ever. However, I'm pretty sure that institutional lenders are risk averse. They don't take a $180m punt on projects that might never pay it back. The horst gas is a contingent resource. Graham has dropped hints several times that the production flow rates from the existing wells will be used as evidence of reservoir quality. It may be that they have to drill additional appraisal wells. At least one will eventually be needed anyway to maintain the flow for LNG.

You'd have to ask someone more qualified than me exactly what it takes for C2 resources to become P1 reserves. But if we simply assume that the trigger for pipeline financing cannot occur before the LNG comes on stream, then -- with the best will in the world -- a completed pipeline is a minimum of four years away. I would assume Graham knows this. However, he can probably claim that they are "progressing" Phase 2 just by talking to potential lenders (or even thinking about talking to them).

It may also be that you don't have to wait until pipeline gas is actually flowing to have a material impact on the share price. SP Angel puts the value at c. 10p/share. But it is up to shareholders to realistically assess for themselves if and when such a valuation might be realised.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/nphet-like-group-needed-to-steer-ireland-through-energy-crisis-says-entrepreneur-1.4696651

I find this article frightening. Not because it's talking about a dangerous supply situation, but because it reveals the Green mindset. That is:

i) there is no alternative to intermittent renewables. Never mind that they are proving themselves utterly incapable of supporting a modern electricity grid. Just shut up and accept they are the future.

ii) we are still waiting for batteries and interconnectors to solve the problem. Never mind that meaningful batteries would rely on electrochemistry that defies the laws of physics. And interconnectors just connect you to an auction involving similarly power-starved actors.

iii) if Joe Public cooperates by only using his fridge when he's told to, we might get away with brownouts instead of blackouts,

iv) renewables ain't cheap so you will be paying through the nose for this brave new world of supply insecurity.

v) Don't even think about fossil fuel extraction because it will only make you hanker after stuff we can't let you have. We have to save the world's poor from extreme weather by keeping them poor with crippling energy costs. Oh, and don't blame us if the world's poorest don't agree with us pampered aging hippies. We'll just have to wreck our own infrastructure while they burn coal.

"So, stop talking rubbish and wait for the 'Financial Strategy' which is far more complex than either you two duffers realise."

I'd prefer to have gotten the funding solution that Linn promised back in April would be in place by Q3. What's more it needed no guesses as to the shape it would take since it was just the SpotOn model ... without SpotOn. We can assume the amount of money in question has not changed since the phased development was already the cheapest option considered, and it assumed deferral of certain supplier costs.

So what's this new "financial strategy"? I have no doubt the details will be complicated, but the broad parameters are completely straightforward despite your pleas of ignorance. That's because neither PVR nor LOGP have a brass farthing so that leaves the standard avenues: equity or debt financing via a partner/institution or the markets. In other words:

i) a farm-in partner with deep pockets (already tried multiple times),
ii) a bank loan (banks don't generally lend for risky appraisal work),
iii) an equity raise (billions of shares at 3p? unlikely)
iv) a bond raise (the SpotOn approach)

If I missed something that falls outside those broad options, I'm all ears. And I don't mean fairy stories like Schlumberger "owing" Providence something because of Druid. This is business, not the cast of "Friends".

WTI just went above $80 for the first time since October 2014. Brent similarly at a multi-year high.

I know I'm gonna regret engaging with the resident delusional quackery, but:

* "They currently have nearly 1b so what is stopping them taking that back up to say 3b and using the 2b to raise the paltry £60m it would take to develop Barryroe? Get real."

I thought you said they had the money in the bag already? You actually think they could sell TWO BILLION shares? And check your figures -- a 3x dilution to raise ONE THIRD of what is needed?

* "And since the actual figure for the development has not been fully decided until we have the full plan is Q4"

So you think they have the money but they don't know how much it is? Was it coins they found down the back of the sofa but haven't had time to count yet?

* "You might find that the Healy-Rae brothers are running the country sooner than you think"

Ridiculous.

* "I am sure Linn would be happy to wait until the change of government next year"

To an ultra-left Sinn Fein government who have already set out their opposition to oil extraction? He'd have to be as delusional as you are.

* "Perhaps this quote, ps200306 might explain why Linn has taken his time with the Barryroe development."

... followed by something that has nothing to do with it.

* "Go back and read the 'Shell to Sea' saga"

I frackin' LIVE here. Hilarious how you keep trotting out local news and history as if you were some sort of exclusive on-the-spot reporter in an exotic location.

* "ps200306 who said he had put me on "ignore" which is obviously untrue as he read my posts and his friend"

I took you both off "ignore" the other day in order to report a number of TheShen's posts which, judging by other people's comments, had obviously turned even nastier than usual. You're not much better. Don't worry, you'll both be going back on "ignore" shortly. Didn't take long to reacquaint myself with how much of an ignoramus you are.

"the survey will cost money, why bother doing it if you don't have the money and or you cannot fund the development"

Two reasons: a) the survey has to be completed before the time limit expires, b) the cost of the survey is a fraction of one percent of the cost of drilling. Providence has money in the kitty for the survey. It certainly doesn't have money for drilling -- if it did it would have had to notify the market. O'Reilly carried out the A and B site surveys in 2019 as his last roll of the dice and he most certainly didn't have any money for drilling. In fact, he only had enough money for half a survey. (P.S. I am here since well before the Transocean case so no need for any lessons there).

The idea that Linn is intentionally slowing things down to suit the politics is faintly ridiculous. Had SpotOn come up with the funding would he have told them to hold their horses, it was too early? Of course not. Did "Mystic Meg" Linn have a miraculous premonition of the Russian politics over Nord Stream 2, the gas price hikes, the low wind conditions over the summer, the fire that damaged the France-UK interconnector and the heightened political concerns over winter gas and electricity shortages? No, of course he didn't -- why would he have said the funding would be sorted by Q3 if he intended to play a longer game all along?

As I said, if he had the funding in the bag he could not stash it in his magician's hat for later and and keep the market in the dark. There is absolutely no possibility that the funding is a done deal. And let's face it -- that is by far the biggest obstacle to moving Barryroe forward and has been for years. Green opposition might be an obstacle down the road, but Linn has to clear the first hurdle first and it turns out he has wasted the last year and a half faffing around. I have no problem with a CEO changing course when the conditions change (as they always do), but saying one thing and then saying another completely different thing with no offer of an explanation is a bit contemptuous. There is no way to reconcile his "funding solution concluded by Q3" and "a strategic review (with no guarantee of funding) by Q4".

I think some criticism of Linn is justified. He DID say in April that a funding solution would be concluded by the third quarter and consequently there would be no delay to the drilling schedule for Barryroe. That is to say, it would be on target for a drill in late 2022 as he set out in a presentation last year. Back in 2020 that sounded like an awfully long delay, but he reminded us that even the environment impact statement would take a year to prepare. So now we are promised a "strategic review" by the fourth quarter. I don't know about anyone else, but to me that does not sound like a promise that funding will actually be in place by then. And if his 12 months for an EIA is still accurate, that means there will be no drilling in 2022. So contrary to what Linn said in April (probably in a panic to get SOME message out after the SpotOn failure) the schedule HAS indeed slipped, and we have no guarantee of funding even according to the revised schedule. Apart from lobbing another ten million share options at new director hires, we basically have no clue what is going on inside PVR. Linn's exuberance of 2020 has run into cold hard reality and unfortunately, like the previous management, he has gone silent when the going got tough.

If Graham manages to pull off the miracle of debt funding for the pipeline it would put the company on course for serious revenue. Having done the hard work it would seem like exactly the wrong time to be selling up for a few pence per share?

Daveyboy, I hope you're right. However, pipeline construction time is 12-24 months so unless it started yesterday there won't be a pipeline with a couple of years. Looking at how long it has taken to bring the Afriquia Gaz / ItalFluids contracts to fruition -- likely almost two years by the time FID is done -- how long is it going to take to finalise a pipeline project which is ten times the cost? So I like to call mine a realistic rather than negative assessment. It could be that the SP will rise on Phase 2 news, way in advance of a pipeline actually being built ... though I'd be wary of all the times SOU's SP has surged prematurely only to fall back again.

... not getting everything their own way:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-58828308

Well that was clear as mud. At least there was an admission of what was already obvious -- that SOU doesn't have the money to go drilling again on the strength of Phase 1 revenue. But still blaming Covid for the lack of a GSA, even though negotiations were ongoing for at least a couple of years BEFORE Covid. And now there is some other unspecified reason for delay. Also "funding mechanisms are identified for Phase 2 once GSA contracts are in place" ... could mean any of the following:
1) We will start identifying funding mechanisms once GSA is done
2) We have already identified funding mechanisms and will pursue them once GSA is done
3) We have a funder lined up and ready to go as soon as GSA is done

My guess is number 2 which means there is no funding in place, even conditionally. So the only thing we've learned is that things are progressing on the standard SOU timescales, i.e. VERY SLOWLY. And there is no change to the following prognosis:

1) Phase 1 will very likely get signed off and work will commence.
2) There is no money for drilling the Annoual commitment next year unless a partner/funder is found.
3) Phase 2 is still at a very early stage, and a pipeline is somewhere between two and "several" years away, and dependent on finding a large amount of funding.
4) There's a distinct possibility SOU will default on the first bond amortisation payment at end of 2023.

In other words, everything (or, at least, everything of value to shareholders) still hinges on Phase 2.

"No money, no deal, no finance, no funding solution, no plan, no options, no potential. No survey. No licence!"

11% WRONG so far!

We've been told it's 18 to 24 months. In "Sound time" that means at least 24 months.