Member Info for ps200306

soundreason: "Ps etc scoffs at posters who say SOU will be above 10p very soon. But over on PVR (where the share price is at 3.3p and continuing to slide)... he is forecasting a share price of 100p. Wow."

I know you are extremely hard of understanding on this subject, but allow me to explain the difference between a forecast and a valuation. PVR's share of net income from a proposed initial field development is $100m per year, and will easily generate the income required for further development that would triple that. It is also debt free now, and in a good position to pay for more development from future revenue. SOU's share of net income from LNG is on the order of $8m per year not including costs or servicing of a significant existing debt. It cannot raise the money for further development on the strength of income alone. It also has 50% more shares on issue than PVR, so the income per share is even less. If you factor in the pipeline and further drilling, SOU may be worth more, but I choose to discount anything that isn't on the horizon in the next several years. Taken altogether, that makes SOU worth more than an order of magnitude less than PVR. That's the VALUATION.

Now, if I were to FORECAST a price of 100p for PVR, that would entail an assessment of all sorts of risks, chief among them the likelihood that they will attract the funding they need. There is a very high likelihood that they will not. And, like SOU, if they don't get the funding they are Donald Ducked, Brown Bread, an ex-company. So such a forecast would be pretty stupid and, contrary to your silly assertion, I am not forecasting any such thing, or anything at all.

For me it's a fairly simple calculation. If everything goes right for PVR I get my money back. I don't get my money back from SOU *EVEN IF* everything goes right. Chances are, I'm gonna lose it all either way. But I might as well back the horse that is a 50-1 outsider rather than the one that has already been put down by the vet.

4-6p after bond and FID, then slow drift back down on no news for two years.

TheShen: "How much is Linn getting paid a month? Anyone? Anyone?"

Could only hazard a guess. What we do know is that he has a million shares of his own, and some significant chunk of the performance-related 31.5 million share options conditionally granted to directors last year. So he's probably motivated to make a good fist of it.

TheShen: "Like the time they told you that the backstop date for the completion at the time of the farm-out in November was set at 28th February 2021, after the fact on the 1st of March??"

A false equivalence. The November farmout was conditional. It's obvious that there would be some date by which SpotOn would be deemed not to have met the conditions. I'm sure a sensible chap like yourself realises that omitting the date from the RNS is hardly on a par with omitting to tell the market about the final outcome of the negotiations once they have concluded.

No, ST123, I am not constantly sniping at every poster. For instance, the poster who pointed out that the share price is not necessarily always correlated to a hard-headed valuation has a very valid point. I reserve my criticism for posters like you who make self-contradictory statements at every turn.

To take some examples, you've said "you mention the company debt but like the rest of us are clueless as to what that currently is". That is patently ridiculous. The debt situation is clearly set out in company statements which I've given you references to.

You've said: "we do not know the tax situation or the outcome of what will be finally agreed with the bond holders." But we know what has been proposed to the bondholders, we know that Graham has said he's been *working* with them, and we can safely assume that the bondholders will not volunteer for a *worse* outcome for themselves than what is proposed. In other words we have a perfectly good and reasonable baseline for estimation.

Yes, the tax situation is an unknown. But that uncertainty in no way substantiates your claim that "we are unaware of so many factors that it’s pointless trying to pretend otherwise." Your constant portrayal of the state of the company as so vague as to defy any attempts at valuation are entirely self-contradictory. If that were the case then your equally constant predictions of significant value are entirely baseless by your own argument.

You engage in more self-contradiction when you accuse me of "printing paragraphs of figures that have been now superseded by the fast paced changing nature of our journey". You then say "things are looking a whole lot better now than they were a few weeks ago". Where is your information coming from if not from the same RNSs as I've quoted? You also say I claim to know more than anyone else. In fact, I have repeated ad nauseum that I have no more information than anyone else and am using only figures that are available to all and sundry. You then go back around the loop of claiming that we can't know anything at all. On this in particular you are at your incoherent worst.

Finally, you make a bunch of irrelevant points with no connection to any of the above. The funniest are about the "lack of appreciation for some of the great work that Graham and the board appear to be doing at present." When did this board become the Graham Lyon fan club? Feel free to engage in all the sycophantic adulation you like, but Graham is a paid functionary whose duties include protecting shareholder value. I will mostly ignore your other nasty speculations about my mental state, nor will I question yours in spite of the weird sycophancy. FYI, I post in the wee hours because I work overnight.

I'll end with a (probably futile) invitation and recommendation that you stick to known facts in discussing Sound Energy.

Not2sure, my calculation includes all the shares and warrants that have been promised in recent RNS's. And yes, you're right, how the market might value the company could be entirely different from any consideration of what the assets are worth and when they might be realised. Certainly the "in Graham we trust" brigade on here hope that's the case. But then there's a *lot* of injured investors looking for relatively small SP increases to get out with their shirt, and pass the problem on to the next buyers.

Double figures would be easily achievable if SOU were to somehow get a pipeline built without diluting any of that 47%. But that's not going to happen. If you look at the abortive Parson's deal and consider the value of the same thing now, given the massive dilution that has occurred subsequently, it would probably only be worth high single digits. Maybe low double digits. And I find it hard to ignore that such a deal has not been achieved despite supposed best efforts. First LNG will at best be *four years* after the announcement of the decision to monetise the Tendrara assets. And that's worth diddly squat.

ALB1 also obviously believes Linn is contravening FSA rules requiring him to release relevant information as soon as it is available.

sr: "I would be surprised if the share price does not test the low teens in the next month or so."

LOL, that gave me my laugh of the day. That would value SOU at about a third of a billion dollars. Pretty impressive for a company that *might* have 5 million in annual income two or three years from now (and $6om in debt).

LW: "He has polluted this board and bombarded it with comments aimed at demoralising anyone who is invested or is considering investing in this company."

Don't let it get to you. Not much you can do about trolls, but your reaction is up to you. He clearly feeds off attention.

ST123: "Not many doomsayers about today, I wonder why?"

Assume you're referring to me. I've never been a doomsayer, just a realist about SOU's actual medium term value. I've said everything there is to say about it. For those like you who are inexplicably determined to be offended by that -- you can relax. There will be no new facts until the bondholder meeting. And there is absolutely no doubt that the proposal will pass, since the bondholders quite obviously dictated terms to Graham and he did what he was told.

sundance: "yes posting during an Easter Weekend may be a little too obsessive"

Actually, if you check the posts you'll see it was the weirdly obsessive ST123 who was sticking his oar in on Saturday night. I was just responding.

ST123: "in Graham we trust is a mantra more posters should adopt. This is not blind faith as some of us still believe that the board and Graham will get us to first gas. Graham has done little wrong yet is not getting the credit he deserves."

And that, quite frankly, is more of the weird and creepy stuff. If you're not getting paid for PR, you've got one hell of a Graham fetish. Graham has been shedding value for shareholders left, right and centre. Not a surprise, since he is over a barrel and has no other options. The spanking he just took from the bondholders could not be avoided. But the upshot is that this sunlit upland of first gas that you keep banging on about is worth precisely zero to shareholders, except that it keeps SOU afloat to fight another battle. A bit of cautious optimism may be warranted when Graham announces pipeline financing IF he manages to do it without giving the farm away.

TheShen: "The poor souls here are sick of hearing how it really is from me. Maybe you could make something up to get their hopes and spirits up?"

There is no need to concoct a story. Barryroe is an extremely valuable asset that needs funding in order to realise the value. There is a non-zero probability that the funding will be found.

TheShen (earlier): "if the deal is not going to happen, which I don't think it can"

You agree with me, then, about the non-zero probability.

TheShen: "It is like something typed up be (sic) a 3 year old."

ranger4: "Ryan wants zero-emission heat pumps, powered by electricity, to be the main way of heating homes in future. So much for gas plan to fuel Irelands energy needs Ryan would rather use electricity from euro connector from france.to meet Irelands energy needs than oil or gas from Barryroe."

Ryan is deluded. However, stopping extensions to the domestic gas network won't have much impact as domestic customers only account for 13% of Irish gas usage. In fact, their share has been falling for ten years. 30% goes to non-residential customers and 58% to electricity generation. (Source: CSO, Networked gas consumption 2011-2019). Also, let's not kid ourselves: despite its usefulness in establishing greener credentials, gas simply isn't an enormous part of the Barryroe story. The estimated gas is about 20 months worth of what Corrib could supply at maximum capacity. The lion's share of Barryroe is liquid fuels, of which we currently import 100%.

Some serious projecting going on there ST123. I said the bondholder RNS was positive and the SP will certainly rise if the LNG deal gets closed. Someone like you with a low average will get away with losing their shirt. So what's your big problem? All I've said in addition is that the revenue won't be enough for SOU to clear its debts inside a decade, and that something else -- like the pipeline financing -- is going to have to materialise for it to be actually worth something. Why the big bee in your bonnet? It's all there in the numbers.

ST123: "It now looks likely that we have a real chance of getting the gas out of the ground and although we may not make the huge sums first envisaged, let’s not forget that there will be a fair number of us who will not only have a chance of getting our money back but have a chance of seeing a profit. It’s now time to get behind Graham and the board and give them some credit for rescuing the situation many thought was impossible a few weeks ago."

Quite incredible. You've been here nine months, have an average of 3p, and your motivation appears to be to shut down discussion because you think the negativity might stop you getting your money back. Spare a thought for the people who have ten or twenty times your average? (And no, I don't mean me, I can afford it a lot better than some). Graham hasn't "rescued" the situation, he's just presiding over the continuing slow implosion he was bequeathed. Why do you think you're still trying to get your money back after you bought in on a "positive" RNS just nine months ago and even averaged down after that? Are you hoping for a greater fool to come along, is that why you keep plugging your ears with your fingers to avoid basic facts? Quit worrying about *me* -- if you're correct then someone will see the amazing value in SOU and the SP will rise regardless of anything I say.

From ukadvfn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T920FF00DCA

"This will be taken over,, probs an 8p per share offer soon from spot-on"

??? Even as 2C resources the Basal Wealden alone is worth about ten times that. Also, The Shen is right for once -- SpotOn don't have any money of their own.

soundreason: "they foolishly decide to sell a matter of weeks before the transformational news lands."

Another missed deadline followed by giving away yet another 20% of the company? ... that's pretty transformational alright.

Final footnote: in 2027, if Graham's interpretation is correct, the lease on the LNG plant ends, and SOU's revenue goes up by 47% of $13.1m. It can finally pay off its debts in a few years, perhaps by the time the gas purchaser debt matures in 2033.

It should be pretty obvious that SOU's prospects of making ANY money utterly depend on getting pipeline financing. It hasn't managed that in two years, but it may well still come about. It's impossible to know the terms of that financing, we only have the Parsons deal to go on (but remember the boatload of dilution we have endured since).