Member Info for PUTUP

Duh...the share price did trigger the VCP.

8% CAGR.

Well duh. Yes they let participants know there's been a change of control event - after such event is known and announced - so they can exercise and participate in the event as stockholders. Lots of option vesting will occur on such an event as well. If it ever occurs.

Oh and one would only bother to exercise the options if (a) one wanted to sell the stock or (b) the options were due to expire (which they're not). Same applies to the LTIP exercise of options on 14 April.

As I said, if they don't have the stock in treasury to meet option exercise they will issue more shares and that they are doing. 1.875 million shares. So we can conclude the options vested and there's an expectation that (given they're nil cost) they will be exercised.

It's all a big conspiracy. Wooohaha! Where we go one... Bravedog, keep your tin hat on!

The shares are "traded" in $ also. The main volume happens to be in p on the LSE but they also trade OTC with the ticker GUKYF in $. Last trade $2.52. Trading is extremely thin...

"It seems that Paul multi avatar is right: a deal and its rules has been agreed upon." That's an extraordinary conclusion to draw from the basic terms of a VCP agreed on four plus years ago

Oops the quote should be

"How will they vest them as they can’t buy any!"

"And I’m pretty darn bullish, thanks for asking."

The options vest, not shares. If the options are exercised and the company doesn't have treasury stock to meet such exercise they will issue new shares.

(PS: You have to take into account the dividends and, likely, buybacks.)

Whatever nufc. You just keep on comparing apples with lemons and see how well that delusion works out for you. We don't get to keep the difference between our lifting costs and the price of oil as the marginal return of production. We don't 'have' the field.

"We do for the next few decades."

We are the contractor. We don't get to keep what we lift. There's a huge difference.

What matters for marginal production is the percentage from the sale of one more barrel of oil produced that we get to keep to cover overheads, taxes and returns to capital providers. For comparative purposes you have to pro forma for these costs to make a comparison with an entity that keeps all the proceeds from a sale of a marginal barrel. Our effective 'pro forma lifting cost' is dramatically above $2.50-$3 per barrel. You knew that, but touted the metric anyway despite knowing it's grossly misleading.

If only we got to keep everything above that $2.50. We don't have the field.

"Wow ! if someone with 30 yrs in The City is sniffing around in here - then we must be onto a winner."

Why is that?

wise man that kaaran is

"Lansdowne meanwhile also have a man in the boardroom who keeps them bang up to date and tells them stuff, and he's called GarretSodencam who tells them the opposite and that they should buy 15.5% of the Company or 32.5 million shares."

LMAO!!!! SS you're such an amateur!!

"Putup - what do you feel is fair value? "

'A hair past a frog's knuckle' was, IIRC, my previous response to this question. As I have said before, I see no value in posting my current valuation target here. Suffice to say it is enough above where the stock is now for me to view it a strong buy. It (my valuation target) has the potential to be rerated higher if the economics of going beyond 55k can be shown to be vastly improved. For now, I believe the stock undervalued even on a production expectation of just 55k and hence don't need to worry about any additional upside (or not) in order to justify my holding. That's why I own it. If I didn't think it so I would sell. However, I will tell you that it is, IMHO, a gross mistake to apply a simplistic reserves metric valuation to this company; for all the reasons that have been expounded several times here in the last few months. Understand the PSC, coupled with the (currently) challenging economics of taking production much beyond 55k bopd, and you will understand why. Of one thing I am absolutely certain: the collective individuals making up the marketplace in this stock are in closer agreement with me than with you. I'm happy for you to prove me wrong by buying up more of the stock.

(PS: it is always a good idea to know how many shares are in issue especially if you are going to post valuations, realistic or otherwise, against share prices)

FWIW you're denominator is wrong

(And I wouldn't suggest the prior market cap of a company that spectacularly disappointed and imploded as a guide to future potential value)

Price today £1.82

SS's (or his friend's or...) value range £17-25

Yes, I'd say the latter is "wildly out of sorts" with the former. Additional supporting calculations and assumptions aren't necessary. The first is observable. The second has been stated as an opinion. Comparison is rather easy.

I wouldn't place any confidence in achieving £17 (let alone £25). I certainly wouldn't invest based on that expectation. Maybe it will happen as black swans are, indeed, rather common. (Maybe pigs will one day fly as well.) But I will have sold long before it does - or does not.

"Celicourt not the best IR team"

Don't confuse corporate communications with investor relations. The former assists the latter with press and other external communications/RNS releases and other PR. The former, an internal position/team, is what really drives the quality of company disclosure and communication. Too often, and particularly in a smaller company, the burden of IR is absorbed by the CFO. It can be extremely advantageous to shift some of the frontline burden to a dedicated - and well-informed - IR person.

*why (not while)

"(1) explain exactly what the "alleged " gas issue is"

There's no 'gas issue' in the sense that it can't be technically dealt with. There's an issue with the economics associated with dealing with the gas. They have to deal with the gas to go well beyond 55k. You've previously admitted you're not qualified to comment on financial issues and this is likely while you struggle with this point. It's a question of achieving adequate financial return for the risk.

"(3) Explain why you disagree with my sale price for GKP of £17 -25. Give your calculations."

Personally I can't see why CCC should even bother spending time countering such fanciful expectations. However, part of the reason lies in your point (1).