We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
I don't disagree with a balanced board Iron. Everyone has right to their opinion. However, posting disinformartion is not right. Gold has, on several occasions, done that without evidence (e.g. the company has burnt through their entire cash balance since December).
It's only right to question his/her motives and credibility.
Well, thats clearly a blatant lie gold. Not doing your credibility any favours there. Any sources other than the financials to back that up (because they will show you to be incorrect)?
$8M in cash and $7M receivable at year end. Maybe take $1M off cash for current balance but I'd caveat that. We started pulling in CUDAs share as of January, unhedged, and are banking an extra 100bpd or thereabouts from the Dakota drill. I'd expect cash burn isn't as bad as it was in Q3 and Q4.
The default will be remedied, it's not ideal but hardly a stretch to resolve the issue given the waiver. The lender makes money from COPL and are exploiting their position to squeeze the company for more money. I suspect we will have a new lender following the CUDA acquisition as stated by company.
Further, the company have funds or access to funds to acquire CUDA, otherwise would not have been able to bid.
Funding for the pipeline and other topsides mods are on hold until ratification of the CUDA bid, as that cost to company is determined by WI in the asset. So immediate placing not required for this. Maybe in ~4 weeks, but let's see what the new finance looks like.
Today was blown out of proportion and the resultant panic spread like wild fire. Nothing there to suggest -22% was a reasonable reaction to the news.
Operating summarizes all costs associated with bringing a product to the marketplace, showing how efficient and profitable the company’s endeavors are.
Bigger the number, the more profitable the company are.
INVESTOPEDIA EXAMPLE:
Fictional company Big Oil Corp. has operations all over the globe, including in Canada. The company sells oil at an average price of $50 per barrel and, in that particular part of the world, shells out for each one $5 in royalties, $15 in production costs, and $8 in transportation costs.
Subtract these expenses from the $50 selling price and Big Oil Corp. is left with an operating netback of $22 ($50 - $5 - $15 - $8 = $22). This calculated operating netback can be compared to the specific operations' past performance or a rival company's performance in the same region.
I can't quite understand why some investors are getting so het up over this. It's a ~12 hour delay to what many expected. It's really not that big a deal and investors should appreciate the comms telling them as much. We don't know the reasons but if it was ready to be released last night, or this morning, it would have been.
Honestly, get over it. There are bigger worries in life.
If you want a great example of how important frequent and good communications with shareholders can be, look at the recent communications by Union Jack Oil. I'm not a holder there, but I have been very impressed by their comms this year:
- Landmark revenue milestones achieved
- Proposed distribution to shareholders in the form of dividend and/or share buy-back
- Several planning updates
- Analysis reports
Result, a big increase in the share price and increased liquidity over this period (indicating it is attracting and maintaining attention).
This is released in RNSs but also takes advantage of social media followings, namely Twitter.
Now, Canadian Overseas has, in my opinion, more going for it than UJO with their flagship asset in Wyoming. However, they fall far short when it comes to communications and PR. I've made this argument already to the company. If this can be sorted, and I hope it is following CUDA resolution, then we can expect to attract the same goodwill and sentiment as those companies that get it right.
"At 1,000bopd we look massively overvalued compared to their 19,000bopd."
You're not comparing apples with apples though gold, that's the issue here and your condescending tone isn't helping your argument. What is the net-back of Chesapeake production, OPEX, production forecasts? 350 wells, an average production of circa 55 boepd per day per well (58% of which is oil and NLG from what I gathered), many of which may well be in decline. Do all wells need stimulation? Do the wells need to be fracked? What does the topsides infrastructure look like? What is the P&A costs of the wells that may be close to uneconomical?
Those questions aren't exhaustive but you are obviously missing a large part of what makes up asset valuation in your assessment.
I would agree that 1,000bpd against 19,000bpd would be "massively overvalued" IF the companies were valued equally. However, they aren't. There is a difference of x7 between COPL value and the Chesapeake sale.
SWP have been funding CUDAs share of costs in the BFU and CC for many months also Yacht, most if not all of last year, hence why they are in arrears to SWP. The additional share they have been getting only recently in oil sales is to settle their arrears.
The reason why I believe COPL should pursue CUDAs share is that it will add reserves at a discount to what would otherwise be the case (therefore increasing NAV). Also, the company can presumably finance on better terms against an increase in proven reserves and increased long term production forecasts. It is a bigger share of the risk to acquire as company is more exposed on the asset, but it also provides better security going forward.
It may not look so groundbreaking at the moment when we are extracting 2000bpd gross, but if Art gets it right and it doubles, that extra 27% will be quite a win (should we be successful).
Possibly Beetsy. Purchase and Sales Agreement expected end of February by CUDA.
"CUDA anticipates PSA execution by late February and closing by March 31, 2022."
http://cfcanada.fticonsulting.com/cuda/docs/US%20Sales%20Process.pdf
The options are priced based on the preceding day on which they were granted, hence $0.54CAD. That is the reason, it's as per the company Options Plan and as stated in the Quarterly / Annual Results. No dilution until they are exercised and they have 5 years to expire. It's a non-event really. A mountain over a molehill springs to mind.
Further, it would imply that horribly dilutive raises, like we have seen in the past, would not be in the best interests of the board. At the end of the day, they will want to maximise returns themselves. I suspect fund raises will be more strategic going forward and in the best interests of shareholders. Having the board own a chunk of the company is what Shareholders want to see. It's one of the things that has bugged me for quite some time with this company.
NON. The share option plan that the company have in place stipulates the exercise price of the options. It is based on the share price the day before they are granted, which on the 28th of January was $0.54CAD. I agree, it would have been better if it were higher but that is the plan they have set out. Company board own around 8% of the company now, including outstanding options at $0.77.
The timing of a big swathe of options being granted should be construed as positive with the board now directly aligned with delivering SP appreciation.
This explains the exercise price:
"The Company has a stock option plan where the number of Common Shares reserved under the plan shall not exceed 10% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares and the number reserved for any one individual may not exceed 5% of the issued and outstanding shares. Exercise prices for stock options granted are determined by the closing market price on the day before the date of grant."
Options were granted on the 29th January, therefore exercise price is from the 28th January which was $0.54CAD
I understand Noob. It is frustrating seeing the share price fall, consolidate or whatever you want to call it. I think it's quite easy to fall in to the trap of thinking there must be malicious reason for the fall, other than investors/traders exploiting the movement in price. However, it is still short-term. I'm looking toward end of February, even March, before we get in to a sustained rising trend.
For clarity, I don't believe there is any intention or need for a raise at the current time. I have yet to read a reasonable explanation why there would be any need for immediate funds. The share price has fallen from 40p to 30p doesn't count.
I absolutely disagree that the "best" outcome for this movement is a raise. Really, you want to be diluted at a significantly reduce price to NAV, again, whilst destroying sentiment and handing a huge amount of shares in to those that will tank the share, again? Even given the pending RS report. Surely I misunderstood you Noob.
Valid question Smish. There are different opinions whether the Ryder Scott report will be released separately or as part of the Annual Results. Therefore it could be issued any time up to release of the Annual Results, which I expect to be towards the end of March.
I don't know Tiburn, I can only speculate that there may have been a firm backstop in place for release of the news following analysis of the discovery. It is possible that the receivers put pressure on this release or that confidential status was only granted for a limited period of time.
The sales process had already been circulated, which excluded the extent of the discovery, so I'd suggest that is damage limitation on releasing the news in early January and prevents cries of foul play by the receivers. Everything is transparent and keeps the receivers in the good books, so to speak.