Member Info for rossannan

BigBiteNow

That is interesting research. What were the share price outcomes (share price immediately prior to FSP announcement versus share price at conclusion of FSP)?

Margaret365

That is not really how the MMs work. They are simply interested in whatever will legitimately generate volume on any given day. They do not suppress share prices over time. There is simply an absence of buyers here, for fairly obvious reasons.

What most of us are waiting for is probably something to back up the implicit confidence of “Shareholders are strongly advised to take no action in respect of their shares until completion of the FSP.”

This BoD has a patchy record so it would be helpful if they could back that implicit confidence up in some way, shape or form. We have no idea what will be left on the table if M & P decide to walk away from the FSP, for example, and the market reflects this. The worry is that the BoD may believe their own publicity and that it could be a case of “stick with us for a couple more years”. The market is certainly suggesting that some of the uber-bullish price targets bandied about on here are right old nonsense.

Most oiler LTHs think that their oiler’s assets are the Crown Jewels, but some of us are more realistic. If M & P decide to up the ante with an all cash offer of 24p, I will bite their hand off. At the shoulder.

Canadian listings do not add much value, IMO, except perhaps the requirement for quarterly financials. This enforces a transparency that some AIM oilers (I am thinking of CERP) seem happy to dodge.

What happened in Canada about half an hour ago?

The RNS seems reasonably clear that we will need to wait at least the full 28 days, which from where we are now means at least 15 days.

zeusfurla

Thanks for that. You certainly cannot fault their handling of investor queries.

LGO-fan

I suppose the acid test of what the SWP is worth right here and right now is what CERP would get for it if they parcelled it up for sale. Not an awful lot, I suspect, because of the CAPEX required to get anywhere with it, because of the current oil price and because of our friend SPT. A couple of Bonasse appraisal wells are not going to get them much further down the road.

The SWP remains interesting though and good work has undoubtedly been done around the way in which the relevant licences are held. The disappointment lies in CERP’s failure to keep its powder dry enough to fund anything that could be genuinely transformational or even, I would argue, to safely fund those Bonasse appraisal wells, the wait for which drags on.

The wait for CERP’s new country entry is also dragging on. What that will look like and how it will be funded remains to be seen.

Talking of funding, I do not understand why Leo Koot does not take advantage of the quite astonishing level of retail conviction here to be open with the shareholders, via an open offer with an excess facility, about what he needs to do things properly. That would be shareholder friendly and indeed could light a fire under CERP. His continued failure to come clean about funding, which will no doubt end in a placing, is anything but shareholder friendly.

I for one have nothing more to say until Leo Koot deigns to put out a meaningful RNS.

sugardaddy

I’m not sure about that. The way in which Leo Koot presents information increasingly reminds me of the old regime. Time will tell whether the similarities are more than superficial.

faz7475

There is nothing that my sceptical comments can do to affect the outcome here, but there is plenty that Leo Koot could do. Why don’t you channel your frustration into giving his cage a good rattle? There is more potential for concerted and coordinated PI action here than in just about any other share that I can think of.

sugardaddy

“for something else”

Not entirely though - I suspect that some of it will be for “working capital”, an admission that the scheduled programme wasn’t fully funded after all.

faz7475

Do you never get annoyed at Leo Koot?

sugardaddy

I have become increasingly wary of Leo Koot’s throwaway remarks - I would rather have the figures and make my own mind up about what works and doesn’t work for CERP. So I will have to wait for the interims. Saying that, if my reading of the information that we do have is correct, I expect all this to come to a head before then.

No worries, getting to the bottom of it all was a useful exercise.

sugardaddy

So we have lower production in Q2 but similar income (not, of course, the same as profit). The oil price would seem to be the obvious explanation. But maybe, as you suggest, “high grading” made some real inroads into Q2 expenditure. If that is the case, the end Q2 cash balance will reflect that good news.

Ask Leo Koot why he is not sharing the end Q2 cash balance with you.

CS

Yes, looking at Q2 oil prices, it follows that if income was broadly in line production must have been down, as the MEEI Bulletin now suggests. The key metric that is missing is the end Q2 cash balance. Since we are told that Q2 income was broadly in line with Q1 income, the end Q2 cash balance will also have been down - possibly not as much as the end Q1 cash balance was down on the end 2018 cash balance, but still significantly.

When it comes down to it, it appears that Leo Koot does not want shareholders to have a Q2 update and that most shareholders would rather not know anyway. Does that bode well for CERP?

Of course, just because the Q2 IPSC average is over 60bopd down on the Q1 IPSC average does not mean that the Q2 CERP average is over 60bopd down on the Q1 CERP average, but the majority of IPSC production is down to CERP...

You can see from this why Leo Koot skipped the Q2 update. Apparently he has suggested that Q2 production was in line with Q1, but this suggests otherwise:

http://www.energy.gov.tt/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MEEI-Consolidated-Monthly-Bulletins-January-June-2019.pdf

sugardaddy

We will see how it unfolds. I think you will eventually see what I was getting at.