Member Info for rossannan

Sturm

“not by isolating a subset of production”

You make it sound as if I am just offering a snapshot of something that is in any event irrelevant.

So again lifting figures from RNSs, the broader decline in non-CB production looks like this:

7,015 boe/d (Q1 24) to 2,924 boe/d (Q3 25)

6,223 boe/d (Q2 24) to 2,924 boe/d (Q3 25)

5,211 boe/d (Q3 24) to 2,924 boe/d (Q3 25)

5,287 boe/d (Q4 24) to 2,924 boe/d (Q3 25)

[Cas-2 and Cas-3 stop the rot momentarily]

4,317 boe/d (Q1 25) to 2,924 boe/d (Q3 25)

Pretty shocking.

And, while non-CB production is now a subset of total production, when Q2 25 began non-CB production was still the only production! And while non-CB production is withering so shockingly on the vine, its fixed costs remain.

Trust GDP to release good news into a market like this!

Johnoxxx

“but the larger part of that production base is declining”

Which my figures prove, you have to admit. TXP has CB production and everything else. Everything else has been the larger part of the production base but it is declining precipitously and on course to become the smaller part of the production base making debt-ridden TXP a very risky gamble on CB and specifically CR-3. Which is my point.

Ayecuramba

“if they are lifted that is one thing but if you have calculated them then they are your interpretation”

My figures are matters of fact, not opinion or interpretation.

To illustrate the decline in non-CB production I took my figures from the Q1 Results RNS of 14/05/25 (Q1 being a quarter when CB was not part of the picture, i.e. all production was non-CB):

“Average quarterly production decreased to 4,317 boe/d (72 percent natural gas), compared to 5,287 boe/d (73 percent natural gas) in the fourth quarter of 2024 and 7,015 boe/d (80 percent natural gas) in the first quarter of 2024.”

and from the Q3 Results RNS of 13/11/25 (Q3 being a quarter when CB was part of the picture for the whole quarter):

“Averaged 5,141 boe/d in the third quarter of 2025 (71 percent natural gas), compared to 4,399 boe/d (69 percent natural gas) in the second quarter of 2025 and 5,211 boe/d (75 percent natural gas) in the third quarter of 2024. Central volumes contributed approximately 2,217 boe/d during the third quarter.”

So as you can see, Q1 non-CB production of 4,317 boe/d net is a straight lift from the RNS and Q3 non-CB production of 2,924 boe/d net is a simple subtraction of CB production (2,217 boe/d as per the RNS) from total production (5,141 boe/d per the RNS).

You, Sturm and the Discord rampers may not like the picture that these figures paint of non-CB production declining precipitously, but you cannot dispute these figures, unless, that is, you are saying that the RNS figures were wrong.

Sturm

“Even if we accept your figures in full (Q1 non-CB ~4,317 boe/d falling to ~2,924 boe/d in Q3)”

You don’t accept them in full? The figures are lifted or calculated straight from the relevant TXP RNSs. If you think I’ve miscalculated, feel free to correct me.

Sorry, “falling to Q4 non-CB production of 2,924 boe/d” should of course read “falling to Q3 non-CB production of 2,924 boe/d net”.

Ayecuramba

I took my figures from the Q1 Results RNS and the Q3 Results RNS. By all means check my working, but I make it Q1 non-CB production of 4,317 boe/d net falling to Q4 non-CB production of 2,924 boe/d. I’m sure the Discord rampers will be all over those figures if they are wrong, but I don’t think they are. Hence my whole argument that the debt isn’t serviceable without a result at CR-3 or an unexpected Cas-4 or 5 turnaround.

Ayecuramba

Not sure what non-CB figures you’re looking at. In Q3, the first full CB quarter, CB contributed 2,217 boe/d net out of a total of 5,141 boe/d net, giving a non-CB total of 2,924 boe/d net. In Q1, the last non-CB quarter, the (non-CB) total was 4,317 boe/d net. 4,317 boe/d net to 2,924 boe/d net in six months is a shocking decline in non-CB production.

You have to hope that Paul Baay will deign to announce the CR-3 result separately, for good or for ill, but we’ll see.

Ayecuramba

Assuming Johnoxxx is not minded to ask his friend Paul Baay that supplementary question, we have the figures up to and including Q3 and the trajectory is clear - in almost exactly 7 weeks the Q4 update will confirm it. In the meantime, 4.6bcf is way down the line without a result at CR-3, which is my point.

Johnoxxx

Did you take the opportunity to ask PB for an update on non-CB production? I thought not. That is where you are risk blind. Even if CB has achieved a steadyish state at that level, the declines continue apace elsewhere. Discord may have convinced itself that “with [then] current production and pricing the debt [is] totally serviceable” but the larger part of that production base is declining, so not without a result at CR-3 or an unexpected Cas-4 or 5 turnaround it ain’t.

Johnoxxx

“I was relaying the info I had off PB as I clearly stated”

Yes, I am suggesting that that was your mistake.

Johnoxxx

The figures I gave you were that “Central volumes contributed approximately 2,217 boe/d during the third quarter” and that TOTAL TXP natural gas sales in that quarter were “21.9 MMcf/d (3,654 boe/d)”, so current CB production of around 21.3mmscfd seems barely credible. You need to be really careful about the figures you post on a public BB.

Looks like we’re done, so I’m going outside to play.

Smasher

I posted this on 14 May last year:

“ 14 May 2025 - 10:31:35 - 39795 of 40555

“If anyone becomes interested in AXL on the back of ashkv's ramping, remember that he used to ramp TXP all day long using exactly the same format and reflect on how that turned out. Always DYOR and remember that BB rampers (even more so Telegram and Discord rampers) are bad for your wealth. No one should ever commit a significant amount of capital to shares like these. Even my beloved PTAL, as a single country play, is not for widows and orphans. Stock selection should really just be a question of choosing between Newmont and Barrick. Or you could have both. There you go - job done, PF secured - now you can go outside and play.”

As you can see I was quite positive on Newmont and Barrick from my own sector. If folk had followed my suggestion and forgotten about AIM crap they would have more than doubled their money.

Smasher

“when there is always other investments you can work on”

99% of the time I spend on investments is spent elsewhere. O&G is not even my sector. But TXP is a bit of a poster boy for everything that is wrong about AIM and therefore a useful exercise. I hope that over the last couple of years I have saved a few folk from it.

Ayecuramba

“Last analysis I saw around 30 days ago, showed with current production and pricing the debt was totally serviceable”

Do share!

Johnoxxx

“Third Quarter 2025 Highlights

· Production: Averaged 5,141 boe/d in the third quarter of 2025 (71 percent natural gas), compared to 4,399 boe/d (69 percent natural gas) in the second quarter of 2025 and 5,211 boe/d (75 percent natural gas) in the third quarter of 2024. Central volumes contributed approximately 2,217 boe/d during the third quarter.

· Petroleum and Natural Gas Sales: Totaled $12.70 million, a 4 percent decrease from $13.25 million recorded in the comparative prior year quarter.

- Crude oil sales: $5.84 million from average production of 1,051 bbls/d at an average realized price of $60.30 per barrel.

- NGL sales: $1.34 million from average production volumes of 436 bbls/d at an average realized price of $33.41 per barrel.

- Natural gas sales: $5.52 million from average production of 21.9 MMcf/d (3,654 boe/d) at an average realized price of $2.74 per Mcf.

· Operating Netback: Generated $5.86 million in operating netback, a 21 percent decrease from the third quarter of 2024, primarily due to decreased petroleum and natural gas sales and related royalties and increased natural gas operating expenses.

· Funds Flow from Operations: Declined to $0.74 million from $3.02 million in the prior year equivalent quarter, largely driven by lower operating netbacks, higher cash finance expenses, and increased current income taxes, partially offset by lower transaction costs.

· Net Loss: Recorded a net loss of $2.06 million ($0.01 per share) compared to net earnings of $1.85 million ($0.01 per share) in the third quarter of 2024. The variance was primarily driven by the decrease in year-over-year funds flow from operations, $1.50 million in additional depletion and depreciation expense, and the absence of a $0.78 million gain on asset disposition recognized in the prior year.”

Good luck with that $77.5M of debt!

"Signing of the fully integrated final funding package remains on track for February 2026"

So March then?

Sirmark

Serviceable debt regardless of Cas-4, Cas-5 and CR-3? That is just wrong. Even the Discord fanboys aren’t going to back you up on that one.

Supersport

Anything is possible, but the most significant thing is whatever is the most likely outcome. You need to be consider what that is. And you have to factor in the cost of past failures - the massive debt pile.