Member Info for rossannan

ZagEgypt

“I expect no RNS tomorrow or even this week”

Everything is possible on AIM, which is all about momentum and the balance of risk and reward. Momentum can be lost very quickly and there is usually more risk than reward. But how have you come to expect no RNS tomorrow or even this week. What is your thinking there?

All the best

Ross

Ab76

That seems an incredibly naive approach to the present valuation of TRIN. Historical valuations of TRIN’s assets, or any part of them, really are neither here nor there and the amount of additional funds that shareholders have poured into TRIN over time is just a sad testament to the risks of investing in AIM companies. The present valuation of TRIN has to be based the present realities of TRIN. No one is now going to offer what they once might have offered for its assets and almost all the money extracted from shareholders is just gone.

All the best

Ross

Ab76

Either you can see something that the market is missing or the market can see something that you are missing. I think it is the latter. Have a think about what it might be.

All the best

Ross

Exactly.

These guys have to go if there is to be any hope of a refresh here.

PipeDragger

Fair comment.

One part of the problem has arguably been the way in which this BoD has drip fed disappointment to the market. I suspect that on a number of occasions they have known that something was unlikely to pan out but, instead of kitchen sinking it there and then, they have merely alluded to the possibility of a negative outcome, leaving the hopes of the bulls largely intact before being dashed further down the line. This repeated process has badly eroded sentiment here.

I suspect that LC1 is the latest example of this and that the current exercise there will simply see it being written off in a few weeks’ time, when it should have been written off last year. I would defy a permabull like ab76 to contend that we will see meaningful production from LC1. And, of course, if we do not see meaningful production from LC1, it is highly unlikely that Jacobin will ever pay for itself, however long it produces from the shallow zones.

It really is foolish of the BoD not to have kitchen sinked Jacobin last year, so that TRIN’s focus could then be on its (admittedly limited) positives this year. Instead, I strongly suspect that the first meaningful TRIN news of 2024 will be negative LC1 news.

There we go. It did not take much to make you admit the reality of the toxic fiscal regime in Trinidad.

“Obviously there’s no contract mandating that Trinity must invest its SPT windfall, but anyone who thinks that Trinity, having persuaded the government to enact such reforms on the basis that it’ll invest in boosting production, can instead spend the windfall on dividends is delusional. It would be thoroughly dishonest and, since Trinity is dependent upon the government of Trinidad in so many ways, shortsighted. Not only could it result life being made difficult or the reforms being reversed…”.

Cue more misallocations of capital like Jacobin and a shrinking margin of safety, even for value investors. Or get rid of the BoD that collaborates with this fiscal tyranny.

You have still not backed up your statement. We all know that the recent modest tax reforms are intended to incentivise/encourage investment in additional production, but in what sense do they mandate it? Where is “the deal” that obliges TRIN to continue to make mistakes like Jacobin? Surely the TRIN BoD are free to do whatever they decide is in the best interests of their shareholders. There is no “deal”.

Ab76

Are you prepared to back up your statement that “The deal is that Trinity will invest that windfall in boosting production”?

Ab76

“although it should still eventually pay for itself; but it’ll be over several years”

Surely you realise that this is in fact highly unlikely? You really need to stop accepting everything that TRIN says as gospel. Has the last couple of years not taught you to take TRIN pronouncements with a very large pinch of salt?

Ab76

“The deal is that Trinity will invest that windfall in boosting production.”

Where did you read that TRIN was under any such obligation?

A lot of shareholder value has been destroyed and a lot of the potential that TRIN once had has evaporated. Not sure that folk really get that - I think they are kidding themselves about how profitable TRIN is going to be in the future. When the share price was in the 100s, the 200s or even 300s still seemed possible. After watching the BoD waste all that time and money over the last couple of years, I am now struggling to see how the share price will ever get back into three figures. I don’t think the executive directors deserve to still be there - I do not think they are the right people to unlock whatever potential TRIN has left. If they are going to hang around I will be taking the first decent exit that I’m offered.

It’s a no from me - 202,000 shares.

Should we be thinking about what we could do with a Written Resolution? I would imagine that the “No” total will reach the requisite 5% soon enough.

Agreed about the downside, at least after the initial shock if it is bad news at LC1.

Marineclark

"Over 290 feet of net oil pay encountered in the Jacobin well"

I think you may have the wrong end of the stick.

The company has indeed stated that over 290 feet of net oil pay was encountered in the Jacobin well, but that was in total - only 63 feet of that net oil pay was encountered in the deeper exploration targets.

The shallower net pay has no transformational potential and while the deeper net pay could have this in theory, two of those three deeper zones have already failed. LC1 is the last chance saloon both for Jacobin and this BoD.

It is currently very hard to see where the balance of risk and reward lies at the current share price. Does its recent dip signify that someone knows something? Who knows?

In a similar vein, the IMC presentation saw the first mention, AFAIK, of the problem with LC2. The share price is where it is because all this leaves folk wondering, rightly or wrongly, what they are not telling us about LC1.

“further sand production issues were still experienced”

Good point - that is worth comparing to the story they came out with later, in the IMC presentation. Failing to get their story straight destroys trust.

You need to rework those figures using actual TRIN accounts - you have fallen into the operating breakeven/“TRIN is throwing off cash” trap.

No point champing at the bit - we know from the recent presentation that the way forward for C-77H was not clear cut so it is still probably a waiting game there. The real question is whether we are genuinely making progress on a JV and whether that progress depends on how things go with C-77H (we have been told it does not, but I am a bit sceptical about that).

The classic mixed bag…