Member Info for shareaction

It annoys me a bit that in none of the interviews (that I have seen) about West Newton has Bramhill even been asked the question how long the the core sample analysis would take. Knowing Bramhill, he wouldn't give a straight answer to this question at all (in this case probably because he doesn't know yet), but his reply to such a question could cast more light on how important the the core sample data would be. I've noticed that often when he answers questions he somehow ducks the question but in a roundabout way instead gives information about something different of equal importance. That's why I try to view/listen to these videos/podcasts several times.

CO notified 16 May that he had 754,883,052 shares. And now he has 847,530,110 shares. So yes, he has bought more but we don't know when. All we know is that since the his last TR-1 he has always owned 7% or more but always below 8% of the issued shares.

Company has done very well indeed but the share price had in the same period gone much higher than it should, that's all, so now the share price is realigning with the actual company performance.

The big oil companies behave just like big pharma in the biotec industry: They let the small operators take all the development risk and, in particular for UK onshore oil & gas, all the hazzle like demonstrators and difficult local council licence/permit voting before they even look to buy any reserves. Big Oil don't want their names in the headlines for any negative reasons. Therefore, I don't expect any queues of punters for a long, long time. In the meantime, we long term shareholders must help financing UJO's work to become the mid-tier producing oil company that David Bramhill has outlined!

A question: Is it normal for appraisal wells to be turned into production wells? And if so and the current well is suitable, how long would it typically take before production can start? I assume they also need to apply for a production license?

Reabold knows their involvement is less attractive than UJO's, that's one of the reasons they actively have to market themselves. UJO's DIRECT ownership in the PEDL183 licence is much better than Reabold's share ownership in the Rathlin, the operator company. If you buy shares in Reabold you also buy other things you don't want if you're only after the juicy PEDL183. Although UJO also has other oil/gas interests, at least I know that through my UJO shares my ownership in PEDL183 currently is 0.77‰ [per thousand] of PEDL183. But of course, unless I buy more UJO-shares I will be diluted as additional appraisal and development costs need to be equity funded.

Thank you MM for filling my 10m limit buy order at 0.24p for 0.228p! Unusually generous!

0.28 GBX +0.11 (62.94%)

0.24p now

When I heard the words West Newton on Radio 4 right in the car in the middle of a tricky roundabout this morning on my way to work I nearly crashed! My goodness what a great way to start a Monday morning at the office!

ragnarlothbrok, it doesn't matter, you don't need to read TW's blog. The write-up "analysis" of this case is solely written by oarfishresearch found by a simple search. TW is probably just repeating it without adequate referencing to claim credit.

Just to expand a bit, I was so disgusted to read oarfishresearch's, to me, well documented description of the accounting (sub)-standards they have adopted. To me their accounting rules sound more like, "choose some nice figures to use as
1) upfront profits from bargain well purchases
2) future well abandonment costs and
3) remaining well life,
to make the accounts look good for the time being".

OK, oarfishresearch's write-up could "just" be seen as one of those bear attack, but sorry, even suggestions of any tricks and games in an investee company and I'm out. So I hastily said tatti-bye yesterday afternoon and left.

As they say, do your own research, however this is no longer anything for me.

No, ex div was 11 April with payment 28 June, hopefully.

sedoc, I saw it and sold everything yesteday.

Hmmm... it IS quite big actually, potentially:

"Members of Suncorp Group's superannuation funds
are preparing to sue the company for up to $180 million
following claims it deliberately exploited a loophole in
the Future of Financial Advice reforms."

https://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/suncorp-faces-180m-class-action-over-commissions-20190603-p51tz3

Interesting, Beamer!

I see LIT's partner lawyers has a big notice out.

https://www.williamroberts.com.au/Class-Actions/Suncorp-Super-Class-Action

Shouldn't LIT issue an rns? Or is this known already? or perhaps not a big deal in terms of money...

Jhaylock, Same here. That is why DGOC has become a solid substantial part of my long term holdings and it may even become a bigger part.

From last week's IC article:

"Shareholders have already leapt onto this M&A train,
backing the two $200m-plus fundraises and sending the
share price up more than a third over the past 12 months.
Despite some dilution, the deals have been billed as
earnings-accretive, and Mirabaud has already upgraded
its 2020 dividend forecast by 15 per cent to 16¢ a share
since the Huckleberry purchase. The broker also reckons
the stock should sit at a slight premium to its
sum-of-the-parts-derived core risked NAV of 163p – itself
already a healthy premium to the current share price."

16¢ p.a. dividends (or approx. 12p) is 9.2% of current shareprice or 7.36% of current NAV!

I believe we will see a further steady re-rate of DGOC.

Very positive news in the RNS yesterday! The fact that they state that they intend "to maintain its current dividend policy" (i.e. distribute 40% of free cash flow as dividends) should mean that the effect of reducing the number of shares will come in ADDITION to dividends and NOT INSTEAD of dividends.

From the RNS it seems clear to me that this is a tactic to close the gap between DGOC's marketcap and NAV.

"With regard to the net asset value
of the Company, the Board believes
that the Programme, if and when
implemented, will represent an
appropriate use of excess cash resources."

Having expressed frustration for some time now that the DGOC share trades at this big discount to NAV, management has probably concluded that buying additional producing gas fields - even at very good prices – will not reduce this discount. DGOC has now already become seriously big in this field, and even doubling its size from additional takeovers would just be treated by the market as more of the same.

Another way of making the share more attractive is to move DGOC from AIM to the Main List, which they have already flagged, and this fits in with the second RNS announcing the immediate movement of David Johnson from non-executive board member to Chairman of the Board. Main listing of DGOC may happen regardless, I don't know how important this is to them in itself, but if the buyback program has the desired effect of reducing, or certainly eliminating, the discount to NAV, they could perhaps decide to stay on the AIM. But realistically, I would think that Main Listing now is unstoppable; David Johnson as Chairman wouldn't want to waste his experience and position on "lingering" on AIM. Instead he will be very keen to lift DGOC's, and his own(!) profile by going to the Main List, as he commented:

"I am honoured to assume the role as
Independent Non-executive Chairman
and believe that my considerable
experience of UK Capital Markets will
benefit the Company going forward"

I think DGOC is a rare combination of high return, low technical risk company, operating right in the middle of a gigantic market with stable demand. As I see it, gas is used fundamentally everywhere in USA with no sudden disruptive alternatives. My SIPP, ISA and other investment vehicle are already dominated by DGOC and I really hope that its dividends alone can become the biggest part of my not so distant pension income.

Thanks ragnarlothbrok! Too often I carelessly don't read the important bits and jump to inaccurate conclusions!

VistaMan,
You say that free cash flow increased by 19% as a result of the latest acquisition placing. In the placing the number of shares increased by 27.92% so that should mean the latest acquisition transaction was DILUTIVE rather than ACCRETIVE as DGOC said in their 27 March RNS:

"The Acquisition will be
immediately accretive to
per share cashflow and
earnings."