Member Info for Simon_Said

Brilliant research piece on lithium pricing in the future:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lithium-best-timesworst-times-joe-lowry/?published=t

First of all, this is online only, not in-store.

Secondly, you answered your own question with the word commission. Bango facilitates the transaction and scrapes a small % of the net payment amount as its share. That's why the main metric used to measure Bango's growth is End User Spend/EUS. This is the amount users have spent, after VAT.

Bango don't take the same rate for all clients so there is no single figure for this, but that is the general way they make money.

They also offer additional services to customers using transaction data to create marketing insights to assist merchant customers in growing their sales. That is why they recently acquired the Italian firm Audiens who have a similar offering around data-driven marking insights. Bango aims to add value and be more than just a facilitator of Direct Carrier Billing (DCB), but also a sales analytics service.

The logic is that not only can Bango charge clients for this, but also if clients 'win' with increased sales, EUS goes up too, so Bango wins either way.

Given they now have cash coming out of their ears, I think that's pretty likely. Stephen always says Parta is the project that excites him the most in Reabold's stable.

RBD @ 34:16s

https://www.voxmarkets.co.uk/articles/russ-mould-on-brexit-igr-card-xar-biggib-on-momentous-events-and-wheelie-dealer-4bbf8b9

*1-1.5m

That is the best listen I've had this week. 7 mins of glowing chat about Reabold from Doc and Malcy.

Malcy has only just sat down with Stephen Williams so is the most recent source. He says he expects '2-3' new deals to come as a result of the fresh fundraise. This is interesting to me - suggests they're going back to the original plan of £1-5m per deal.

He also confirms Reabold have rules that 1) They won't make any deals without already having the cash in hand (Stephen told me this last time we met too) and 2) They won't raise at a lower price than the previous raise, so if they can't raise above it because the market declines in any way, they simply won't raise again.

Doc and Malcy praise the company's mode of operation and argue that the participation of big II's rather than reliance on retail makes this company different and they are very intrigued with the model.

Cannot encourage you all enough to listen to this, despite Malcy's appalling connection quality (his voice is hard enough to make out in real life, let alone on phone!).

25 mins 23 secs

grewber you've made 2 different points there and rolled them into 1. Yes, only the market dictates the SP (institutional and private investors). But it's not true that the value of the discovery is only realised when it's monetised - at least not in SP terms. Investors will value a company based on its future profits (hence PE ratios being so high, especially in O&G).

In other words, a successful drill means investors can see the writing on the wall for what it's worth, and may value the share accordingly. No reason they'd have to wait for the asset to be sold off or produced for X years.

Doesn't mean it will/has to happen - there are many shares at discount to NPV. But once assets are proven they are very often built into share prices. This is AIM so anything can happen!

Key takeaways:

- VG-3 being completed as a producer, oil pay was in zone they expected, but 'a lot more gas than we were expecting'. That could drastically improve the economics...

- New asset transaction news 'in the next few weeks'!

https://audioboom.com/posts/6997371-asiamet-resources-ars-reabold-resources-rbd-and-chris-bailey-on-cna-dc-mcs

21 minutes in.

Absolutely adouble, given the low decline rates. I've seen shares before that spike on a huge initial flow rate, then people get very disappointed in subsequent months as it drops back heavily. That can also lead to expensive remediation and artificial lift operations etc.

Exciting times awaiting the first numbers from West Brentwood. There is a bit of a wait, as we learned in the last operational update, because they decided to complete as a producer and not do any flow testing etc. That is certainly a vote of confidence from the team on the ground.

As I understand it, wells in this part of the world are generally not so great on flowrate (i.e. low pressure), but very consistent (i.e. low decline rates) and, crucially, very cheap to dig and operate. You can see why S&S have mooted keeping the Gaelic assets as background income producers, whereas most of the other assets have been acquired to prove up and sell on at greater value.

When the results come, we must look at all the data and not get fixated on BOPD as many AIM investors do. It's really about overall economics of the well (capex and opex VS rate of return etc) and decline rates. This is what determines whether it'll actually make the company any money!

It's all very well doing hundreds of barrels from a single well, but if it was a deep well that cost fortunes to acquire the license for and dig/complete and has high ongoing operational costs and a steep decline rate (or any combination of those), then the high initial BOPD doesn't necessarily make it economically positive.

This is also why the 70 BOPD from the 4 workover wells is not to be sniffed at. They were cheap to work over and ongoing costs are minimal, and the decline rates should be very impressive. We're all familiar with the 'dusty nodding donkey' going for years doing its work.

Certainly helps that all the oil from these wells is being sold at/near Brent prices rather than WTI (today Brent is some 12% higher!).

To be clear I know Degsie wasn't saying that, and was merely musing the overall mine value.

That is an interesting point for a different reason. If a major wanted to buy the rights/EMH, they certainly would consider the total exploitable value of the mine.

It's just not relevant for would-be financiers of EMH at this stage.

Absolutely Ant. When you consider the primary purpose of the DFS is to assist in attracting financing (by literally demonstrating that the mine is economically feasible), at its core it needs to provide IRR (possibly ROI?) numbers. Thus it's important to demonstrate a timely and manageable project where investors won't be asked to wait too long for returns.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the DFS shapes exactly how much money the company can ask potential financiers for. If they try to mine too much of Cinovec at once, they will be asking for unfeasible amounts of money that would be both unachievable and undesirably dilutive. Financing terms will be far more punitive in the early phases than later on when the mine is a proven, profitable concern.

The safer option is to come up with snappy numbers now, which offer nearer-term ROI for backers and inform a more achievable finance total, and then later on when the mine is proven and EMH's shares are more valuable, they can come back to the market and receive more favourable financing for expansion. Or indeed sell the company to a major to exploit the rest of the mine, a highly capital-intensive task.

It was very clear in yesterday's interview that offtake conversations are ongoing. And now government (civil service) machinations are grinding back into life. Again we must ask why a revised PFS now? There is more to this, make no mistake.

Keith is a naturally conservative CEO and has always been very careful and modest in his statements, which is why I found the title of the last RNS so striking.

I admire how the company has never stopped developing the mine plan/flowsheet/frontend engineering all throughout this politically-difficult period. What a great job. It means that as we now emerge back to business-as-usual, it's not as if things have been 'frozen' - plenty of work was done, and the DFS will benefit from it all, both in terms of the raw numbers (due to the constant progress being made on the mechanics of it all) as well as the duration of the DFS.

Where does that report give a comparison of BOKU and BGO metrics? The only place it's hinted at is 'Near-term EV/EBITDA and P/E multiples are at a premium to peers' - not half! Boku is now trading at a forward P/E of over 200!

Earache, sometimes I wish there were 2 'recommend' buttons.

Great interview, and I very much agree that the revised PFS is to help put pressure on CZ to not get in the way of what should be a cornerstone EU battery materials project.

The 15-20% premium for hydroxide should make a huge difference to the LOM figures in particular.

Lol ok please don't clog the page with a technical debate! Yes the Mcap rose, yes share price not as much because dilution. Enough.

You're burying some very happy posts!

The other thing is that institutional investors watch each other's activity. M&G getting onboard is a significant seal of approval for Reabold and a signal to the wider market, institutions and individuals.

If the new asset is well-chosen (so far they've done well), and the disposal of assets is done at lucrative valuations, this could go beyond AIM before the company is rolled up.

Finally, it also strikes me that with yet another asset (or however many they get), the newsflow from Reabold will be near-constant. In my experience this is absolutely crucial for AIM, where any gap in newsflow is swiftly met with boredom selling and gradual price erosion, diminishing the impact of value-creation events when they happen.

Being so hugely diversified as Reabold are becoming is a great hedge against that and should help build real value in the shares, as well as cushioning the risk from drills that don't strike (because there'll be something else just around the corner).

Not sure how many here know this, but S&S leaving M&G was quite a big deal. They left cushy (their words!) jobs where they had good reputations and promising career futures to go and start a fund to take advantage of what they saw as a once-in-a-lifetime moment in the oil market cycle.

That fund failed. They couldn't get enough institutional backing, and it didn't go anywhere. They had dropped lucrative careers at M&G for nothing.

So instead they tried listing as a private company. This is linked to why Halifax won't trade the shares, by the way - they've misclassified it as something like a fund. In many ways it is fund-like. They have created a fund on AIM.

They got offers of institutional funds from the start (those who would have backed the fund), as well as smaller brokers and PI's. They used the cash to make some slam-dunk asset purchases, which have already begun showing impressive results.

Today, in an absolute watershed moment, that employer they departed has stepped in to back their venture, with a £3m investment. It's absolutely massive for them. Those who were at the investors drinks will have noticed how many M&G people were there - the links between S&S and M&G are significant. So to finally get the seal of approval from them with a significant backing must be very, very significant for S&S.