Member Info for Soundingoff

Agreed, but that is baked into the NPV calcs. The advantage we have is the gas price, political and geographical need, 10 year tax holiday etc.

You can look at the deal as if they're paying NPV10 (post tax) for the 2P and the 2C thrown in for free. But the 2C is only 1.5x 2P.

Thanks medi. Mid-life 2P plus some 2C resources. A good price for quite a small amount of gas.

Yes, I can't see any changes either.

I think we need to clear this up Soobirs.

Gekko- Could you provide a summary between 6p and 10p, in 0.5p increments? That'd be really useful, thanks.

'jacklevi- love the irony- yes C4 investors will be jobsinc, tableleg,KTF ,PS, SG47/mahatma- with Crude speaking at the launch at the Shard(anyone noticed that C4 have bought the debt for NuOg from a company called Shard holdings?) and Sounding Off taking the JJ role to try and bamboozle with figures. try name any others who would follow Parsons or Fumigalli????'

I don't think we need many, many multiples to bamboozle you trellis ;)

'I doubt whether it would be possible for a potential bidder to accumulate 540 million shares.
If they tried to accumulate shares, the price would soar, and it's impossible to say how high it would go.
If they succeeded, they would have to buy SM as well as Tendrara.'

When we had the first news about TE10, IIs bought around 40m shares. This pushed the SP from just over 10p up to 30p.

How much do you think they've paid for the debt trellis? I'd wager not a lot. It's connections not cash.

In terms of other directorships and companies, this is the norm. Find me a CEO who doesn't have other interests? It's not apologism, it's realism. Get a dose of it and learnt to focus on what's in front of you. The rest is noise.

It looks fairly straightforward. NUOG is a basket case for whatever reason. LSE posters suggest the previous BOD are the cause and of course shareholders of NUOG aren't happy.

It would appear C4 has chosen a cash shell for a new venture. That's about as complicated as it gets. As ever, people try to make something out of nothing (as far as our interest goes).

Apologies testpack, I assumed your rant must have been set off by the conversation you followed. I forgot your hobby is internet stalking Crude.

The problem with people like yourself testpack, is that you come across as rabid, frothing at the mouth and grabbing any bit of ammunition you can; ignoring what's in front of you. Who is defending anything? Frankly I don't care about NUOG right now, and if you could actually read without bias, you will notice I corrected trellis yet again on something he hasn't fully understood, and revised his dilution by 'JP et al' UPWARDS by many many multiples. If that's hard for you to understand, I was suggesting there is more dilution than trellis and also quantifying it in relation to current shareholdings. Put even more simply, dilution is bad for you testpack, and NUOG will have lots of it in the future. You need to get a grip, otherwise you'll always be lost in the world of investment.

It was off L2 seaton, so it was a succession of quick trades at 12:13.

I was just making the point that 90 million shares is a lot less than 5 billion. As our go-to negative poster, surely you should focus on that loan converting to over 60% of the diluted share capital? I feel like I'm having to do your job for you today!

Anyway, back on topic. Someone bought 250k on L2 before lunch and it looks like they're after another 700k.

90m is (relative) peanuts trellis, at £58,500. I've only had a quick look, but the core component of the deal is the £2.5m loan (transfer value unknown) which can be converted into 5 billion shares? Then ownership is down to C4 holdings, which are not currently available.

I hope you have your lawyer ready with some of those posts over on NUOG!

Thanks for the post Exploration, I'm not sure why it was deleted last time.

I don't agree with your views early on in the post, but when you break down the figures as you have, it's a very interesting proposition, and why I expect a positive outcome here.

'PS - Sounding Off - please provide the ‘field inventory’ mentioned in your recent post which you say I have disregarded. On second thoughts, don’t bother - Sound has never revealed it.'

Indeed it hasn't Exploration. However we do know the average size and number of targets currently identified, along with the additional seismic. You can ignore them if you wish, but the O&G industry would not.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Kasjnaton, but the odds of you being another poster for Graham/GRH/250 are pretty high to be honest. The aforementioned has quite clearly dented the reputation of Scotforth on these boards with multiple aliases and duplicitous posting.

As I say, proof is in the pudding, and the Scotforth accounts suggest no-one in O&G is interested. And frankly why would Sound investors, at this stage of their investment be interested either?

Concerning dilution, the few million we'd potentially need to complete our three drill plan would be, in terms of a percentage, single digits at most. 'Massive dilution' would be misleading wouldn't it?

''The technical fundamentals suggest a price around 40p to 60p for the TE-5 ‘cluster’ alone and assuming zero for the rest.'

Are you saying you expect a bid of 40-60 based on TE-5 alone, with the rest valued at zero?

Or did you mean something else?'

Exploration's posting has been more useful today than in recent times, but there is a real problem with the logic used. If he believes the 'TE5 cluster' contains that value, then he appears to be wilfully disregarding that logic for the rest of the field/inventory, and the inherent value it contains (by virtue of size and mapped targets).

Quite clearly we won't see the inventory Exploration. That would be commercially unwise would it not?

'Much has been said about ‘ramping’, ‘exaggeration’, ‘hype’ and so on. But even basic salesmanship Grade 1 requires an understanding of the consequences of claiming something is a lot better than it really is.'

Indeed, much like that Graham chap and Scotforth. The proof is the pudding as they say and the timer hasn't gone off on the Sound pudding yet.

Yes you are misleading, by commenting on something you know nothing about. Suggesting we can use Sound's balance sheet as our 'NPV' is like suggesting a square is circular.

Using the industry standard NPV10, the Horst is valued well above your 15p valuation. The we add on risked NAV for the inventory. It's really basic stuff for those in the industry. As I've said before, read up on it if you continue to persist with O&G.

Don't feel to put out if I don't take you up on the posterior exploration, but in response to your post earlier, we do have a charity bet...