Member Info for Soundingoff

'But again, we have a self-professed strategic genius at the helm so presumably he planned all along that this would be the strategy if 9 and 10 failed. Oh wait, no he didn't, he said they are 3 independent plays and he never gave the slightest indication that we'd stop short and flog Tendrara at out weakest point. It's pretty clear he lost his nerve and panicked.'

Actually he did tell us. He said that for each result they had a decision tree and would base their next move on this. If you assumed we would drill two dusters and move onto the third, then that's why assumptions make an ........

That decision tree would tie in with other trigger points, ones that aren't just a binary drill result. Despite continuous protestations by the shouty people, value is being added by other means. Quite clearly not at the same rates as a drill result, but value nonetheless. What's happened was fairly well telegraphed IMO.

That's an interesting comment. Care to run me through your assumptions and calculations on our value? I've just worked some figures through based on broker notes that I could find to provide a comparison.

A much better use of our time than barking at cars.

Clearly your talents are wasted posting on an anonymous board wh0s. We'd have been better paying you to advise us on our strategy.

Maybe we should put an advert in Daltons Weekly rather than wasting the money on O&G M&A experts?

His last post suggests, like most of us, that he's fed up of the dross that is continually posted (see a few comments below).

It was 12-18 months on the Horst certification RNS in Jan 2018. Interestingly, it is forgotten that attached to the Horst of 651bcf discovered gas, there is 377bcf contingent 2c resources. There is of course significant additional value there.

Yes jack. At the moment we get a larger pie and have to give them their share, rather than them having their own pie. As I noted though, I'm sure various decisions could be made from here. The only question is whether they have not separated their holdings on purpose or not.

Trellis- I'm not sure how I can miss your point when I haven't commented on it?

I think you have missed mine though. I'm not sure how I could suggest they have no financial return from production, as the only difference would be they sell up front or partake in production? Both result in a financial return.

I agree it's good business practice to do as you have suggested. However I am pointing out that currently Schlumberger do not have control over a decision to keep or divest the Horst. I'm sure you'd agree that it's important to understand that in terms of an investment in Sound.

To be fair Sound is in control. Also it wouldn't be hard for any deal to allow for the synthetic arrangement to be unwound. However it's important to understand that this is the current position, whether through choice or due to Moroccan bureaucracy.

There's no issue with a poster being negative, but trellis constantly posts misinformation. I don't see any malice there, but his time would be better researching the company he is invested in than moaning on here. His Schlumberger admission is just one example.

Schlumberger do not own shares in Sound and frankly he is missing quite an important point regarding their status. They now have a direct licence position in Tendrara EXCEPT for the production concession where it is still synthetic. If we sell the Horst, Schulmberger does too.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SOU/sound-energy-plc-anoual-schlumberger-direct-licence-position--7tkep8tglx4fw1w.html

All it takes is a quick read of an RNS instead of pointless posting on these boards. Apologies in advance trellis.

It just looks like they've added in the placing, which assuming it was taken by an institution, means that there has been little institutional buying/selling except for the placing. Good to see given the institutions bought in up to 30p prior to TE10 results. Of course if an institution didn't take the placing, then there has been further institutional buying.

Quite often they can be, however these transactions (along with most today) are Auto trades made by an algorithm trading system.

I'm afraid you misunderstand the market GliUlivi. Look what happened to the share price the other day when the net purchase of stock was around 1% of our share capital. It would appear Institutions took around 4% of our stock back in Jan and that helped the price to rise to 30p. So your suggestion is not plausible.

Really? I think we know what Doc is and taking his advice on valuations isn't on my list of priorities. He can't even get the placing currency correct.

Sound may need to issue an RNS at this rate.

Buys are now being shown as sells due to the false spread.

The main reason for having a select number of parties would be if you knew they would provide the best market for a robust bidding process. The only curveball could be Moroccan interference in the list of candidates.

Having a theory based on guessing is a dangerous game. There is no reason to suggest we aren't talking to other parties. Why wouldn't we? It would go against the basic rules of selling a business and very unlikely.

You say Shell can wait. A buyer will have access to our Palaeozoic data and will have a head start on Shell and their work in the licence next door. I'd suggest they will need to give serious consideration to a bid and waiting is not an option. Remember that this is not an open auction.

The 'marketing' exercise has three components- data room, marketing, bids (with a deadline). We were marketing in May and that may be continuing. However I cannot see the bid process lasting any longer than August as we need to move on quickly if an acceptable bid does not materialise. The Horst development awaits.

How are you working your calculations jack? In addition to the Horst, we have a mix of appraisal/exploration drill ready targets and further targets/basin figures. Many are just focusing their attention on the share price and glass ceilings. Whilst none of us know how an O&G suitor will view the risk vs reward of our assets, it's better to base your thoughts on the evidence we have at hand.

Well, of any material quantity, as they would have to declare changes in percentages as they drop.