Member Info for Soundingoff

I've never been a fan of Hargreaves pushing him. It actively put me off his funds.

As I said before, I had no idea you had sold out. Genuinely. I don't understand those who hang around when they have sold out, but as you say, that's your right.

I agree the field operators found multi TCF. Around 22 TCF GOIP if I remember correctly. But, as you did in the past, you only skim read the figures. Once you adjust for share of the field, recoverability and tax, we come back to my 0.6TCF to Cove. I didn't even bother with the value of the gas, which would probably reduce it further comparatively. If you then add on another 7 years of lost opportunity cost, the figures really drop considerably. But as I say, I wasn't trying to provide a value comparative, only that our exploration potential is much larger than that Cove provided. Happy to see your figures finally if you have any. We have to bear in mind there is a big difference holding a small non-controlling 8.5% vs a 47.5% controlling interest as we do in Tendrara.

And there is no whining from me, I absolutely do see Sidi as a side show because of the stage of development it is at.

We'll have to disagree about the rest of your comments on Cove.

There's no frustration from me. I've accepted the situation we are in and am taking advance of the value disconnect. I believe your previous alias is Neptunes (who was banned) and that is a factor for anyone reading your posts. You have made a similar qualification regarding my professional background. I have experience in this field, albeit at a private company level and I'm only here to give my view without agenda.

'If the asset sells for more than 33p I'll take back everything I said - put your money where your mouth is and have a charity based bet.'

I'm not sure if that was directed at me n4a or not? I've done my homework and am comfortable with a range of valuations. I'm happy to bet against ignorance.

So do we go with 33p or less and you win the bet, 33.000001p and higher and you lose? The only problem would be contingent payments, Sidi and asset/company sale. In all honesty, let's ignore it and just say this relates to getting cash and/or shares to the value of?

As they say, money talks. Let's go with £500, we're both very sure aren't we? Prostate Cancer UK for me please.

I didn't realise you had sold. You're posting a lot, so that's a surprise. Different strokes and all that.

Let's be honest here. We know your previous posting alias and you have always had an issue with the Cove analogy. I've always suggested you dig deeper, but you don't appear to have.

It is a useful comparison in a number of ways and I've never tried to compare value. More the situation they were in with the field.

- Funding was an issue. I noted it because your post was unclear on the point
- The other licenses were a side story
- I've corrected you many times on this, but Cove did not have multi-tcf reserves, they had 0.6TCF
- There is no doubt they were in a better position regarding seismic and support from the field operators
- More was known about the future drilling plans
- Costs for development were much higher due to offshore drilling
- The GSA for the field has only just been agreed 7 years later. That is a huge opportunity cost to the owners

As I keep saying, buying a company is all about risk vs reward. It's as simple as that. Cove did not have the potential reward we have.

I'll start a new paragraph here. At the time they had potential exploration of 0.8TCF. Yes, that's correct. We have multiples of this. Of course the risking will be different and there are many other factors at play. But as I said, it's about risk vs reward.

I'm afraid I'm not really interested as you've turned pretty abusive n4a.It's all about risk vs reward and if you can't see that you're not in the right state of mind to discuss the topic of our sale.

Good luck to you.

Your first two sentences are all you need to read really aren't they? Dear me.

As I say, risk vs reward. The cost of drilling and/or seismic vs the reward from successful drilling even at low percentages is compelling.

Isn't he your exploration director as well Jones? Cove owned 8.5% of the field. They had to sell because they couldn't afford the development costs.

Personally I think some people are missing the point with the path we have taken. We have created a map (basin study and seismic) and targets (some drill ready and some almost there). Drill ready prospects have value and so does the basin study.

Despite what some suggest, the failures we have seen do not make our work redundant or that the seismic doesn't improve on what has gone before. O&G does result in failed drills. As an example, if the operator of the Rovuma field had stopped when we have (yes they had that many failures), they wouldn't have discovered the 130tcf there and Cove would not have been a success story. Cove was a small fish hanging on and did very well out of it.

Unfortunately we don't have the resources and now it appears it's the right time to let bigger players take over. And they will as we have done a huge amount of work which has value. Some cannot see past the failures unfortunately.

I don't think there's much point discussing your post n4a as you clearly aren't interested in a reasoned discussion. Suffice to say your post (other than the Horst valuation) is completely flawed from start to finish and if you put emotion to one side, you might be a bit more logical yourself. It's all about risk vs reward.

Thanks Boderisimus. The development plan was quite conservative, so it's great news.

Sorry I meant to post the recoverability could increase not would.

I believe it will materially affect the value of the Horst due to reduced capex, opex and time costs. We are talking about a 3x or more increase in connected volume.

I would also assume that with increased connected volume, the overall recoverability would increase? That could be significant. Does anyone know the answer to this?

Cheshire- As you have stated, based on the new information and the GSA offer, the potential sale value of the Horst will have increased.

However. the sale of the company does not just relate to the Horst. The rest of the inventory and seismic has considerable value, but unfortunately is not as easily calculable and most certainly ambiguous. Talk of us only having value in the Horst is frankly wrong and any review of O&G sales over the last few years will tell you that.

If we were to exhaust our cash, then we would not have the good bargaining position we have now. As an example, SDX picked up Circle's assets at a 60% discount because Circle were in liquidation. Most asset sales only see a small discount from NPV10 in O&G, 27p or more in our case.

I can understand people's reactions to some of the issues we have seen as PIs in Sound, but the Board now need to be allowed to do the job of selling the company. It can take some time to get to a sale position and officially at least, we have only just started.

I think you're probably referring to InterOil:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bb7293ab-877a-4f2f-976a-37e057b81b56

There will always be buyers, the only question is price. I think we'd be sold in minutes at the levels some are willing to accept.

I don't think there's any debate over that to be honest.

It's unfortunate you are a target for the emotional and devious Crude, especially as you have always been transparent.

The board is now being spammed, sometimes by honest individuals and sometimes not so. Some just do it for fun...

Either way, Ozzie's post is a great reminder of where we are at. Those thinking the TE5 concession should be significantly discounted need to have a look at the numerous O&G sales over the last few years. The value of the rest of the inventory and basin model will have a risked value and is certainly material in relation to the TE5 horst. I'm buying what I can.

SDX is an easy one to calculate Sean. Edison carry a research note and currently have a risked valuation of 86.5p. The SP is 21p and so is trading at 25% of the current valuation provided by Edison.

It's a shame we don't have our research note from Edison. It probably wouldn't make much difference to the SP, but it may make some feel a bit better.

Sorry Turtle, your comments are far too sensible for this board currently. At the most important time in our history, the Board should clearly be working for free. Actually, they should be paying us.

Far better to jump to conclusions and rash judgements, than give consideration to where we are right now.

Jones- I agree with Turtle. The difference is that the lower number is direct ownership and the higher includes control of. I'd imagine the latter includes family members, trusts and possibly some of the companies noted in the earlier RNS.

Were we? It was made very clear that the plan was fluid with decisions to be made along the way.