Member Info for Soundingoff

Sarah has advised the Edison report is still a work in progress. No further info right now but will update me.

PNE- I'm awaiting a reply back from Sound regarding your final paragraph.

Jag- To be clear, I was talking about the best conditions for net pay to be productive, not the actual productivity level. A rephrase may be in order .....thin bedded net pay is at its most productive when the deposits are gas.

As Kasjnaton has noted, there is a huge amount of material out there and it is comforting to know Schlumberger are our partners.

I'm expecting an update on TE10 before the well test is started/completed. There's clearly plenty of data to analyse.

I spent a bit of time the other evening looking at the relationship between discoveries, the use of modular formation dynamics testing and the end result of various drills after well testing. From what I could see from news reports and RNSs, the MDT results are a very good indicator of final results. Of course there are many variations, but it can only be seen as a good sign right now without further information.

It was also clear from the above that Schlumberger have a huge amount of experience dealing with situations like this and we are spending significant sums testing. I don't understand the logic of moving to a well test if we aren't going to get a commercial flow.

But we'll see in due course.

As a side point, it also appears from limited reading that thin bedded net pay is most productive in relation to gas deposits.

Indeed Luke, it's pathetic.

The signs are looking positive, but this is a complex business and we will have to sit and wait. It's all guesswork by us PIs until then.

I agree with your sentiment PNE. But to consider final value, we do have to look past TE10 (which is looking positive, but not yet certain) to consider what our value could be.

The TAGI potential is known, but the Palaeozoic is not. JP and Brian's comments, although not direct on the matter, are that the Palaeozoic potential is a multiple of the TAGI. But we simply don't know. A 3TCF success on TE11 plus seismic confirming multiples of the TAGI potential would be very valuable indeed. What's it worth? Who knows. Hopefully the Edison report can give a bit more clarity.

TE10 first, and, hopefully on success, it'll be very interesting to see what direction we decide to take.

Mike- My point was that if it was just a TR1 (not requiring PDMR notification), then we have no holders over the 3% threshold, so it could only be an entity buying.

If it is an increased holding (without a PDMR notification) then the first level is 3% holding. See here:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DTR/5/1.html

Each 1% change is then notifiable or a drop below 3%.

There may be other rules, but that's my understanding.

Anyway let's wait to see if it actually materialises...

I should add for clarity that a lone TR1 (no PDMR) can only be triggered by buying in this instance, AS we have no notifiable entities outside PDMR rules.

Let's not forget, it's on Twitter so it needs a large dose of salt thrown in.

But if we're just talking about a TR1 (and not PDMR) then it can only be triggered by buying. The entity who took the placing shares was just a fraction under notifying, so they would be the likely candidate and have been buying more.

If this is just a ploy to get the SP dropped, then it's not a very good one, as it could only be positive.

What for? Given the rise, Institutional buying?

It's not. A trading plan sale would go through a broker not directly to the market. You can't predict what will happen when you place an offer to sell direct to market, whereas a Broker will ensure the transaction is deal with in the best way to ensure it is completed.

smoke- The 36p has been there for months.

It's been there since our drop from 36p SoundInvestor. I'd be shocked if it isn't there tomorrow.

Slightly surprised we've held onto these gains.

A TE11 Palaeozoic drill would not only be targeting X TCF directly, but also X TCF indirectly via seismic. The value of a Palaeozoic drill is many many multiples of Sidi. If TE10 is successful, we have proved the TAGI works outside of the TE5 horst. Proving the Palaeozoic always trumps Sidi.

Before someone has a heart attack, £1p is either £1 or 100p ;)

Thanks for the clarification n4a. Put simply:

TE5 horst - approx 700bcf at 50% recovery x 47.5% ownership = 25p
TE10- approx 2.8TCf at 50% recovery x 47.5% ownership= £1p

Very simplistic, and I hope Edison can go into more detail. There are lots of questions we can't answer yet, such as what gas price can we achieve on further gas, recovery rates, development costs for this potential discovery etc etc.

As I said, let's not worry about that yet...

N4A- The paragraph in the report (below) explains the calculations and where you've gone wrong. You need to look at recovery rates and field ownership. You also have to consider gas selling prices and a whole host of other factors, but it's a good starting point and to consider the potential here.

'We have looked at the industry standard valuation of the assets through a discounted
cash flow analysis. The main discovered asset is the TE-5 field. Here, using a gas
price of US$8.9/mcf, we achieve a value of 27.1 p/share. Adjusting for the balance
sheet this would imply a value for the share of 27.2 p/share. On a fully diluted basis
this would slip to 26.6 p/share. This implies a value of US$2.4million per BCF of gross
resources found. Therefore it would seem sensible to say that if Sound Energy
discovered 1TCF of net gas reserves and resources in the licence that this might
increase the implied asset value by approximately 166p/share. The current exploration
well, TE-10, is targeting 2.8 TCF of gas in place. Assuming a 50% recovery this would
entail net recoverable resources of 665 BCF of gas – equivalent to 110 p/share. In its
two main licences there is the potential of unrisked net prospective resources to Sound
of over 8 TCF. (For further details please see page 8) '

Clearly we need to attain commercial flow rates and confirm the volumes present before value can be ascribed, but Progressive have provided a valuation of TE10. Bear in mind that the Progressive report is paid for, but is, to some degree external validation of Sound's calculations.

On that basis, on expected mid case volumes, TE10 would be worth 110p per share. Together with their valuation of the TE5 horst at 27p, the total value is 137p per share. This of course ignores the risked value of TE11, seismic/inventory, Sidi and our debts. That's one to debate once we know the results of TE10.

https://www.soundenergyplc.com/media/1594/exciting-times-ahead.pdf

I'm looking forward to the Edison valuation report on Sound as a saleable unit. This together with the GSA could provide a stable base for the share to move forward from TE10.

A long wait until February...

Having dealt with the FCA myself, I believe their interest in this episode would be exactly zero.

But clearly there will be people who have lost out due to MTT actions. I wonder if Trellis is interested in another 'class action' fight ;)