Member Info for Soundingoff

I�d like to see SDX farm in on this. Good reputation in Morocco and potentially huge.

Agreed Joe. And I'm more than happy for a bit of a raise if this gets moving. John Argent was hopeful of getting a drill paid for from the farmee, but we'll have to wait and see.

Yes, the Sister vote is an interesting one. What made them change their mind?

I know Tanzania is offshore and LNG from memory? And Fortuna is LNG too? I'm afraid your comparison is basic, and quite frankly pointless at that level. You need to consider a whole host of factors to be able to compare the two companies and their existing concessions, including among others, development costs, gas prices and taxation. I've compared the TE5 concession to a few other businesses and once the above factors are adjusted for, the NPV calculations stack up.

Interesting developments. Thanks Ducati.

I hold significant investments in both SOU and SDX. I do object to the postings made about Sound when they are factually incorrect. The facts are: Sound are fully funded for 3 high impact drills. In total those drills are targeting more than 7 TCF, and we all know Moroccan TCFs are worth multiples of TCFs from the US, Egypt etc. These are volumes and numbers that in all honesty SDX can only dream of. Clearly the drills themselves are binary. Sound has the TE5 concession which is large compared with SDX, at around 10 times more Moroccan gas. This is almost agreed, with the GSA and pipeline funding at an advanced stage. Once agreed, it will more than underpin the current share price (40p ish). The TE5 concession is worth 57p on an NPV10 basis. The basin study model is currently 9-17-31 TCF, low to high case. The seismic campaign is putting together a high quality inventory. So far Sound's calculations are in line with the 3rd party CPRs being prepared. Clearly Sound does not have production (and never intends to). Its goal is very different from your normal O&G company. That makes it different not inferior. Finally James Parsons has never said Sound is a binary outcome. SDX and SOU offer completely different investment propositions and that is why I am invested in both. Misinformed comments do no-one any good.

We were recently advised that Schlumberger made the decision on TE8, not Brian.

Exactly my view Ponkey.

The market made its decision on the news from Thursday and Friday and the reality was just over 1% of the stock was sold. Of course some of that will be traders. As you suggest, the reality of the situation was very different from the noise made on this board and others. It certainly will be interesting seeing how we react to the significant news flow over the next few months and of course the well spud which will override everything else.

250 - I'm sure you'll agree we can argue ad infinitum as to the opacity of the trading scheme. I believe it is transparent. The end result is know and we know what could happen in between. Your point again appears to suggest that there is a possibility JP could 'trade' these shares. Don't forget this trading plan has been signed off by the Board and sanctioned by the NOMAD. Do you think they would allow this? I don't.

Levelup- Your second paragraph is an interesting one. Clearly there is risk at any level as ignoring any obvious known/unknown risks, there is always the threat of a black swan event. I think you are by definition right though that JP is derisking. However I cannot automatically make the connection that there is risk at this level because JP is selling. As an accountant, I deal with individuals and their financial matters on a daily basis. I understand their attitude to risk, reward, wealth etc and how it is affected by their priorities and goals. Not everyone is motivated by ultimate wealth and it is often hard for some to relate to that. Once you have a certain level of wealth, or an expected future level, you attitude certainly does change. Plenty of my clients work for fun, money isn't the goal, enjoyment of life is. Although for most, money is seen as the key. JP is relatively young for a CEO. His ratio of income to assets would also appear to be quite high compared to say a mid 50's CEO who has been doing this for decades. If your typical CEO was doing this, I would be much more inclined to agree with you. He clearly has his private/personal priorities and I can imagine where he may be coming from. He may also already have an expectation of what we can achieve and is tailoring his exposure to meet (very) short term goals and longer terms ones in terms of wealth. Clearly only he knows exactly why he has done what he has. I am more relaxed about this than many, but I do understand the viewpoint of those who invested at higher levels on the back of events such as the Gherkin. I have invested on the basis on the asset, management and the connections we have. On that basis I'm happy to afford JP the benefit of the doubt.

The updated basin model will be interesting. Given that it is expected that the TAGI meets our existing 9-17-31 model (per the Unlocking the basin potential presentation) and the Palaeozoic is a token 10 TCF best case, I expect at least a 33% uplift in potential, say 12-22-41, although of course it may not work out in a linear fashion. http://www.soundenergyplc.com/media/1543/se-unlockbasin-egm.pdf

We have to concentrate on what really adds value to the business. Management time is clearly stretched right now and I don't think that would be the best use of our resources given what we are trying to unlock in Morocco.

We always mention SDX's success. Today is the reality of O&G. One of the big drills has failed, although there is potential to re-drill later. Much more significant than all those tiny drills that preceded it. That's why we don't want to rush TE9...

I get all of that. As I said, it's pretty simple. What you are describing is by definition derisking. We have been given a set of variables and the outcome is know. Yes I expect the cost of his shares to be less in x months time than now. With reference to risk and PIs, I'm sure there are a few here with a free carry and money in the bank. We all have the choice to derisk if we want. Let's be clear though, there will be no trading in the tradition sense (IMO and I would hope yours), only the sale of shares before or after exercising options. Anything else would be commercial suicide. As I suggested before, I understand your point. The difference is I accept what you have suggested and choose to invest on that basis. I, and others understand this point and you are not alone in your understanding. Enjoy the live Q&A.

Billfish linked to the US regulations, so I wouldn't like to speculate whether he understands or not from a UK (FCA) perspective. It's straightforward, transparent and the end goal is laid out in black and white. It's also easy to assess how he can achieve that over this 9 month period. To suggest others do not understand the situation is unfortunately baseless and discussion on the matter has been limited given you haven't articulated your views in any depth. I can only assess that your view is based on the simple premise of derisking, which from discussions here and on other platforms, many of us have considered.

Exceeding the current basin model and adding some oil in as well certainly wouldn't hurt, diversification and all that. Brian did mention it a while back. They really appear to be motoring with the seismic now, so it'll be interesting to see what it throws up.

Yes I noticed that the operating costs appear lower than expected as well. JP's reduced salary helps I guess ;)

Many thanks for the detailed info. The �1.50 per TCF already accounts for our share of the license and production costs on an NPV10 basis. So the calculation is .377 * �1.50 or 56/57p per share.

I'd missed that, thanks. From memory if TLP-101 is the same, that's what they expected in terms BOPD. I haven't got the research notes to hand though. NPV of 101 and 102 was �16m, so with enlarged MCap around 10p per share.