Member Info for StarBright

What is interesting and who is trying to take what down...?

"The inverse of this is anybody who tests negative for antigen, then also negative for antibodies is almost certainly virus free and can be given a digital health certificate and allowed to return to work until their next tests."

Not really. The testing can only indicate that the subject is virus free at the point the test is performed. To suggest that this virus-free status endures "until their next tests" is a stretch too far. To be clear, it is possible that someone who tests negative might be infected by the next person they meet.

In practice this just means that more (endless...) tests will be required.

The Guardian have aN interesting piece based partly on “leaked official documents”, one of which says:

“...we understand that letters of comfort are already in place with companies to reach 3 million tests per day by December.”

and:

“The Department of Health and Social Care said it did not comment on leaked documents, but a spokesperson confirmed the ambition to scale up testing. “This country now has the capacity to test for coronavirus on an unprecedented scale and we are going further by investing £500m in next-generation tests, like saliva tests and rapid turnaround tests that can deliver results in just 20 minutes,” he said.

“We are increasing capacity to 500,000 tests a day by the end of October, and the ability to get rapid, on-the-spot results, will significantly increase our ability to fight coronavirus, stop the spread and for our economy to recover.”“

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/09/boris-johnson-pinning-hopes-on-covid-testing-moonshot-leaked-papers-show

The #4 all-time ramper on AIM according to this: http://******************/rampchecker/rampchecktopramper.php

He's hilarious! I wouldn't filter him - just enjoy but discount appropriately...

...but all that tells us is that your order was filled at a decent price relative to the quoted spread. Be pleased with that..!

The price isn't moving because volume is low and there is a balance between buyers and sellers in the 54p - 62p range.

Only when news emerges that attracts new investors (or discourages existing holders) in volume will the price change materially.

The news today - whilst welcome - hasn't been positive enough to attract new investors in such volume.

50/50...? On what possible basis have you determined that?

Given the literally limitless range of potential topics, surely it is no more than an outside chance.

Your "What do we need for this to happen?" para doesn't seem to consider the possibility of substitutes or alternatives. Omega are not the only firm active in this area.

£10 to ODX or the test costs £10 from the retailer?

235m shares is 3.5% so we *should* get to see who the "single institutional investor" is. If it's a genuine into investor (think mutual / pension fund) then it's good news. Such an investor might well have approached the company rather than buying in the open market. If however it's the type of "institutional investor" we've seen in the past - essentially one of the low rent bucket-shops who'll look to flip the shares into the market for 10% - then it's bad news. Other possibilities - the likes of Lenigas or a trade stake - might be harder to judge as good or bad.

More info required before a rational reaction is possible. But it worries me slightly that the investor hasn't been named in the RNS. If it were a name whose involvement was going to be a +ve for other investors, it would have been normal for the the RNS to set this out...

Rawheid..?

As of May 31, 2019, the Company had a cash balance of $2.3 million and $7.1 million of outstanding debt drawn from the Hercules Loan Facility. The Company believes the current cash position can support continued operations into September 2019 with diligent cash management. The Company will need to raise additional capital, which may be through equity financing and/or from non-dilutive sources. The Company is evaluating options to determine the funding strategy that will be most favourable for shareholders and will provide an update to the market in due course.

Pokerchips - look a little more closely at the extract from the Takeover Code in my post. If an offeror buys ONE share in the open market at a price above the offer price they are required IMMEDIATELY to announce a revised offer at the higher price. There has been no such announcement, therefore we know they haven't bought any.

To clear this one up...

If - after making an offer - the offeror buys shares in the open market above the offer price, they are required to revise their offer such that all shareholders can receive the higher price. So you can be confident that the buying on Friday was not by the offeror or anyone acting with/for them.

Here’s the relevant extract from Rule 6 of the Takeover Code:

“6.2 ACQUISITIONS AFTER A FIRM OFFER ANNOUNCEMENT
(a) If, after an announcement made in accordance with Rule 2.7 and before the offer closes for acceptance, an offeror or any person acting in concert with it acquires any interest in shares at above the offer price (being the then current value of the offer), it shall increase its offer to not less than the highest price paid for the interest in shares so acquired.
(b) Immediately after the acquisition, the offeror must announce that a revised offer will be made in accordance with this Rule (see also Rule 32). Whenever practicable, the announcement should also state the nature of the interest, the number of shares concerned and the price paid.”

Tymers - I have worked very hard to source and analyse data over the last 12 months or so. Fine detail isn't needed, as the goal is only to build a high-level valuation model. But consistency and verification/sourcing are vital in building modelling confidence. The company's RNS releases - the usual start point - are highly selective, which isn't unusual in itself. The usual process is to corroborate these by building a web of data points from as many sources as possible, and then chipping away until everything fits together. Alongside the RNS's in this instance we have regulatory (eg planning) filings (where the scope for selectivity/obfuscation is greatly reduced), interviews (where it is greatly enhanced!), informal observations eg from the eyes, company presentations, CPR's (probably the gold standard) etc. The biggest gaps are around key topics like depletion rates and recovery estimates. This is why I have been interested in the recent interviews: for SS to suddenly start talking in NPV/barrel terms suggests that they now have enough data - albeit preliminary - from testing that confidence in their internal modelling has grown enough for them to start sharing.

Of course, testing is not yet complete and I suspect we are a long way away from a comprehensive CPR. But I think it is unusual that the company isn't out there with a coherent explanation of its potential value, even if that is presented in ranges to reflect the difference between good and bad test outcomes. It's a bit pointless RNSing test results if you haven't laid out a line as to how these might be converted into potential valuation impacts. I guess that Mr Vonk has had a go at this for ANGS, but he too has been almost recklessly inconsistent. At one point he was suggesting £25-£40m of market cap for every 100bopd. He then rowed back from this to £13-£17m of market cap for every 100bopd. Quite a change!

Sageman is right to say that the absence of this is one factor holding professional investors back.

[Sageman - I will have a go at a where-are-we summary (haven't done on for a while) sometime over the weekend.]

seadoc - the question I put to wizard "what is the NPV(10) of £100m pa for 20 years?" contains all the information necessary to answer. The £100m recurring annual cashflow is the "income", flat-lined in order to make it easier for wizard... I will forgive you for the egg-sucking advice as I have not previously revealed anything of my professional background.

heid, your twitter friend proposes a third possibility - that the two valuations suggested by SS need to be added together. If so, SS should have said [08:41] "...we can replicate Horse Hill in many sites across the area. Each of those sites has got the same sort of value - you know, potentially 250m -300m quid if we keep at $70 oil..."

That's great news if it is correct.

I am (as I have posted many times...) an investment professional not an oilman. I am here hoping to get input from oilers to help me interpret what the company tells us about production etc. In exchange I share freely my skills in modelling, valuations, sensitivity analysis etc, and my experience in capital markets for those for whom investment is about more than "buys flying in".

I welcome discussion. I describe myself as an anti-ramper - with little time for either the rampers or de-rampers who are here to influence/troll rather than to discuss. A trait of successful investors is the ability to hold both positive and negative viewpoints simultaneously. Empty positivity should not be favoured over critical analysis as better understanding leads directly to better investment outcomes.

seadoc - you have got to be kidding me. I am more than familiar with calculating NPV's after a career in investment management from which I retired a couple of years ago in my 40s. Would you like me to point out the symptoms of a common cold to you?

It's very hard to have a discussion on numbers here! All I was doing was pointing out a material inconsistency in what SS said in his interview. If you actually read my posts in this thread, you'll see that I have carefully avoided expressing an opinion on which of the two NPV's he gave might be right. Along comes wizard, with his own entirely different set of numbers (inconsistent with either of the two possibilities offered by SS) to muddy the waters, and now you to tell me that you need a depletion rate to calculate the NPV(10) of a level £100m pa. The answer to that by the way is £890m, and I can do the calculation in my head, no depletion rate needed....

Never mind....

Where (in the interview) does he say 1000bopd?

He says only that they hope to get 3.3m barrels out a Portland well, and 1m out of a Kim well. He doesn't give a timescale for this.

wizard/toughiv - what is the NPV(10) of £100m pa for 20 years?

All of the discussion in the Sharetalk interview is in NPV terms. Not per year.

He's very clear on this, even to the point of explaining they're working with $15-£18 of NPV per barrel. This is followed through into the calculation for the Portland, where he says "...that's 150m to 200m quids worth of value in the Portland alone."

He then tells us the NPV per barrel is the same for the Kimm as it is for the Portland. He says "So for each Kimmeridge well you're looking at 15 to 20m quids worth of value for each well". The implication of this is that a Kim well is only expected to deliver lifetime production of 1m barrels compared to 3.3m from a Portland well. As he says "...each of those sites has got the same sort of value - you know, potentially 100m quid if we keep at $70 oil and we get 1 million barrels per well."

There is nothing in what says in the interview to suggest that any of these numbers are annual.