We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Not to forget
Investor Presentation
Majid Shafiq, Ryan Heath and Jason Dranchuk will provide a live presentation relating to i3 Energy's 2024 Capital Budget via the Investor Meet Company platform on 2 May 2024 at 12:00pm BST.
The presentation is open to all existing and potential shareholders. Questions can be submitted pre-event via your Investor Meet Company dashboard up until 9am the day before the meeting or at any time during the live presentation.
Investors can sign up to Investor Meet Company for free and add to meet i3 Energy plc via:
https://www.investormeetcompany.com/i3-energy-plc/register-investor
Investors who already follow I3 ENERGY PLC on the Investor Meet Company platform will automatically be invited.
Additionally, i3 is pleased to announce that an updated corporate presentation will be available on the Company's website https://i3.energy/ coinciding with the Investor Meet Company live presentation.
Full year 2023 results
I3 has released its full year 2023 results, demonstrating the cash generation capability of its business, and funding position going into the increased planned 2024 CAPEX programme, where new drilling is expected to begin in June.
2023 results show steady cash generation. I3’s 2023 results include net production of 20.7mboe/d (previously reported), compared with 20.3mboe/d in 2022. This resulted in revenues of £146.3m, lower than the £208.4m reported for 2022 on lower commodity prices. EBITDA for 2023 was then £67.2m, compared with £98.0m in 2022, impacted by the revenues but with unit OPEX better at £9.4/boe versus £10.3/boe in 2022.
Free cash flow generation was then £13.2m, from £14.2m in 2022, on lower CAPEX spend during the year. End 2023 net debt was £11.1m – broadly steady compared with the end of 2022. This all demonstrates I3’s portfolio’s capability to generate cash and support the company’s current dividend (which was cut to current quarterly levels during 2023).
Forward programme of increased activity and CAPEX, funded from new debt facility, asset sale, and cash flows. Last week I3 announced its 2024 work programme and budget, guiding to a CAPEX spend of US$50.9m including drilling of 15 new wells (10.5 wells net to I3), with drilling beginning in late Q2. This is expected to support annual 2024 production of 1819mboe/d, with a 2024 exit rate of 20.3-21.3mboe/d given the H2 weighting of the drilling campaign. Pad development drilling on I3’s Simonette Montney acreage is then expected to begin in Q1 2025.
Given the upcoming programme, 2024 is set to be a busy year for I3 once the new drilling programme gets going, with significant opportunity to add new production, particularly gas volumes going into the 2024/25 winter. Funding is available from the company’s new C$75m debt facility and recent US$25m royalty assets sale. We would expect this programme to continue supporting cash flow for dividends, and future growth programmes based on the substantial 180mmboe net 2P reserves position.
I3 Energy overview. I3 is an E&P company focused mainly onshore Canada, with producing assets across central Alberta, Clearwater in northern Alberta, and Simonette and Wapiti/Elmworth in western Alberta. These hold a total 180mmboe of net 2P reserves. The company also has the Serenity discovery in the UK North Sea. I3 produced at 20.7mboe/d net in 2023, generating EBITDA of £67.2m and FCF of £13.2m after CAPEX of £24.3m. The shares are on a prospective 2024 dividend yield of 9%, and there is a busy 2024 work programme beginning in late Q2 to drive new production volumes.
"Also why was JOEL BARRY sacked by his previous employer?" do you proof of this?
https://brandsmiths.co.uk/blog/view/brandsmiths-names-joel-barry-as-its-latest-partner-
NSTiger my question today at 11.49, I added it to the questions I had already passed to MC. Reposted below for you.
14. In the normal course of events, legal / client privilege would lend itself to confidentiality, in this case with 450 shareholders involved, it may be reasonable to assume that within those ranks we may have an infiltrator from the opposition, how do we maintain confidential advantage?
"Stas - not sure that matters anymore - after facts are facts no one can change them now"
duster we seriously disagree on this one, we would be more than foolhardy to advertise any strategy we may have as regards our fight, yes what has happened is fact but how we present that can be absolutely damning and indefensible or made to look circumstantial.
Just as when going into court to prosecute a murderer, it may be absolutely undeniable that someone was murdered, but the sentence can be very different if you can prove it was premeditated as opposed to reactionary to an event etc.
Maybe not the best analogy but you get my drift, giving anything away, even a hint that helps the opposition formulate a defence would in my opinion be negligent to the extreme and most unwise.
Actually I would ask one further question of MC. which I think is of high importance.
14. In the normal course of events, legal / client privilege would lend itself to confidentiality, in this case with 450 shareholders involved, it may be reasonable to assume that within those ranks we may have an infiltrator from the opposition, how do we maintain confidential advantage?
Ryan even if Rodney was able or wiling to answer your question, I would advise against it. Your alias comes across as suspicious as does your timing and your line of questioning, I would think nothing less also from the people we would look to go up against.
As we are now imo in danger of getting into wild speculation, I am going to start with my list of questions - we can add to these if needed and send them to MC for consideration prior to the calls.
1. How much work have you conducted to date to know if we have a strong legal case?
2. Can you explain all the upfront costs?
3. Are there other fees (later down the line) that might need to be paid, on top of the 100 – 550 charges such as disbursements / expenses etc?
4. In the case of a win am I correct in that we would need to pay;
a. Your CEC costs?
b. Do you also envisage a success fee, what is the success fee, is it a percentage of the base fee, if yes what percentage?
c. Do you also expect to get a cut of the awarded damages on top of the above?
d. What percentage would you expect shareholders to receive against their original investment?
e. What percentage of your costs could we recoup from the opposition?
5. In the case of a loss are fees to be paid to the other side, who pays them or do we take insurance against this?
6. Will there be multiple cases, e.g. against Anavio, then against Directors individually, how will the case be structured?
7. Under what jurisdiction will we be fighting this case?
8. Assuming we win the initial case, is there a possibility to further fight for punitive damages (what about in the US this is COPL America that owns the assets). Punitive damages are for me almost more important due to the;
a. time spent,
b. stress
c. sleepless night,
d. distress for both me and family,
e. missed opportunity etc.
9. I note CEC (Barry legal) had a US attorney (Daniel Shier..) on his team is this still the case, can he be of help. – who will be on our team?
10. How do the various actors and support networks fit into the mix between CEC and Setford?
11. What plans does MC have as regards Media.
12. The CAG and the support base of 450 shareholders can be powerful to support, what can we do to support you further?
Montofino your understanding of nwnf is I believe outdated. It is I believe normal practice to ask for fees to support external costs otherwise you can end up with very little indeed from a nwnf.
Additionally, my understanding is you generally do not get all your costs back from the opposition if you win, often maybe up to 70% or so. however again these are questions to be put to MC. I expect a win means all the fees of Cotter are covered (the base fee) plus a success fee paid which is often a percentage of the base fee, sometimes up to 100%.
I think for Cotter to support this he will be expecting a very very high chance of a win otherwise he would not go ahead, you have to consider what happens in the case of a loss, who's going to be left with the fees that the opposition would wish to collect!
Why not just read the email.
"On first review, the average investment size is in excess of £25,000.00, therefore I propose in order to fund the first stage of the action, we will have a banding in order to be a part of the group and fund the initial action, the banding will be between £100.00 plus VAT and £550.00 plus VAT , that is to say, no-one will pay more than that to be a member of the group and receive the benefit of the above and also, my specific on-going advice on receipt, to be delivered via a series of Zoom calls and other contact at your request.
Please note, I have seen a handful of investors who have invested less than £1000.00 please note if this is the case, you will not be charged a sign-up fee, you will merely incur a small fee (less than £15) in order so that I can verify your identity (as required by my regulator) via anti-money laundering software. "
Ryan you are starting to show your true colours one thinks.
Unless you have no understanding of 'no win, no fee' and or you don't listen to past detail as having been given here multiple times by RBM. The no win no fee has and is the same as it has always been, no fee relates to Michael Cotter and his firms representation, as I am sure you well know.
It has always been the case that external fees to his costs will exist such as external council, these you cannot work around or did you expect MC to stump up these fees for us. You do seem to be trying hard to cast doubts where there are none, however, this forum is wise to the aliases that pop up here having been registered years ago yet never having posted, just to be rolled out when needed to try and cause friction.
I think this is likely what AFC is referring to but no doubt he can tell you himself, but wow isn't it amazing that someone that has apparently lost thousands, been here for over 3 years only now decides to post, as if the No win no fee was the most important thing to ever discuss. I guess the 99% drop in the share price in the past, or the massive shorting, or the resignation of several CEO's etc. none of those were important enough to comment but heh, a well qualified lawyer that might defend the shareholders being defrauded by a load of crooks, seems to be a concern to you, I wonder which side you bat for.
I am heavily supportive of Michael Cotter, oh yeah bring it on.
Antha, not sure if that's directed at me, it could well be based on past assertions, but I'll give my penny's worth anyway as I have all heard all the rubbish about rampers, bottom line, I don't recall, other than the odd occasion anyone saying anything other than was told to us by the company, indeed I was initially accused of ramping but than after having realised the fraud and dishonest nature of Millholland and thus voiced those opinions, I was then called out for de-ramping.
Having now in some eyes been a ramper AND a deramper, next I'm obviously accused of being a position poster, Lol, Personally, I don't give a hoot about all these conspiracy theorists, its water of a ducks back to me, particularly when most, if not all are just bitter people that either lost through listening and acting on narrative of rampers or, didn't win due to listening to narrative of de-rampers. Whereas in fact what they generally all have in common is, by just not doing their own research, their only recourse is to then get bitter at others due to their own laziness. No one is forced to buy or sell and if you do your own proper research then your decision is yours and yours alone, if you follow blindly someone else, well guess what!
However, what has happened here is totally outside the realms of rampers, derampers or even to those having done your own research, what you have here is a clear case of fraud and as such it is the company, the directors and the actors they brought in, such as Anavio that will be the subject of scrutiny.
I have no interest or time for the chasing of individual alias's, for petes sake if we had listened to the derampers, none of us would even be here, but then nor would COPL have even existed, if their had been no PI then their could not have been an anavio. Let the conspiracy theorists continue if they wish, I have better things to concentrate on here and that is an impending case where the real guilty are going to be forced to pay a heavy and very, very public price.
I have no concern with his writing, mine is pretty bad but I understand my competency, and in this regard this is all I require from MC. I feel quite assured and look forward to working with MC and his firm.
I think just reading his background will give you a very good understanding of why he finds this case interesting. He may well be in high demand, however I would say we are starting out as a very good fit, his skills seem to be a perfect fit for us and we, a very good fit for his own CV, as a team we are likely to be a win win.
Note, he has been involved in class action and fraud in the past and wow I am impressed with his media connections, these are exactly the areas we need and would likely NOT get from a run of the mill solicitors firm.
Someone said the other day how the likes of COPL and the others involved like to operate in the shadows, how they dislike the glare of publicity, well I think MC has the connections to blow that shield away for them all.
I feel very upbeat and excitedly welcome the planned zoom calls.
https://www.setfords.co.uk/our-people/profile/michael_cotter/
"Solicitor Advocate and financial services Lawyer, Michael Cotter offers expertise in regulated industries including pensions, financial products and investments.
From complicated regulated-services fraud, to emerging unregulated schemes that target unsophisticated investors, Michael is an experienced litigator advising clients in multi-million pound actions against investment services.
Adept at complicated class-action claims and a professional negligence expert, Michael most recently assisted in the recovery of over £25m to investors as the lead lawyer in the matter against Arck LLP and those connected. Having uncovered the fraud that affected over 250 clients, he took action to successfully assist with the return of millions from the Yorkshire Bank for those victims. This case lead to the prosecution of the directors of Arck LLP following an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.
Michael also assist clients in Judicial Review proceedings against the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and Financial Ombudsman Service.
As a regular media commentator for titles such as The Times, The Financial Times, Money Mail, Professional Adviser and Citywire Michael is at the cutting-edge of evolving markets and industry trends."
RBM - But they try, look at this for example;
"1.8 Knowledge
Any reference to the knowledge of (i) a COPL Entity, means the actual knowledge, after reasonable inquiry, of Peter Kravitz, Arthur Millholland, Tyler Johnson, Gabe D’Arthenay and Elizabeth Millholland (who, in each case, for the sake of clarity and avoidance of doubt, shall have no personal liability or obligations regarding such knowledge), and (ii) a Purchaser, means the actual knowledge, after reasonable inquiry, of Patrick Murphy (who, for the sake of clarity and avoidance of doubt, shall have no personal liability or obligations regarding such knowledge)."
So what does this mean, anything I put in the affidavit is considered 'knowledge' and irrespective on whether that knowledge is correct or not matter not as "in each case, for the sake of clarity and avoidance of doubt, shall have no personal liability or obligations regarding such knowledge" - just riddled with ridiculousness!
Just as an example of how COPL and KSV will use what they learn from these forums to their advantage have a look at how
they have had the audacity to reference a twitter posts by the CAG as if to justify the enormity of 'their' marketing campaign.
https://www.ksvadvisory.com/docs/default-source/insolvency-case-documents/canadian-overseas-petroleum/ccaa-proceedings/motion-materials/copl---affidavit-of-peter-kravitz-affirmed-april-18-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=de0eb286_3
"the CAG stated that they were in the process of contacting potential bidders who may be interested in participating in the bidding process. A copy of this social media post from X by the CAG is attached as Exhibit “G” hereto."
Which by the way is on the final page, Page 248 and wrongly labelled as Exhibit "H" - indeed in fact the whole document has incorrect labelling in relation to Exhibits and what they show, but it shows that they will try to use whatever we say here or on other social media to advance their own aims, walls have ears!
Did anyone look at the letter that KSV put out to potential bidders
https://www.ksvadvisory.com/docs/default-source/insolvency-case-documents/canadian-overseas-petroleum/ccaa-proceedings/motion-materials/copl---affidavit-of-peter-kravitz-affirmed-april-18-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=de0eb286_3
Exhibit E, no discussion of the billion barrel discovery, downplayed in fact, no discussion on CO2 or CCS, no discussion that their had been a potential JV or that a letter of Intent had previously been signed. No picture of Millholland falling of his chair, the whole thing reads so downbeat, its unsurprising when you read what they put out followed by the bid process and timelines their were no offers, rigged the bloody lot of it!
Did you also note that the 137 contacted by KSV were given by the applicants (read COPL) what did they do, like me in my assessment of which companies to mailshot, I looked at the top 150 with financial firepower, what did COPL do look at the same list but order it by those WITHOUT financial firepower, perhaps we need to see this list of 137 that were delivered to KSV.
T H E B I D P R O CE S S
▪ COPL and Province, under the supervision of the Monitor, are seeking binding bids for the acquisition of the business and/or assets of, or the equity interests in, the Applicants. The SISP Approval Order provides that an offer or combination of offers must, amongst other criteria, provide aggregate consideration payable in cash in full on closing equal to or greater than the following amounts, the aggregate of which is estimated to be at least $56 million, unless agreed upon by the prepetition lenders:
• all outstanding obligations under the Senior Credit Agreement (anticipated to be $44 million);
• all outstanding obligations under the DIP Term Sheet (anticipated to be US$11 million);
• any obligations in priority to amounts owing under the DIP Term Sheet, including any Charges (anticipated to be US$500,000 and $3.5 million);
• the amount of US$500,000 to satisfy the Bid Protections.
▪ Capitalized terms in the above list have the meanings ascribed thereto in the SISP.
▪ Bidders must familiarize themselves with the SISP's participation requirements and Qualified Bid criteria (as defined and described in the SISP), which this is subject to the terms of in all respects. The Applicants are authorized to finalize a stalking horse agreement as outlined in the Stalking Horse Term Sheet, which will be provided in the VDR promptly after it is finalized.
"Wadda, a good initiative, but which shareholder group did you say you were representing? I wouldn’t want Mr Denton to get confused due to multiple approaches."
A very important point, we need to look organised and efficient with a consistent message, not fragmented.
Personally I think all comms should be coming from the CAG but I hope and expect we get some guidance on this from MC on our zoom call.
I can only say thank God its Friday after reading some of these court documents, its extremely fortuitous that none of these KSV lot are standing in front of me
"9. In accordance with the SISP Order, the Applicants, with the assistance of the Financial Advisor and Monitor, have engaged in extensive marketing of the Applicants’ business and assets."
"13. Despite the considerable efforts of the Applicants, and the ongoing support of the Monitor and Financial Advisor in responding to diligence requests, among other things, the Applicants did not receive any letters of intent (“LOI”) by the deadline for submitting LOIs under the SISP (the “LOI Deadline”). "
extensive marketing, considerable efforts - What an F'ing joke