Member Info for Stockable

Range Resources appears to be exiting Trinidad's oil sector. Or at the very least it's diversifying into a completely different area of business in China. This could be a catalyst for change. Last year, Range was due to buy Trinity's West Coast assets but the authorities did not give permission for the deal to go ahead. If the company is divesting itself of its Trinidad oil assets, there seems no downside for Trinity but certainly some potential upside.

The last private investor presentation given by Trinity was, in my view, very informative so I will be attending the next one. Broadly speaking, I think it's a good idea to meet the management of the companies one is investing in. It does give another dimension to the company. And it's definitely one of the better investments an investor can make with his or her time.

A Broad generalisation I know but stock picking seems to have largely given way to index tracking of various types. What does it mean for President? Well as it grows it in size it should be found in a wider range of indices. There is also a real likelihood, at some point, of it listing in Argentina. From mid-2019, the latter will be in both the MSCI Frontier and the MSCI Emerging markets' indices. This is an unusual situation as normally countries are in one or the other. But it's positive from Argentina's viewpoint. Should President list there then it will find itself held by funds covering both those areas. And that will probably give it greater liquidity.

On a more basic note, paying dividends would, in my view, widen the investor base. The old resource company model where small oil companies were built for the sole purpose of being sold some way down the line appears to have broken down.

As for placings, why does it need the money? The company has the acreage, the potential projects and the cash-flow to expand at a reasonable pace. Sure, more cash may accelerate development but I think the company needs to accept that it has reached the limit as far as issuing paper is concerned. Basically, it needs to live within its means.

Last night's London South East Oil and Gas presentation concluded with a short talk by Richard Slape, an oil and gas analyst. In essence, he pointed out that, in his long experience of the industry, most investors were unable to accurately assess the risk associated with the companies they invested in. Among his recommendations was to focus on the company's P50 resources, avoiding the losers rather than simply trying to find the winners and determining whether the company's management has a record of delivering on its promises. He also pays great attention to the commercial chance of success rather than the geological chance.

Interestingly, he pointed out that oil companies often become the embodiment of the person who runs the organisation.

Although I only briefly spoke to Paul Blakely at last night's LSE presentation, he did mention something that I thought was significant. He was quite adamant that the company would outline its dividend policy by the year-end. And he used the comparison of a REIT. Now the following is my interpretation and not his. But he seems keen for investors to receive an income from the stock. That does not preclude selling the company at some point. But income for investors seems a high priority. It appears to have slight overtones of SOCO International, a company that I am invested in. Operating in the same neck of the woods and with a policy of returning profits to investors.

Incidentally, when I asked him bluntly how much time he gave to this endeavour. His answer was equally straightforward. It's a very full-time proposition. I would suggest that this is an important and overlooked point. Why would I want to invest in a business where the CEO has no major commitment in terms of either time or money?

At the moment, I am not invested in the company but it's on my watchlist.

Broadly speaking, nil cost options strike me as being a poor idea. However, in the past and I assume the situation has not changed, the SOCO options were linked to Total Shareholder Returns compared to a comparator group of companies. If we look at the annual report for 2017, we can see that from 2009 – 2017 (Inclusive) the CEO has only received 100% of the options vesting on one occasion. And has also received 0% on one occasion. Basically, there are strings attached. But the RNS could have made the situation a lot clearer.

Sure, the granting of options is designed as an incentive programme but I believe they are also there to get the recipients committed to the organisation. In my opinion, there would be greater alignment if there was a cost attached to the options plus a very long holding period. This seems to be a generic problem with many listed companies.

Agree with much of what has been said in regard to the absence of news. Of particular interest is the offshore West Coast assets. The sale to Range Resources in 2018 fell through. Is another buyer lined-up? With the prospect of substantial capex to develop its offshore East Coast assets, a sale of its non-core West Coast operations would make things slightly easier from a cash flow perspective.

Just curious, but I thought that the company was aiming to buy or build a portfolio of premium hospitality properties across the UK. How does the acquisition of a car dealership fit in with this broad strategy? On the surface, at least, there appear to be few synergies.

As yesterday's preliminary results outlined, SOCO is now at a turning point. The acquisition of Merlon opens up the prospect of drilling on its Egyptian acreage by the year-end. And it's about to acquire, in H2 2019, 2D seismic for its offshore Vietnam blocks 125 and 126 where it has a 70% interest. Basically, at long last, it seems to be on the move. As for its intentions in regard to Ophir, that appears to be over, at least for the time being.

In the meantime, the company offers a very attractive yield and has a strong commitment to maintaining the dividend. But, as with most oil stocks, much is dependent on the price of oil and success at the drill bit. That said, it's a low-cost producer and its Egyptian acreage (Some 70% is already covered by 3D seismic) presents a pipeline of low-cost opportunities.

Incredible really when you think about it. The company has high and consistent levels of free cash flow, pays a reasonable, and reasonably well covered, dividend and is sufficiently geographically diversified to withstand most economic shocks, including Brexit. And yet, no posters have bothered to put a comment on the company's segment of this bulletin board since November 2018. That's in glaring contrast to the low-quality resource stocks that regularly attract scores of comments on a daily basis.

After having the company on my watch list for quite some time, I invested in it shortly before it announced its recent results. Although I take a long-term approach, I will if necessary liquidate a holding and possibly get back in at another time. It's clearly a stock that is subject to the economic cycle and I am not convinced that I can time that accurately. So I am prepared to get in at what I regard as a reasonable price for a quality company.

Over the last ten years, the stock price has gone up over 250% and that excludes dividends. Of course, that does not tell us where it's heading to in the future. But it does in my view present some very strong metrics. Both its operating margins and its ROCE have been on a rising trend over the past five years – it appears to be efficiently run. It has an extremely low gearing – it's not vulnerable to a spike in interest rates or a prolonged downturn. Its cash-rich – another five-year upward trend – which should provide a financial buffer.

Unglamorous it may be but it has delivered for shareholders. It's certainly not a story stock. And, in my opinion, it still has considerable scope for expansion, especially in Asia.

Fundraising was not something that I was expecting. Especially, after the presentation at the end of last year where I was given the very strong impression that the company's planned work for 2019 was fully funded. When I took part in the fundraising at the end of 2017 at 10p per share, the company made it clear that the monies would be ploughed into increasing profitable production. And, to its credit, that is what it has done. Increasing production and increasing reserves and now on the cusp of rapidly developing its gas assets. However, the share price currently hovers slightly under the proposed placing price of 8p. Why would I want to subscribe? Moreover, I feel that I am now as exposed to the stock as I want to be.

Considering the number of fundraises that it has conducted as well as the amounts involved, I really want to call it a day as far as increasing my holding in the stock is concerned. It has the assets, it's cash-flow positive and it has a plethora of opportunities. I would like to see it live within its means. Basically, acting like a mature company. Even if that results in slower than expected growth.

As it happens, I think the company is poised for rapid growth. The acquisition of Las Bases and Puesto Prado has, in effect, opened up its Estancia Vieja gas fields for development. Puesto Flores offers many low-risk and high return projects. Puesto Guardian is a work-in-progress but there is no rush. And, of course, there is Paraguay. Where the upside is huge but the downside is, relatively speaking, quite manageable.

All-in-all, the prospects appear very attractive and that is reflected in its recent figures. But I don't want to buy any more stock at this stage. I might in the future but not now.

For those of a trading disposition. This generally excludes me incidentally. It might be worth bearing in mind that Trinity is hugely impacted by the Supplemental Petroleum Tax (SPT). It's very profitable with WTI just under US$50 per barrel and also if it's slightly over US$60 per barrel. So for those looking for a possible trade based upon a WTI price slightly outside the US$50-60 per barrel range then Trinity could be an interesting play. Personally, I have given up trying to predict the price of oil - too much like pure gambling. But each to his own. And obviously, do your own research.

Looked at crudely, it seems to have paid on the high side for Merlon. For the year ended 31st December 2017, Merlon's profit before tax was some US$8 million. The real issue is just how well and how rapidly it can execute on its development plans. There appears to be a reasonable number of drill ready opportunities. And, of course, it's onshore in an area with high success rates and a rapid return on investment. There appears little to impede growth in production aside from the usual question of luck.

To some degree, it really comes down to faith in SOCO's management. I would suggest that we should know the answer to that within a year from now. But, thus far, the company has demonstrated a willingness to share its success with its owners (Shareholders). And that's in stark contrast to most London listed oil companies.

Agree with much of what has been written. The company is now saddled with debt. And the raising of finance appears to be almost addictive. That said, I invested in this company after the Puesto Flores/Estancia Vieja deal was done. Since then, the company has changed substantially, including production and reserves.

In my view, its assets in the North of Argentina are relatively poor and will need a lot of investment. But, as I have pointed out before, there is no urgency. The mandatory work has been completed and the concession runs until 2050.

The real story lies in the South. Puesto Flores and Estancia Vieja appear far more commercially attractive than originally envisaged. Speeding up development has a logic to it. Raising money to accelerate this development makes sense. The synergies created by acquiring Las Bases and Puesto Prado open up its gas fields for short-term projects that can rapidly repay initial outlay.

Expanding its production to include a greater proportion of gas should make the company more stable and, of course, more profitable. Giving Paraguay one last try at a cost of, say, US$12 million is, in my opinion, worth the risk when one considers the upside. But I think it has reached the end of the road for raising money. It now needs to monetise its assets for the benefit of shareholders.

It goes without saying that the company's fortunes are based upon the performance of its underlying commodities: Copper, Zinc and Lead. But it has demonstrated its managerial ability in developing CAML from scratch into a profitable and dividend paying stock within a short period of time. It has also carried out an extremely successful acquisition. In my opinion, its future lies in further successful purchases. It may be very well managed but it has limited scope to run its portfolio more efficiently than is currently the case. Growth lies with further successful acquisitions: right price, right commodity and, of course, right jurisdiction.

Underpinning its model is a focus on full-cycle, low-cost production. Given time, I think that the stock is quite likely to move to the main market. Its assets, management and delivery to shareholders set it apart from most other AIM miners. Put crudely, it's in a different class to most AIM mining stocks.

It would be most appreciated if someone could provide a link to the original article. There appears to be no trace of it on the Evening Standard website. Without reading the article in its original context, it's difficult to pass judgement.

Confounded, that's a very valid point and something that Bruce Dingwall alluded to last year at an investor presentation. Overhauling the SPT legislation would be burdensome but tweaking it would be relatively straightforward. With Trinity set for a relatively large offshore capex programme this would certainly change the dynamics. Incidentally, Trinity is partnered with Heritage in its East Coast assets. When its partner was Petrotrin, SPT would not have been an issue but Heritage now sits on the same side of the fence as Trinity. It does seem to give it further leverage in terms of reforming the system.

Broadly speaking, the company appears to be delivering on its promises and it's on course to produce some 170,000 oz of Gold for 2019. Elikhulu is up and running (It produced some 15,292 oz for the period) and now incorporates the Evander Tailings Retreatment Plant. It has been delivered on time and to budget.

Barberton is performing well with production up some 24.5%. And, importantly, it offers a range of near to medium term opportunities for further development. Including a near-surface project.

The downside appears to relate to its costs. The impact of a three-year pay deal is now being felt at Barberton. Everything from the cost of electricity to security costs have risen sharply. In all, the cost of production for continuing operations is up some 47%. But just how much is variable?

It's worth noting that it has restructured its senior debt (ZAR1 billion). Originally, terminating in June 2020, this has been extended to 2022. So it should remove some financial strain. In addition, it seems to have met its loan covenants without too much trouble.

Underpinning its turnaround is its decreasing All-In Sustaining Costs. This has fallen 18.5% to ZAR444,946 per kilo. With adjusted EBITDA up by a hefty 92.3% compared to the same period in 2017.

Basically, I think it's on track. Providing the Gold price stays reasonably firm and it can control its costs. And there is the added bonus of development opportunities within its current licence.

Yes indeed, liquidity is a widespread problem for AIM-listed companies. However, it might be worth remembering that President has gone some way down the line to gaining a listing on the local Argentine stock market (BCBA). If it goes ahead, it will require a significant amount of stock to be issued. The recent economic problems in Argentina appear to have put paid to the idea. But it's certainly there. Should it happen then it will probably change the liquidity situation. It may also mean that it will be a constituent of various index funds that cover the BCBA. Again, adding to liquidity.

By the way, my understanding is that it's viewed as a local Argentine company rather than a foreign concern. So any future listing would likely find a reasonable interest from local investors.

Quantifying the likelihood of drilling success in Paraguay seems virtually impossible. However, the downside, from what I can understand, is a cost of some US$12 million. The upside is clearly colossal. It would open up a new oil frontier. When President announced that it had discovered oil in the Chaco Basin in October 2014, its share price rose 80% in one day to 30p. That said, Brent was around US$80 per barrel. However, its production was less than 450 BOEPD per day.

It already has extensive knowledge of the area as a result of it drilling the Jacaranda and Lapacho wells in 2014. Levine argues that the well it plans on drilling will be far more prospective than the first two. Just how accurate that is I am unsure. The company has proved that there is oil in the Pirity Basin and appears to be in pole position to develop what is there. But much seems to come down to that often elusive quality called luck.

The main issue I have with drilling in Paraguay is the opportunity cost. There appear to be much better odds of success in developing its assets in Argentina. The rewards may be lower but so are the risks.

Keeping the figures really simple. If it's currently generating US$2 million in free cash flow per month then a complete disaster in Paraguay will set it back six months in terms of developing its other assets. That's not exactly a catastrophe. And that's assuming a complete disaster. Should the well prove the existence of commercial formations of oil and gas then a future farm-out could be possible. And let's not forget, this is in an area where there has been very little exploration. It's quite likely that the data produced by drilling a well will have a commercial value in terms of impacting the value of its acreage.