Member Info for Stockable

As oil edges up to the late US$40s per barrel, it might be worth remembering that SPT is calculated on a calendar quarter average daily price realised per barrel. With reform of the SPT regime due to kick-in on 1st January 2021, the oil price appears to be in a sweet spot for Trinidad’s oil producers. And Trinity seems to have played these reforms well. It hedged some 46% of its 2019 exit production levels for H1 2020 but then decreased that figure to 28% for H2 2020. Over the last two months, WTI has averaged under US$41 per barrel. So it seems unlikely to average more than US$50 per barrel for the calendar quarter (Q4 2020). And, of course, SPT will only be payable when the realised oil price reaches a daily average of US$75 per barrel for a calendar quarter from 2021. It’s also sitting on some US$244 million in tax losses as at the end of 2019 which mitigates most of its profits against Trinidad’s Petroleum Profits Tax. The bottom line is that it now appears to be highly cash generative.

Rewarding success is not something I have an issue with but, according to President's 2019 Annual Report, Peter Levine received a 14% increase in his remuneration for the year to US$670,000 (Annual household income per capita in Argentina for 2019 was US$3,765). From what I can understand, he has a raft of business interests. Just how much time he devotes to the role of Executive Chairman of President, I do not know. To his credit, and unlike most other senior managers of AIM-listed resource stocks, he has a great deal of his own money on the line. However, I cannot help but think that dividing the role of Executive Chairman would make a lot of sense. Levine would still have a hands-on Chairman's position but an experienced CEO could be brought in. This would, of course, cost shareholders no more money as a division of roles would also see a division of remuneration. At the same time, Levine could still make a very valuable contribution but as a Chairman.

More broadly, I sense there may be a problem with it being a quoted company but with many of the characteristics of a private company.

President’s recent drilling campaign has got off to a positive start and may well augur good results to come. What concerns me is time. The oil industry, in general, appears to be facing a rapidly advancing green energy onslaught. Simply an opinion, but the COVID pandemic seems to have accelerated established trends, such as more people working from home. And also the move away from oil. I’m unsure what President can do to deliver in the short to medium term. Its licence in the north of Argentina runs until 2050 but does that add any value when one puts the scale and speed of change into perspective? For example, the UK will ban the sale of most new petrol/diesel cars by 2030. To its credit, President is building its assets/infrastructure in the south of the country. And for sure, Argentina has an energy deficit. So the company has a relatively strong internal market for both its oil and gas. But it keeps coming back to time. Will it ever pay a dividend? Will it be sold and for what price? In the meantime, the world is going gangbusters to get off of oil. Frankly, I viewed the oil industry much like the tobacco industry. In long-term decline but in a position to reward shareholders. What I failed to understand was the speed of the decline in the oil industry as well as the lack of barriers to entry. Drilling a hole in the ground and then extracting and selling the oil/gas is relatively easy compared to establishing a successful brand of cigarettes. I’m beginning to think that oil stocks need to be viewed much like annuities. Forget about selling the business. How much can I get from it each year in cash? Incidentally, that seems to be how the oil industry's senior managers largely view things. As it stands, I am not convinced that there is a clear financial exit for President’s shareholders.

The acquisition of 2D/3D seismic from Heritage Petroleum is, in my opinion, a very positive move for Trinity. It dovetails with the company's use of innovative technology, such as SCADA, to reduce its operating costs. The only issue I have is with the price. Today's RNS gives no indication of the cost of acquiring this data. For sure, it's very valuable and will almost certainly add value to Trinity. But I'm eager to know what the company is paying for this asset.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that Touchstone has just raised US$30 million in a placing (At a modest discount). Of course, it's targeting gas rather than oil. But reform of the SPT system seems to be a catalyst for greater interest and investment in Trinidad's energy sector.

For sure the price of oil has nosedived since President bought its Rio Negro assets in September 2017. However, as it pointed out in today’s presentation, it has managed to grow its 2P reserves in that field by around 42% since its acquisition. So even though it has been in production for some three years, it has still managed to develop its core (Most profitable) assets quite substantially. Interestingly, it also pointed out the strong local oil refinery demand for heavier oil (Of the type produced from its Puesto Guardian field). So it looks set to drill there in 2021. My understanding is that its relationship with Trafigura may give it greater scope to extract a higher price for the oil produced in that field. Importantly, the concession runs to 2050 and the mandatory work has been completed. So it’s not facing any deadline issues.

Incidentally, that Trafigura (16% shareholding) link seems to be kicking in more broadly. As it pointed out, there were no shut-ins as a result of this year’s series of crises. It still had a buyer for its output - Trafigura.

What irks, is the collapse in the share price from around 7.5p at the time of the Chevron acquisition to about 1.47p as of today. On an EV/2P basis, it looks far less expensive than its peers at just US$1.9 BOE. It’s also worth noting that its net debt is down some 60% compared to H1 2019. Basically, it appears to be managing what it can manage reasonably well, and building the business, but it's getting hit by the low oil/gas price environment coupled with poor investor sentiment towards Argentina.

Not entirely sure whether most investors grasp just what a fickle business Gold mining can be: Jurisdiction, technical issues, environmental problems, community groups, etc. All conspire against Gold miners. Even the veins of Gold are sparse and often difficult, expensive and dangerous to exploit. Possibly the easiest way to view it is in terms of the amount of Gold that has already been extracted. According to the World Gold Council, the entire world's existing supply of Gold at the end of 2019 would have created a cube with sides of around 22 metres each. In my view, holding a portfolio of Gold mining stocks in order to exploit the theme of rising Gold prices makes a great deal more sense than major exposure to any single mining stock. Too much can go wrong. I hold individual Gold mining stocks (All producers and no explorers) and they give me exposure to a variety of mines and jurisdictions. To that, can be added GPM. I am still bullish about the prospect of Gold (And Silver) but, in my opinion, it's foolish putting all of one's eggs in the same Gold basket. A collective investment can give a much broader exposure and that includes exposure to stocks on a variety of bourses.

Just took a look at how identibase is viewed on Trustpilot. You appear to be quite right. There are many disgruntled customers and it's rated as poor. I noticed there was mention of "Technical issues which has caused a short term backlog". That appears to relate to a new website. But, in fairness to the company, it seems to have gone out of its way to address any failings. Examining its responses and it's providing answers to virtually all the questions that are being posed. It's not sending out a blanket reply. As an investor, I would rather it get on and confront its problems and that's what it seems to be doing. For sure, if this is a systemic issue that cannot be dealt with, then that's far more serious. But the problems they appear to have are at least being addressed.

As for issues raised in the audit for the year ended 31st December 2019. From what I can understand, a "Material uncertainty" was highlighted by the auditors post-period. That related to the company having to seek a waiver from its lenders should COVID-19 seriously hit its operations. But, as we can see from its recently released interim report, its trading position proved robust for the first half of 2020 and net debt only marginally increased to £18.1 million at 30th June 2020 (£17.8 million at 1st January 2020). According to the company, "As at 30 June 2020, all covenant requirements were met with significant headroom across all three measures". And, of course, it has resumed paying dividends. In my view, it does not give the impression of going bust.

The jurisdictional risk was the main reason why I sold my holding of PAF. And it’s still jurisdiction that makes me wary of getting back into the stock. That said, PAF is now in a strong operational position. For example, it has invested heavily in its tailings retreatment plants (South Africa has a chronic problem with its historic mining dumps). More specifically, some 44% of Pan African’s output now comes from its low-cost and low-risk tailings operations. Incidentally, it’s my understanding that the company is yet to exploit third-party tailings. It’s also in the throes of planning to install a solar photovoltaic plant at Elikhulu and so reduce its dependency on Eskom. At the same time, there is much scope for near-mine development while Egoli looks set to go into production by 2023. It’s also worth pointing out that the financing of Egoli has been constructed so that it doesn’t impede the company’s ability to continue paying dividends. Basically, the business comes with jurisdictional risk but, to some extent, that’s mitigated by its relatively low-risk operational model. I’m still mulling it over.

Its costs for the period are up but the recent trading update does not differentiate between those costs. They are grouped together and include investment in new technology, marketing costs to attract “High-value new clients” as well as variable costs related to higher levels of trading activity. Even though its operating income is expected to be ahead of guidance, its costs are expected to be higher than forecast. I suspect that the stock price reaction has been muted due to the market not knowing what’s driving those costs. Is it spending to replace its customer base or is it investing in new technology and building the business? After saying that, as it points out, it has increased its active client base and has also increased net trading revenue across all areas of its operations in H1.

Today's RNS clarifies the company's position. From what it states, small onshore producer relates to a less than 2,000 BOPD figure for each asset/licence. It's not total production of 2,000 BOPD. The company also clearly says that this reform also covers its offshore (Mature and small production) fields. Put simply, it seems to be saying that SPT will not impact it until the average oil price for a quarter reaches US$75 per barrel. All its current assets/licences - both onshore and offshore appear to be covered by the reform. That strikes me as very good news.

It may not have been wholesale reform but the SPT system has been reformed. The Budget proposals lift the imposition threshold from US$50 per barrel to US$75 for fiscal years 2021 and 2022. This is due to come into force from January 1st 2021 and will then be reviewed at the end of 2022. For sure, it only appears to relate to small onshore producers but it's definitely a move in the right direction. However, something I noticed, was reference to "Mature fields". The changes will impact onshore producers but "Mature fields" could include offshore production - some 45% of Trinity's production is from mature offshore fields. So, clarification of what is meant by "Mature fields" might be useful.

There will also be a review of the Petroleum Taxes Act "With a view to simplifying the existing oil and gas fiscal regime and making it more competitive to investors".

Certainly a positive move for Trinidad's oil industry.

crl123, inclined to agree with most of your comments. Especially the final point. The market does not seem to be pricing in any major reform of the SPT system. That said, this is an out of favour sector. While at the junior producing end of the oil and gas market, there is little coverage by analysts. Maybe any significant change will have to be enacted before it can be priced in.

As yet, I’m not invested in Golden Prospect. But it certainly interests me. Firstly, it’s not an index tracker. It’s small and flexible and so is not under pressure to find a home for its money - with liquidity being a prime concern. Taking a closer look at what it holds and there appear no truly awful companies in its top ten holdings. As with most Gold/Silver mining stocks, it comes with jurisdictional risk - Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, etc. But the risk is spread and balanced by its investments in Canada, USA and Australia. It also gives exposure to a range of businesses going from established producers through to advanced exploration and near-term developments. Most of its top ten producers are low-cost (Low AISC) except Westgold Resources. But the latter seems quite likely to experience falling costs as it includes “Project start-up capital” in its AISC and that looks set to decrease.

Importantly, it’s a closed-end structure so it can pick and choose when to buy and sell its assets - there’s no spectre of forced asset sales. And its on-going charges - Ranging from 1% to 1.25% appear reasonable.

Although I invest directly in Gold/Silver mining companies, I’m wary of the risks. It’s simply inherently risky - geology, jurisdiction, unions, community groups, etc. So collective investing in this area does have an appeal. Especially, giving the international nature of the business - it does give exposure to overseas-listed stocks but without the hassle. And there is also the awful chance of being correct about the theme - rising Gold and Silver prices. But investing in a mining company that has operational problems. The Gold price could soar but the company that you have invested in owns one mine and is now exploiting a low-grade deposit. The Gold mining stock and the price of Gold could move in opposite directions.

Not suggesting that this is the only reason for President’s low share price. But Reuters has just reported on the scale of Emerging Market Equity fund closures. Using Morningstar data it points to an increase of 16% in the number of funds liquidated this year compared to the same period last year (51 v.44). Poor returns/outlook, as well as a lack of critical mass (There appear to be too many small funds), seems to be the main reasons. As a slight aside, Argentina (Amongst others, including Turkey) is struggling to maintain a presence in the MSCI Emerging Market Index. Yes, I know that it’s London listed but I suspect that it’s also getting caught up in that general move out of Emerging Markets.

It might be the result of Alberto Bailleres’ controlling interest and proprietary approach. But Fresnillo’s CEO was paid a tad under US$1.2 million in 2019. That’s quite modest by big company standards. It's large enough to attract the right talent but not too large to attract the wrong talent. At the last AGM, the Remuneration Report was supported by 99.56% of shareholders. Even with Bailleres (indirectly) controlling around 75% of the stock, that still seems quite impressive. Interestingly, the topic of executive remuneration was mentioned in the 2019 Chairman’s statement regarding its importance in restoring public confidence. To its credit and unlike many London-listed resource stocks, it has not created a share-option gravy train for its Directors.

In the interview, Bill Brodie Good, Alien’s Technical Director, made no mention of any of the company’s assets having or even planning to have a JORC-compliant report. He also gave no time frames or costings (Will it raise money via a placing at a discount to the market price?). The broad impression I got was that Alien is planning more drilling and possibly even buying more assets. Incidentally, its current assets are almost entirely in Mexico and Australia with a minority interest in a Russian project. It’s difficult to see any synergies. Based on the presentation, I simply would not invest in Alien.

As for Jim Rogers, I suggest that investors watch the interview. In my opinion, Rogers makes some very good points, such as “Stay away from hot tips” and “Do your homework”. Based on his comments, I think it extremely unlikely that he would even consider investing in Alien Metals.

Finally, Zak Mir’s analysis rests upon the movement of the stock price. It’s a technical analysis that is open to interpretation. Incidentally, he gave no idea about the spread that the stock incurs or the levels of liquidity. Buying into Alien Metals may be easy but how difficult is it to dispose of the stock?

In terms of Alien being the best junior silver play on the London market, I have no idea. But for me, the company is uninvestable. And it’s not a pure silver play. The company is focusing on silver, amongst other metals, including iron ore and copper. Finally, according to its June 2020 presentation, it’s also looking at projects in Asia and Africa. That strikes me as a very expensive logistical enterprise - hotels, flights, etc.

Alien Metals (UFO) is not a company I am familiar with but I certainly would not compare it with Fresnillo. The former is an explorer and the latter a dividend-paying producer. Incidentally, UFO has raised cash in every year bar one since 2014. If it does go into production that will probably be many years down the line and only after raising a great deal of money (Shareholder dilution). Incidentally, I noticed that Alien Metals is based in Mayfair, just around the corner from Fresnillo. I can understand why an £8 billion FTSE-100 company would want a prestigious London HO address. But Alien has never made a bean. It may go to explain why its administrative expenses are so high - for 2019, these were just over US$1 million (It employed only five people and yet its staff costs were US$472,000). And taking a glance at a research report prepared by Turner Pope (It arranged a placing for Alien in February 2020) in April 2020 and I noticed that none of its resource estimates is JORC-compliant. Fresnillo and Alien are, in my view, on different planets.

Trinidad’s general election is over and so it’s now time for action or possibly inaction. Reform of the SPT regime was promised by both major political parties. So, presumably, the change will happen. The big payoff for Trinity will probably come if the reform covers the offshore oil industry. But it’s unclear whether that will be the case. At this point, some form of time frame would be useful for investors.

Purely conjecture but at the end of last month, Peter Levine made it clear that the company was close to buying a renewable energy provider. In which case it pivots quite strongly away from oil, especially as it develops its gas resources at Estancia Vieja. Basically, it may be viewed more highly as an energy company rather than as an oil company. Particularly in a world where ESG issues play a larger role for investors.

You are right and I stand corrected. Laurence Read left Bezant Resources, with immediate effect, at the end of June 2020. But served as CEO for the company from January 2018. During which time he was also Executive Director of Europa Metals. Just to summarise the point I made, it must be extremely difficult for any executive to straddle two complex roles at two separate companies that require great focus and international travel.