Member Info for Stockable

Europa Metals is neither a company I am invested in nor a company I follow but I noticed from my Twitter feed that it has just raised £2 million (Before expenses) through a placing/subscription and there seem to be quite a few disgruntled investors. Incidentally, since 2014, it has raised AU$13.29 million with fundraisings every year since that date. So I thought I would look a little further.

Having taken no more than a brief overview, Laurence Read, Executive Director of Europa seems to have his arms full. According to the 2019 accounts, he is paid £75,000 pa (With six months notice), excluding expenses. Understandably, most investors labour under the assumption that the CEO works full-time on the company’s business. And, indeed, that is often the case. But Read is also Chief Executive of Bezant Resources. From its most recent Annual Report (2018), one can see that he was paid £126,925 pa (Excluding expenses). I would have thought that given the size of his rewards as well as his role, he was working full-time at Bezant. So, how many hours per work does he work at each company? Europa is focused on Spain while Bezant has assets in Zambia, Argentina and the Philippines. That seems to present obvious logistical problems. How much time does he spend travelling? Neither company has any revenue and so he probably has very little to actually manage, at least in terms of personnel. But surely, if companies like these are going to grow, they need very focused and dedicated managers whose time is used as productively as possible? Moreover, investors need to know exactly what efforts their employees are putting into the businesses they own.

Of course, it may not feed into Animalcare’s bottom line but I think that it’s, at least, worth considering. Rightmove produced a report on the UK housing market in June 2020. Amongst other things, the report sought to establish what buyers and renters were looking for from their next home: “Change to what they now want in their next home”. Access to or a bigger garden came out in front with some 63% of buyers and 59% of renters putting this as their prime consideration. In addition, some 22% of buyers and 29% of renters placed living in a pet-friendly home as their primary concern. Based upon this, I would suggest that pet ownership in the UK is likely to climb and so with it will the demand for veterinary products. The lockdown may have created similar trends in many other countries.

Incidentally, the demand for canine pets appears to have increased dramatically. And that has taken prices for these animals much higher. So presumably, owners will be looking at spending considerable amounts on vet bills. Having said that, with the prospect of mass unemployment, taking care of oneself may trump taking care of a pet. I still continue to hold the stock.

No longer am I an investor in the company. Not because I have lost faith in the management (Its Central Shaft project is on course to deliver). Not because of the long-term trajectory of Gold. Not because of the jurisdiction. It’s simply had a very good run and I think that it’s now overbought. When I first bought into the company, not only was it a high-yielder but also incredibly out of fashion. Times have changed and I try to change with the times. So it was time to move on. That said, I would move back into the stock at the right price and that could be on a pullback in the price of Gold.

Incidentally, the non-physical market for Gold is relatively easy to manipulate and I suspect that shortly a sizeable Gold futures contract will be dropped on the market at a suitably quiet time and Gold prices will fall dramatically. So, I thought it prudent to cut my exposure to Gold stocks. Longer-term, I’m still bullish about Gold but I suspect that its rise will be littered with engineered pull-backs and that will hit Gold stocks.

pickedpeck, as you point out, SA has major economic problems. It also has huge social and political problems. The combination was enough for me to sell my stake in the company. I still hold the management in high regard. But the jurisdiction is too problematic. Ironically, with rising ZAR Gold prices the company becomes more profitable but also more vulnerable. It may simply become too attractive to be left alone - trade unions, politicians, "Community groups", etc. may all demand a bigger piece of the pie.

Stating the obvious, I know, but it cannot up-stumps and relocate. Jurisdiction is everything.

For sure, it’s a gamble. But it’s an interesting each-way bet underpinned by an offer at 300p per share. If the bid goes ahead, shareholders are looking at being taken out at 300p. However, they are yet to know what the acquirers intend to do with the business and there is also the possibility of an increase in the offer.

Should the Russian authorities block the bid, then the stock price is underpinned by the sharp rise in Gold prices from the point at which the bid was made (US$1958 per oz). If the deal falls through, I think it’s unlikely that the stock will fall in value. So, in my view, there seems little point in selling at a discount to the bid price.

Confounded, valid points but the management gave me the very firm impression that design and planning for TGAL were well underway - with an emphasis on automation and labour-light. It certainly is a project that Trinity appears committed to going ahead with. The big issue is probably the cost and how it’s to be financed rather than any technical challenges. My understanding is that the total cost is in the region of US$100 million. When I asked how this was to be financed, I was told that it would be done in a way that doesn’t negatively impact current shareholders.

Incidentally, as at the end of 2019, Trinity had some US$240.2 million of tax losses with no expiry date. So from 2020 onwards, 75% of taxable profits will be sheltered from Petroleum Profits Taxes. Should reform of SPT encompass offshore production, I would have thought that it makes the development of TGAL, or even the acquisition of Trinity, a very attractive proposition.

Both of Trinidad's major political parties have pledged to reform the SPT regime. But taking a look at their manifestos and it seems fairly obvious that this is part of a broader range of reforms to get the energy sector moving. The present Government is proposing to lift the SPT threshold to US$75 per barrel for "Fiscal years 2021 and 2022 in the first instance" for small onshore producers. While the opposition is proposing “Complete reform” of the SPT regime (Within 90 days of its election to office) with a view to making Trinidad a more attractive place for direct investment.

It’s also worth remembering that Trinity has paid around US$17.8 million over the last five years (Up to the end of 2019) in SPT. And those were hardly wonderful years for oil prices - WTI ranged from a tad over US$73 per barrel to a low of just over US$28 per barrel. So this is certainly very good news for Trinidad’s oil sector. However, Trinity's growth is set to come from its offshore expansion. The reforms proposed by the governing party seem to relate to onshore production. Further clarity may be required.

It’s a funny old beast. It seemed to be on the cusp of achievement but events conspired against it with the collapse of both Argentina’s economy and oil prices and then getting hit by COVID and the consequent disruption to its drilling programme. That said, as its recent presentation illustrated, it’s now a low-cost producer. Its General and Administrative expenses were cut by 17% for the five months to the end of May compared to the same period in 2019. It has also reduced its Argentine operating costs - down 14% to US$16.9 BOE for H1 2020 compared to H1 2019. And that appears to have created a resilient model - for Q2 2020, it still managed a US$1 million net cash profit for the quarter even though oil prices collapsed. But the fly in the ointment remains production. It anticipates that production will average 3,000+ BOEPD for H2 2020. But gave no figures for the level of current production. That said, it will return to drilling in H2 2020 and has a drill programme in place for 2021 with the expectation of a substantial lift in its Rio Negro reserves. It’s also worth bearing in mind that it has the infrastructure in place for very profitable gas production from Estancia Vieja. But it needs volume to take it to another level. That’s key.

Incidentally, I agree with the comment made by NorthernMagic, Peter Levine indicated that it intends to enter the market for renewable energy but not in Argentina. The impression I got was that this was likely to be a near-term acquisition. Importantly, he also said that it had no intention of raising finance through a placing.

I would have thought that as an energy company rather than an oil and gas operator, it will probably merit a higher market valuation.

When compared to its peers, President appears to offer value for money. As it pointed out at its recent presentation, its EV/2P of just US$2.3 BOE compares very favourably to an average of US$5.9 BOE for a comparator group of 12 oil companies. For sure, this needs to be put into perspective but it’s now a low-cost producer with very little debt. Investors are getting quite a lot of bang for the buck in terms of reserves that will probably be monetised. And some 50% of those reserves are in its higher-margin Rio Negro assets.

Today’s RNS was, in my opinion, poor. But that’s a poor quarter and was flagged earlier this year. That said, its guidance both in terms of its revenue and Gold equivalent production for the financial year 2020 is the same as it was in March. And giving it some perspective, the company has no bank debt and managed to add US$3.2m in cash over the previous quarterly period, even after making a tax payment of US$2.9 million. As at the end of Q2 its net cash balance increased to US$29.2 million. The backdrop was a pandemic that has brought many companies to a standstill, including Anglo Asian’s refiners in Switzerland.

And, of course, it has four major near-mine development opportunities pencilled in from 2022-2024. So it does not appear to be post-growth.

Basically, I don’t think we are anywhere near pushing the panic button mode. It produces three metals: Gold, Silver and Copper. All three, in my view, have strong fundamentals. It’s profitable and pays dividends. For the moment, that looks like continuing but it definitely needs to widen its production base.

Last week’s update seems to show that the company is ticking over much as expected with its guidance of 290,000-300,000 oz of Gold production re-affirmed. But, in my view, it still needs to replace its flagging core production so the outlook for its two major near-term developments is crucial.

Very importantly, its Kekura project (172,000 oz of Gold for the first eight years and then 46,000 oz for the next eight years) is still on track for commissioning in late 2022. The company reported nothing that could delay the project. Considering the remote location (170 km from Bilibino by winter road), the appalling winter weather and its dependence upon transport routes with limited windows of operation, it’s vital to avoid delays. With the company looking to spend around US$107 million on the project in 2020, there must be no bottlenecks. Incidentally, Kekura comes with a surrounding licence area of around 1,500 square kilometres that it has only just begun to explore.

Highland’s Baley ZIF-1 tailings project (15,000 oz of Gold pa over 11 years) also appears to be on track for commissioning in 2022. That’s predictable overground production. Again, there seems no obvious reason why it should not be delivered on time and to budget - it built Novo and Belaya Gora from a standing start.

It’s also worth noting that both Kekura and Baley-ZIF are in Advanced Special Economic Zones and that gives major advantages to the company. Not simply tax benefits but also benefits in other areas such as fast-tracking the issuance of permits.

As I have said before, it's Russia-based and it produces Gold. So it comes with risk. But the company operates in three separate clusters and has a programme to upgrade/maintain its current producing assets while the above two projects come to fruition. It has, in my view, gone some way to mitigate the operational risk.

It could be viewed as a minor point but Pan African appears to be moving centre stage in tandem with increased interest in Gold. What does that mean? I suggest there will be more searches and postings via social media. If I search for #PAF on Twitter, the feed is dominated by references to the Pakistani Air Force. While the hashtag #panafricanresources produces material on the company, it’s lengthy and, for posters, uses up letters that could be utilised elsewhere. Such as expressing a view on the company. Easier said than done, I’m sure, but adding another final letter to its ticker code would allow the company to present itself more effectively and facilitate debate about the company. Better still, a name change.

All right, it may not be the most popular spot on the LSE bulletin board but this Asian focused (Excluding Japan) investment trust has delivered for shareholders over a long period. That includes around 71p of dividends from 2010 to 2020. It has paid continuous dividends since 2003 - Its final dividend has risen from 0.5p in 2003 to 4p in 2019. Around 30% of its portfolio is concentrated in four Asian technology stocks. In order of size, these are Tencent, Alibaba, Taiwan Semiconductor and Samsung Electronics. Over the past ten years, an investor could have bought at the peak price in any year and would still be in profit today and that excludes dividends. And, of course, it’s an investment trust structure - boring but reliable. For sure, it sells at only a slight discount to its net asset value but I would suggest that’s more of a reflection of the quality and liquidity of its underlying assets. Whether Asia in general and China, in particular, continues with its meteoric rise, who knows? But at the moment they appear to be in an increasingly strong position. And, longer term, technological innovation may come more from Asia than the US. Put crudely, in the past, the Americans built the technological track to fit their technological rolling stock. In the future the tracks may be built in Asia and, if that is the case, then it seems likely that so will the rolling stock.

Hi NorthernMagic, regardless of what anyone may think of President, it does seem to be rather subjectively valued by the market. As I write, on a price to sales ratio basis, President is at 0.91 while UKOG (2019 Production: 135 BOPD ) is on a ratio of 183.19 The former has a market cap of around £30.12 million while the latter is valued at around £39.02 million.

As comeonvog pointed out, this is an unloved sector and, I would suggest, an increasingly under-researched sector (While Argentina is an economically unloved country, at least for the moment). But I think that President should continue doing what it’s doing and building a business focusing on low-cost oil and increasingly gas. Around that benefiting from its operational gearing. It has its own pipeline to get gas out of Estancia Vieja. It owns assets that will allow increased production at little extra cost.

Having said all that, I have been an investor since it acquired the Chevron assets in 2017. Taking that as a starting point probably gives me a different perspective compared to many long-term shareholders. The company has grown substantially since 2017 but has faced two major external problems: Argentina’s economic woes and the collapse of the oil price. That’s reflected in the stock's performance. But, as I mentioned before, it needs a little luck - tailwinds rather than headwinds.

These are some of what I thought were the most important points from yesterday's Webinar. Firstly, Trafigura (Now owns around 16% of the stock) is not there just for show. Almost half of President’s reserves lie in its Puesto Guardian fields (Currently producing 350/400 BOEPD) but these are not as economically attractive as its fields in the Rio Negro. It sells its oil produced in Puesto Guardian at a discount to the Medanito price - there is a captive market. With Trafigura on board, there are now other options to get its oil to market at a more favourable price. More broadly, Trafigura also opens up the potential for export as well as further storage facilities. It's worth bearing in mind that the Puesto Guardian concession runs until 2050 so there is much to play for.

Secondly, most investors are probably aware of the US$45 per barrel floor that has been put in place for Argentine oil. But less well-known is the prospect of a US$3.5 per MBBtu floor for gas. Argentina has a major energy deficit and it appears determined to grow its domestic energy sector. So a floor for gas as well as oil prices seems, in my opinion, quite likely.

Essentially, Rob argued that on an EV/2P basis the company is grossly undervalued against its peers with a ratio of 1.5 (Average of 4.9). But what he skimmed over was this. In Argentina, unlike many other jurisdictions, the reserves auditor is rotated annually. The inference is that the reserves figure is probably more accurate than it is in most other countries and that could, in my view, alter the ratio quite significantly.

For H1 2020, the company made a “Net cash profit” of around US$4.5 million (Q1: US$3.5 million, Q2: US$1 million). The company was badly hit by the collapse in oil prices but there were no shut-ins. The upside to the collapse in oil prices is that the company will be able to drill more cheaply later this year. Its two prospective wells appear on track.

Simplistic possibly but I was left with the impression that it needs just a little luck (Momentum). And I still think that an exit rate of at least 4,000 BOEPD for 2020 is very likely.

Short and sweet could be one way of describing today’s General Meeting. Firstly there appears no ulterior motive for appointing Shore Capital as the company’s broker. There could be some synergies with it acting as a broker for Echo Energy (It was appointed in November 2019). But I get the impression that it’s more about effectively marketing the company. Very importantly, it’s not planning and has no need for any equity fundraisings for 2020. Little information was given about Trafigura’s intentions apart from what has already been said - alignment of interests, etc. Finally, it believes that the Argentine oil floor price of US$45 per barrel will kick-in in August 2020.

As Peter Levine made clear in last Thursday’s investor conference call, Trafigura is now not only a major shareholder in the company but it will also have a seat on the Board. In an interview with the FT in November 2013, when asked whether Trafigura intended to float Puma Energy, a company it purchased in 2000, Christophe Salmon who was then the CFO for EMEA but is now Trafigura Group’s CFO said: “We prefer the private model as it allows management to focus on business execution and growth rather than investor communication”. This may give some indication of the direction of travel.

When I last met the management in January 2020, they made it clear that their expansion efforts were completely focused on Zimbabwe. They were not looking outside the country. The main stumbling block for acquisitions seemed to be price. In their opinion, the prices offered were simply too high. There also appeared to be issues relating to the legal ownership of the assets they were offered.

A not so minor point that was revealed at the Proactive presentation was the financial impact on CAML of COVID-19. Nigel Robinson estimated that it has cost the company around US$200,000. But he then went on to point out that it would have contributed this amount to community projects anyway. The upshot is that the pandemic has had a negligible financial impact on the company. The cancellation of its final dividend was a result of the fear of a lockdown and the prospect of the company’s mines being placed on care and maintenance and had nothing to do with low commodity prices. Providing it's still operating, it appears able to comfortably continue to pay down its debt at a rate of US$3.2 million of capital per month.

Not entirely sure whether the market has grasped just how competitive Trinity’s cost base has become. For 2018, its consolidated operating break-even was US$29 per barrel. This fell to US$26.4 for 2019 and it’s now targeting US$20.50 (Including hedges) for 2020. It has even modelled for a base case oil price of only US$26.8 per barrel for the next 12 months and estimates that under that scenario it will have US$16 million in cash by May 2021.