Member Info for Sturm

Kestas, Cash from operating activities 3,383.

Expanding production & drilling to fill is investment in future cashflow.

7 million USD net profit first half year. Market cap < 100 mm USD.

6,223 BOEPD H1. Exit rate: 13.500 BOEPD from 2 more wells waiting to be hooked up.

That's a lot of gas /well. Annual revenue if it's pure gas is around 40 million USD. NGL share is worth more, but tax is a pain. 2 more wells in Q1.

But the important point is: Has it finally dawned on management that they need to focus on maxing Cascadura? It certainly - for the freaking first time ever - feels like it.

If that's the case and they stay on track till we hit 200 mmcf (just in the plans) we're in for a golden run the next year - year and a half. IMHO and DYOR and so forth.

So.... they might end up with 12 - 15 wells @ cascadura (in the shorter term, to max the facility @ 200 mmcf) instead of 8 - 10 wells. Cheap wells btw. So... that's an annual net profit above the current market cap.

If people wanted a "buy the dip" signal, this is it.

Sounds like they figured out they've only got job right now - getting Cascadura to 200 mmcf and beyond.

Crazy that at company with nice profit (relative numbers) and drilling to fill has a market cap < 100 mm USD.

"we have decided to leverage the current drilling rig location and the installation of the Cascadura field flowline to drill two additional development wells from our Cascadura B site in the fourth quarter of 2024. This strategic shift will replace the previously planned two Coho wells"

With TXP, it's been "never say never" since November 2021.

However, they're now making money (> 3mm USD/Q1) but the company is valued at < 100 mm USD. And that's with 2 drilled wells, just waiting to be hooked up (and some paperwork).

That's a compelling risk/reward IMHO. Management discount is too big right now.

That the TXP board even considered buying Trin at a point where TXP has 1 billion USD exploration/CAPEX in the "to-do-list" and 0 cash just says a whole lot about the size of the board and the (lost) ability to execute what's really important (Cas > 200 mmcf). Right thing would be to buy 10% of Trins stock and then make the offer - and that would be mid/late 2025 at the earliest and hopefully with a TXP SP of > 2.5 CAD

Now it's a complete clusterfock. Just like the "we're holding the gas... because we want a higher price, than we negotiated"... It's really horrible - and I honestly don't know how much is the BoD responsibility and how much/little PB has to say in those 2 matters. Probably most of this comes down to a clueless BoD that's completely out of touch with the shareholders. All IMO ofc and shamelessly biased.

Odd, my post was deleted. I wonder what's going on with the BB police here...

Ofc Trin BoD has to recommend an offer that's 10% higher. Also means that TXP would have to up the original offer by 20% plus what the TXP share has dropped since the offer. So effectively 40 - 50% in an all share bid. I can't see that happening, unless the AGM lesson wasn't enough. So I hope we can get our own BoD trimmed and they can focus on getting Cascadura to 200 mmcf and beyond - in their spare time, they can play around with the 1 billion USD exploration targets instead of looking for M&A options.

Anthony Brash explains very well in the interview why more oil (from Trin) is a bad thing and not synergy. Increased complexity and increased costs - you can count on those two effects. Synergy? Nah.

"Do the taxes on gas production make it more attractive to invest in than oil?

There is a government royalty of 12.5% for gas production that was introduced a few years ago, which the oil producers pay. That is why bpTT got rid of their oil assets. You make more money off of producing gas. Additionally, not only is it more economical producing gas, you don’t have to work over gas wells, whereas in an oil well, there are always workover jobs that need to be done on a regular basis."

SimonT - I think shareholders dread that PB and JW consider raising the TXP bid (despite the spanking they got on the AGM) and hence fear further dilution. It also signals that the major shareholders of Trinity aren't trustworthy and that the board isn't able to line up the ducks. Who wants to merge with that chaos sh.t-show?

BB clown and that alternate reality is always entertaining, Rylidan :)

20,624 fiscalized up to the 23rd - very strong numbers :)

You never know with PB and JW. But considering the bashing at the AGM I sincerely can't see TXP coming back with an improved all-share offer. Hopefully the board will reduce itself by 2 or 4 people and the rest can alternate in giving PB a daily call to remind him of his ONE job: Get Cascadura to 200 mmcf/day and then beyond. No more detours, no more fockups, pls!

Well, any new investor should honestly think that the management considered the TXP price to be fair, when they chose to offer an all-share bit for Trin. That's a logical and sound POV.

So that fuels the question: What isn't the management telling about TXP? Why is it not worth more?

I honestly understand why people are selling. Even though I think the price is bonkers. But my risk profile is high and I think Cascadura will end up performing ok. But for a new investor... might be better options out there, with less risk and first of all with more trustworthy leadership.

"Selling appears to be drying up".... that didn't age well.

G_G_G... really? "Even better would be a t/o from a US based company"

a) What price do you think a takeover would result in?

b) What SP do you think is fair?

c) What is your expected exit day from #PTAL? Or target SP?

Looking forward to your reply.... hope it's more than just random numbers.

Willis, in this case you get paid 13% or something per year in yield at this price. Regardless of the SP it's a great share to just hold. I think my return on invested capital is >33% per year in pure yield; I just wish all my shares had the same performance :)

I'm confident it'll be better and there's no reason to act on impatience here.

100% agree Trek, and what I've been saying for a long time. There's 0 synergi (some cost savings are not true synergi, that's efficiency, not synergi) - and (much) more oil in a gas based company doesn't add value, but just complexity. They really need to slim that board; it's really bad for a company - Board members get bored and/or want to prove their worth so they come up with silly takeover & development plans and forget they have ONLY 1 JOB: Get PB to execute on his 1 job: Bringing Cascadura to 200 mmcf and then beyond. Then I'll be able to accept some degree of focking around (still by a much smaller board though).

G3 I've also mailed them my concerns. You can't inform the market about BB and then stop doing them without informing the market; it's bad IR. But I'm sure I'll get the usual useless blah blah blah answer I get, asking about this.

Re. the river (one of the reasons I'm tempted to buy more despite the lack of focus on shareholder value creation): They've had a SUPER start on Q3. Usually water levels will not be critical (IF! at all) until mid august; which means - if the water level is low - that barges will travel will less oil. It does NOT mean they'll stop producing. We might get a raised guidance with the half year report (I know I also expected this in 2023; but I didn't see the century record drought coming. Very unlikely to happen twice in a row, 0.01 * 0.01 is not much of a chance/risk).

G_G_G they have decommissioning liabilities of 125 mm USD - but the assets they bought 2(?) years ago (with the liabilities attached, hence super cheap) were brilliant and overdelivers and the SP is up 800% or something in 2 years. So I suppose people think it's expensive because of the jump in SP; but looking at production, targets, management skills in acquisitions and cash flow it's pretty obvious (IMO) that it's still very cheap. Just compare the numbers to $PTAL and keep in mind risk is smaller for $VLE.

Oh, that would be +20 K BOPD :)