Member Info for Sturm

Maybe he's got a tap on his shoulder. Only half the directors should make it to the combined company and since cascadura is "drill to fill" they might have found someone more capable at Trin for what's coming.

Looks like AI generated content. Peak so far: Yes. But peak-peak in 2025; peak-peak-peak in 2026... AI FTW.

O/T: Any other companies out there (not solo AIM listed) that come close to #PTAL with regards to EV/EBITDA ?

What's your favourite breadwinner for the rest of 2024?

Regardless of my opinion re. the Trin takeover, it's obviously much too cheap now. It closed at 0.54 CAD in Canada - that's clearly silly cheap. Let's hope they're progressing fast on the pipeline so we can have an early hook-up - same with the 2 new CO-1 wells.

We might get a sell-off from people after the merger is done. Really hard to tell IMO. But some of the risk and uncertainty will disappear and hopefully give us a higher SP once the dust has settled. We're still 15-20% down since the deal was made public so I guess the first 10% at least should come easy. Hard to tell. But even the Trin detour can't hold TXP down if results in September are as expected.

Geld, if only management/BoD had focused on maxing out Cascadura, we'd be past that already (IMO); we'll still hit 200 mmcf in 2025 though. Try 200 million shares and 150 + million FCF (maybe 75 net profit?) and tell me what the SP should be? And ATH is around 3 CAD, albeit at lower share count. 300 million shares and twice the CAPEX makes the road back to ATH (per share, not market cap) much longer. IMO we'll get to 3 CAD faster without TRIN, not only due to share count, but also CAPEX.

Maybe Trin will prove its value down the road, but we're IMO talking 2028 or something like that; which is a much longer time horizon than investors (especially AIM) have.

G_G_G you didn't know TXP 2 weeks ago and have been a shareholder in even shorter time.

You don't know the history of the company and clearly you haven't watched management presentations. So

I'm honestly not going to give you much credit when it comes to TXP shareholder sentiment and what drives the SP.

Without this TRIN detour I'd say 3 CAD / 1.8£ was definetely possible (again) in 2025, once 200 mmcf is reached. And you're talking about 60s. I guess that says it all: I'll prefer being back to 1.8 £ instead of having 60p after "a solid number of wells drilled".

GTE SP has nothing to do with the reverse split and everything to do with the fact, that they're returning capital to shareholders via huge buybacks instead of dividend - and had nice results at Arawana etc.

I wonder why you think it's worth more owning 1 out of 10 shares instead of 10 out of 100. Buying or selling 1% of the company is the same price. I think you forgot why you wanted the reverse split in the first place (uplisting, which isn't happening) and are now so focused on the means to this end, that it's become a goal in itself.

G_G_G: I'm not talking about raising cash, that's your narrative (which I'm responding to). TXP doesn't need cash to continue the journey. You're talking about how much cash Trin brings (irrelevant), but TXP is buying TRIN in an all share deal at a time when the SP is seriously underrated and far, far, far from ATH.

That's bad governance. It's like when my sister tried to pursuade me that she earned 100£ from only paying 200£ instead of 300£ for a pair of boots; which I expected would go on sale for 50£ a few months later. IF and only IF TXP needed cash, then acquiring cash in this manner is bonkers.

In this case, timing is IMHO crucial. While Trin (and certainly the tax asset) is valuable, I doubt that the synergi will be there, since true synergi rarely is. Here they're IMO confusing cost reductions and diversification with synergi - and IMO they're adding higher risk through a bigger focus on oil; not less. They have more than enough on the plate and a billion dollar exploration program the next decades. My issue isn't primarily about Trin, it's more about the timing, the derived price and the lack of focus (and broken promises) from TXP management. Trin is going nowhere fast alone, unlike TXP.

When is the wall of cash... Will I still get capital returned late 2025?

G-G-G TXP doesn't need cash to boost Cascadura to 200 mmcf. IF (!) they needed cash, I'd rather have them dillute directly instead of paying 15 million USD for the 10 million Trin allegedly has in the bank or is making (allegedly) in 2024. What's the point in a 1:1.5 share deal, if your dilluting for the takeover candidates money? It's a moot argument; they're not developing faster bco. Trin cash. I really don't understand why anyone would suggest it's a smart or efficient way to raise cash. It's not. Trin might be a long term asset bco. the tax; long term being the key word. Paying with underpriced assets during a high growth phase is just plain stupid. It's IMHO so stupid that it makes the market fear what TXP mgmt isn't telling us.... Plus it's oil (In Trin I'd rather have gas and I think quite a bit of LTH's agree on this). Paying premium price with underpriced assets... that's not great management.

G_G_G - maybe it's simply because the deal isn't so good. Mainly since it's timed to perfect imperfection. And because mgmt isn't doing what they should, i.e. max out Cascadura sooner than ASAP.

Tobin, you need to revisit #PTALs investor presentation. AFTER dividend AND buybacks, they'll generate 1 billion. USD the next 10 years. The work/CAPEX on the riverside is a drop in the water...

TXP is issuing 25% more shares. That's the number to go with. If you pay 25% in VAT you'd never argue that you're getting 80 cents worth of goods on the dollar. You're paying 25% extra.

If TRIN had 0 million in the bank, we would not pay 1.5 TXP share per Trin share. You could argue that the 10 million in the bank actually costs 15 million.

Guess I have to repeat this many times: If (!!!) TXP needed cash, they could dilute by selling shares to the market instead of swapping shares with TRIN. TRIN, on the other hand, has (AFAIK) failed big to raise capital - wonder why?

Re. #PTAL: There's TRUE synergy in that acquisition. Not only are they producing 900 BOPD at a modern facility that can handle 5.5K BOPD, and has wells booked, but ALSO they're able to blend the heavy oil from Bretana with lighter oil, which reduces their overall costs (/increase sales price pr barrel) AND open up for increased lucrative delivery to Iquitos. Furthermore, it's close to Block 107 with 600 million barrels as best estimate... I wouldn't be surprised if the net profit effect over the next 10 years is ++ 100mm on a 5 mm investment. So... is Trin also going to 20x the investment in 10 years?

I'm not arguing that TRIN isn't a bad asset or acquisition per se, but the timing is awfull and the dilution not needed so the price is too high and any scaling is way into the future. And the "synergy" is likely management BS - it's certainly not expected, based on generel studies and definitively not on TXPs succes track record.

SS: "Why would PB an the Team do this if they didn't at least believe it was good deal for TXP". Right.... take a look at the latest 2 dilutions if you want some examples of PB not acting in LTHs best interest. "Vanity" comes to mind as the best reason why they're moving for this acquisition now. "Power hungry"? That, or as I've flagged earlier; since the timing is so utterly stupid (IMHO), maybe T&T officials asked them to fix TRIN or suffer death by bureaucrazy - or at least not get any approvals on anything. With the huge board in mind, they're getting bored and making random suggestions, since they have the spare time to make big, big, big plans for a company with (still) a very small balance sheet?

I can't give you a logical reason. I can only wonder.

I was hoping to see some shareholder return end of 2025. How do you think that prediction looks now? When is the wall of cash coming, that will flow over the TXP costs and hit the shareholders with delight?

Silly argument. TXP pays for the cash Trinity ‘brings’; it’s not free. TXP might as well dilute the existing base by 20 million shares to ‘bring’ more cash to the bank. But why would they? It’s not needed to move TXP forward.

The tax asset is a dead asset. And it's the most usefull thing TXP is buying. Rest is just noise and BS the next years; bought with shares that's basically giving a part of TXP away for two - three times less than it's worth.

Study after study puts the failure rate of mergers and acquisitions somewhere between 70% and 90%. A lot of researchers have tried to explain those abysmal statistics, usually by analyzing the attributes of deals that worked and those that didn't. Just google it. So you're really arguing that the TXP board has a proven track record when it comes to business combination and obtaining synergies? They don't. PB hasn't got the skill set.

It's management BS. They might save a little on BoD and management, but they'll create new management and middle management layers and report systems and feck around with other business systems. Plus you have the high transaction costs and costs of letting senior people go, so you have higher costs to begin with. The new TXP is just going to be more complex and will likely have the same high combined G&A.

Pfft... you could also compare this with #PTALs aquisition; 900 BOPD for 5 million USD including a facility to handle 5.500 BOPD. And with TRUE synergi: Oil from the new block will act like a diluent/blend and reduce costs + increase sales options.

Or, if you dare, you could look at Valerura's #VLE acquisition and the 6-7x they have reached so far (still underpriced) last year or two.

TRIN is a dead asset. It's tax; it will be there to buy in 9 months aswell. There's no true synergi since the business is very diverse. You could argue risk is smaller.... but is it? IMHO I'd rather have a ton of gas at fixed price instead of fluctuating oil, with high maintenance costs in a tax environment that's toxic. Sure, they might save a little on having one board instead of 2 and the same with listings, but you also have high transaction costs and will likely have a more complex, bureaucratic and inefficient organisation when it's done. Buying TRIN in an all-share deal, paying with underpriced TXP shares is just foolish. You really, really can't argue against that. TXP alone has a billion worth of CAPEX to spend before they've exhausted their exploration. You think we need more acreage in a high tax environment?

G_G_G with a EV/EBITDA of 2.4x, and free cashflow, they absolutely should.

I'll encourage you to ask #PTAL about why they're not maxing out BB's.

@somekindofnut - I didn't write about growth.

But my wealth will grow much faster from share buybacks than it will from (taxed) dividend. Unless you're not paying tax, compounding 10% vs 10% minus 42% is a HUGE difference. Double your money in 7 years or only add 50%??

It honestly makes no sense when a company is priced like PTAL with a EV/2024 Adjusted EBITDA of 2.4x NOT to buy the maximum number of allowed shares back - and use any excess funds for dividend (or acquisitions for that matter).

I prefer to pay tax when I need the money (buy selling shares), not when PTAL choose to pay dividend. EV/EBITDA of 2.4x explains perfectly why buy backs should be priority 1. Just look at what the oil majors are doing, and their EV/EBITDA is much higher. But then again, people don't understand what share buybacks do, so I should probably just refer to my earlier post here instead.

@Somekindofnut "but IMO growth companies shouldn't be buying back shares. Growth companies should be prioritizing cash"......... So... I suppose you're 200% against dividend since that's worse when it comes to limiting take over threats and access to raise capital at reasonable prices?

But I guess we also disagree on the premise: IMO #PTAL isn't a growth company. Its a high growth, cash flow positive and profitable company with 0 debt. Not a company trying to scale up with money from banks and investors.

Also, some PSU may hold more than 1 share. "each PSU will entitle the holder to acquire, for nil cost, between zero and two common shares. The "nil cost" is of course a mistake (should be e.g. last 10 days SP minus 10%, vesting in 3 years; that's good governance; nil cost is IMO not). The "between zero and two" common shares really doesn't help for clarity.

I know investor warrants are gone and I also know they missed the opportunity to buy them with cash before we got the last 60 million+ investor warrants released. The dilution from PSUs might be balanced by share buybacks, but... they're certainly not really buying back shares, but just controlling/mitigating dilution.

@LSE202020: Denmark.

Honestly, this is pathetic. It's not going to move the SP.

As a LTH with 42% dividend tax, I prefer at better balance between buybacks and dividends to get better compounding. They fail on this. I have around 0.1% of the shares in #PTAL; would like to increase this based on fundamentals, but post tax the return is better elsewhere, especially since it's risky Peru. At least half of any extra dividend should go to buybacks until they have a P/E of 4; then they can revisit the strategy.

"PetroTal intends to purchase up to 14,600,000 Common Shares, representing approximately 2% of its issued and outstanding Common Shares as at May 10, 2024, over a 12-month period commencing on May 24, 2024 and ending no later than May 23, 2025". What they've done so far is just to put a band Aid on the PSU and warrants gift-shop. Guess 2024 will be the same as 2023: "In 2023, PetroTal declared a total of $55.6 million in dividends and repurchased 11,326,806 Common Shares pursuant to the NCIB for a total of $6.5 million." BAD balance for LTH's.

"The Company believes that, at times, the prevailing share price does not reflect the underlying value of its common shares ("Common Shares") and the repurchase of Common Shares for cancellation represents an attractive opportunity to improve PetroTal's per share metrics and thereby increase the value of the Common Shares"

No poop Sherlock. Then bring a bigger axe and try harder!

Let's see. If North is dumping another million rest of May, where do you think it ends?