Member Info for Sturm

Rossannan, if you can't back your "facts" up by numbers, they're just opinions. And every opinion you've made has been counter-argued by facts.

14.642 is the average production (17/2) vs. 12.500 in guidance (it will be lower in Q2 and Q3 I assume). So that means the revenue so far is 14642*68*48 days = 47.791.488 vs. 12500*60*48 = 36.000.000.

How about that... 12 million so far (gross, but still - that's where the net profit comes from/what pays CAPEX).

Ross - I've never seen any post from you that was intended to be funny or displayed any sense of humour.

I don't think that post was ment to be either. So you can just "go back to hating on TXP."

Shame your "true colour" post was deleted. As well as the one calling you out first.

Ross, sad to see you reveal, that you just want to "go back to hating on TXP".

That's a sad motive.

Funny how other countries have signed ECHR and fewer or no have issues with immigration. Your politicians have just handled it extremely poor. And it's not about the present PM, but about those who came before him.

But I like the thinking - also means "it's never coming home" - you've lost again and again for so long. And that will continue - right? Things can't change. Not even if it's a new field, a new member on the board with money on the table, etc.

Past-present-future = stay downstairs.

Aligator, as a former teacher, do you think the "stay downstairs" thinking in UK is part of the reason why UK is in a poor state? It seems Brites find a special joy when people don't succeed and hope that others fail? With international experience, Dunder might also have a thought about this.

Why should it be binary? As Q3 demonstrates, there's no cash issue even without CR3 being commercial. It's very likely (5/6 is my estimate) that it is. They have 3 targets in the well, any of which can flow commercial rates.

And VAT money could appear any day now, Ross.

What's your TXP target? I think I've asked that 4 times now and I can't understand you're so unwilling to answer a single question.

Ross, my post was directed at Trek's concern about cash. We all agree there's no issue since FFO was positive and net result was negative bco DD&A. Which was higher than usual in Q3 bco CB.

What's your TXP target price?

Ross, yes — since I was discussing CB net production in my post to Trek, I can dispute the 20 MMcf/d figure for CB. That’s gross; net to TXP was ~13 MMcf/d.

Good to hear you’re not arguing there’s a cash issue. Since CB production is higher now and VAT is en route it would be hard to argue btw. Ofc. they could always use more cash, with the many prospects they have.

What’s your target price for TXP?

Ross,

They were not around 20 mmcf net. But it has increased since.

The RNS says there was $1.50m of additional depletion and depreciation versus the prior year — not that total DD&A was $1.50m. Total DD&A in Q3 was $4.02m. They were carrying a materially higher depletion charge and higher finance costs post-acquisition. The point is that accounting and capital structure were doing most of the damage to reported earnings.

So my points stand.

What about VAT?

What about cashflow at even 15 MMCF/d net?

What's your target price for TXP, Ross?

Q3 showed positive funds flow from operations despite a reported net loss.

The loss was driven primarily by a $4.0m depletion charge and higher finance costs, not cash burn.

Strip out the non-cash items and the business was already cash positive.

The issue wasn’t viability — it was accounting and transition drag.

And AFAIK they're around 20 mmcf now, so whatabout that?

Trek,

TXP likely starts to face genuine cash stress if Central Block net production falls below roughly 6–7 mmcf/d sustained. At 10 mmcf/d or higher, the company should comfortably cover interest and sustaining capex under current pricing.

They're currently > 20 mmcf. That means higher prices (if sustained; if they need CR3 at commercial levels to stay above 20 remains to be seen).

And the above doesn't include VAT. Which can appear any day now.

I wonder how they set the bid & ask. Clearly 8.50 is too low... and so is 9.00. Seems silly.

Cabral might be interesting in the junior gold space. Near-term producer with funding in place and real scale. Construction is underway at its fully funded Phase 1 heap-leach project in Brazil, targeting first gold in 2026, while the starter mine sits within a much larger gold district. Hopefully near-term cash flow and upside from hard-rock expansion and exploration (the joker).

Ross — yeah, a bit longer. Sadly, they’re compromised by their dividend-hungering major shareholder, and they honestly don’t give a damn about retail. I still have a nice profit, though. And it should have been clear to anyone that their dividend level wasn’t sustainable — I mentioned that several times. Still undervalued right now, IMO.

If you’re looking for good small-cap O&G management, Valeura’s Sean Guest is my portfolio’s favourite. I got in early/mid-2022. It’s still undervalued, with a nice joker on the table (Turkey gas). Same as #PTAL 107. Same as #TXP Cretaceous. I like companies with jokers on the books.

Ross...

#PTAL has made plenty of serious mistakes — on a par with TXP, frankly. Several were genuinely existential. Off the top of my head:

Paying dividends prematurely.

Failing to hedge massive oil volumes while carrying heavy debt, despite explicit warnings. That one is hard to excuse. Nearly killed the company and diluted shareholders massively.

The ONP oil sales terms — absurd. A structure that leaves risk on your books after the oil is supposedly “sold”.

Handing out an enormous number of investor warrants. A “substantially oversubscribed” raise — to quote Manolo — is not a success when it results in dilution far beyond what was required.

Issuing a high-cost bond that was roughly four times larger than needed, supposedly to fund acquisitions. No acquisitions followed. They didn’t even buy back the investor warrants (around 300m, IIRC).

Promising to drill Block 107 at IPO, then repeatedly failing to deliver. Year after year of “next year, Rodney”.

And as for the TRIN acquisition — I still struggle to see how anyone thought that was smart for TXP. No synergy, just added complexity layered onto the same cost base.

Central Block, by contrast, is a masterclass in synergy — exactly what a good acquisition should look like.

Ross...

The question isn’t who’s felt luckiest over the last 20 months; it’s whether the current price reflects the forward risk/reward. Repeating “9p is about right” and invoking a vague risk of “going to zero” doesn’t make the case unless you explain how that happens — mechanically and financially.

I’m not dismissing risk; I’m explicitly modelling it. If CR-3 fails, downside is limited to where we are now. If it lands even mid-case, the valuation moves materially. That asymmetry is the whole point. Calling that “going to zero risk” without showing a credible path to insolvency is assertion, not argument.

Time will tell — but time tends to reward those who quantify probabilities, not those who rely on being “lucky”. If you have better things to do than explain your argument, that’s fine — but then don’t expect “trust me, I’ve been lucky” to carry any weight.

Ross...

I’m impressed by your resolve. Never has someone been asked to verify their argument so many times, yet responded only with “what about this, look over there.” A masterclass in deflection — I think you’re even an inspiration to Trump. Or perhaps you studied under him.

Ross....

That’s a mischaracterisation, but exactly what anyone could expect from you. How's it going with answering the 14+ questions you've been asked to prove your POV?

CR-3 isn’t about “short-term success”; it’s about re-rating optionality. The company can service debt and operate without CR-3 — what CR-3 changes is how quickly and how decisively the balance sheet and equity narrative improve.

Calling it a “coin toss” ignores the asymmetry. A failed well caps downside near today’s valuation; a commercially successful well materially shifts cash flow, probabilities, and pricing assumptions — as we’ve just shown numerically. That’s not a gamble, it’s a skewed payoff.

Saying “9p is about right” simply restates the current price, not a valuation. The market isn’t declaring CR-3 worthless; it’s withholding value until data arrives. That’s uncertainty pricing, not proof the reward is inadequate.

If CR-3 lands anywhere near the mid-case, the maths moves quickly. If it doesn’t, value drops back to where it is now. That’s exactly why this isn’t a binary survival bet — it’s a de-risking catalyst with disproportionate upside.

Just repeating: Brent @ 68 = 100.000 EXTRA USD in revenue EACH DAY vs. budget.