Member Info for Sturm

“I was an idiot for not buying Amazon earlier.” Buffets list of "misses" is probably as interesting as his list of wins.

But if your minimum investment is 100 mm USD and you're aiming to stay below 10%, AIM is a waste of time :)

I think the best outcome for the share price is three CR-3 RNSs: first confirm tie-in, then give stabilised rates, then talk plateau and upside. Each step removes risk and lets the market re-price gradually. Dumping everything at once leaves upside on the table.

Knowing their usual communication strategy, I'm sure they'll bundle it into one :D

Just wondering: Is this the next "what about"?

GGG: How would you model forward FCF without a model? Or do you argue that Buffet would only ever buy shares in companies based on historic FCF?

Dunder, it was the value of the RNS / CR3 alone (not counting Karamat etc.).

Valuing CR3 at ~12p on a P/E of 3 is more or less equivalent to discounting the cash flows at roughly 25% IRR on a DCF basis (depending on the time frame). So that's pretty harsh :) So P/E of 3 /25% is my own go to for small cap - and totally subjective. The fun bit happens IF they at some point produce e.g. 60 mmcf across facilities at a fixed (higher) gas price - then I'd apply a P/E of mayby 6 - 8.

Dunder,

On stepped pricing that improves with volume and a conservative P/E of 3, CR-3 contributes ~$50m probability-weighted, or ~12p per TXP share, before any credit for follow-ons, VAT, or broader rerating, on these assumptions:

Net gas rates to TXP: 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 mmcf/d

Stepped realised gas prices (blended):

5 mmcf → $4.50/mcf

10 mmcf → $5.00/mcf

15 mmcf → $5.50/mcf

20 mmcf → $6.00/mcf

NGL yield: ~5% of boe, NGL netback $40/bbl

Forward multiple: P/E = 3

Shares outstanding: ~325m

FX: $1 = £0.78

Probabilities:

5 mmcf: 25%

10 mmcf: 30%

15 mmcf: 20%

20 mmcf: 5%

Failure: 20%

Market cap on success (per tier)

5 mmcf → ~$26m

10 mmcf → ~$58m

15 mmcf → ~$96m

20 mmcf → ~$139m

Probability-weighted market cap

0.25 × 26 = $6.6m

0.30 × 58 = $17.5m

0.20 × 96 = $19.2m

0.05 × 139 = $6.9m

Failure = $0

➡ Total ≈ $50m probability-weighted

Per-share value

$50m ÷ 325m shares ≈ $0.155/share

Converted to GBP ≈ ~12.0p per share

You know who.

I’m not assuming success at CR-3 — I’m explicitly pricing the range of outcomes, including failure. The inputs are deliberately conservative: 65% WI, Brent $65, low gas netbacks, a P/E of 3, and no credit for follow-ons, pricing uplift or VAT. The market pricing CR-3 near zero today reflects uncertainty, not a judgement on what the numbers look like once production data exists. And hardly the probability-weighted reward.

On conservative assumptions and a forward P/E of 3, CR-3 alone is worth ~£40–45m probability-weighted to TXP, or ~12–13p per share, with clear upside if results land toward the upper end.

GGG - hope you're right. We'll see.

I think the combination of the VAT receipts and even ~5 mmcf/d of incremental gas could be meaningful. That should give enough headroom to drill a couple of relatively cheap wells that are easy to hook up. By then the compressor should also be online, which would help throughput. If that lines up, the company could look very different by year-end.

CR-3 is clearly the first hurdle. If it delivers, the route forward is straightforward on rose petals. If not, there’s the option to perforate the Karamat zone. And if that also underwhelms, the VAT money becomes key to getting the wheels turning again.

Let’s see how it plays out. Maybe results in February, at the very least in the Q4 ER.

And why it's a random question: Debt serviceability is driven by total corporate cash flow and interest coverage, not by isolating a subset of production. Central Block cash flow existed in Q3 and counts fully toward servicing debt. Interest continued to be paid and there is no immediate principal repayment cliff. VAT recovery and expected gas price uplift don't even require drilling success. The figures show a tight balance sheet. They do not show unserviceable debt without CR-3 or Cas-4/5.

You owe me answers, Millstone. Do the work.

Rossannan, add this to the 14 questions you owe me answer to: How much time will you waste asking random questions this week on a share that you allegedly never had a win or a loss on?

You owe me answers, Millstone. Do the work. Dont waste our time with random questions when you're not answering any yourself.

You owe me answers, Millstone, aka mr. whatabout, aka crypto boy, the invisible knight.

Do the work. Dont waste our time.

Now you got your answer, go ahead an answer at least some of the 14 questions YOU were asked. Do the work.

Millstone,

Even if we accept your figures in full (Q1 non-CB ~4,317 boe/d falling to ~2,924 boe/d in Q3), that does not demonstrate that the debt is unserviceable without CR-3 or Cas-4/5.

Debt service is determined by aggregate cash flow, not by whether one subset of production declines in isolation. Central Block cash flow still exists, interest has continued to be paid, and there is no principal cliff forcing repayment.

More importantly, your argument implicitly assumes no offsetting factors, which is not realistic:

• VAT receivables of ~$8–10m are already on the balance sheet and partially settled — that directly reduces net debt and covenant pressure, regardless of drilling outcomes.

• Trinidad gas pricing is expected to reset higher — even a modest uplift materially improves cash flow on existing volumes, again without drilling success.

• Lenders care about interest coverage and trajectory, not whether production growth comes from CB or non-CB assets.

What your figures do show is that the balance sheet is tight and growth is constrained — that’s fair.

What they do not show is an inability to service debt.

If the claim is “the debt isn’t comfortable without CR-3 or Cas-4/5,” I’d agree.

If the claim is “the debt isn’t serviceable,” the numbers simply don’t support that — unless you assume no VAT recovery, no gas price uplift, and continued unmanaged decline across the entire portfolio.

That’s a downside scenario, not a base case.

Millstone, you're still behind on answering those questions. Stop being such a lazy c... do the work.

1) “What do you mean by ‘not serviceable’ — inability to pay interest, or just lack of comfort?”

2) “Which year do you believe Touchstone actually defaults if none of these wells succeed?”

3) “Why do you exclude VAT recovery when assessing debt service, given it directly reduces net debt?”

4) “At what level of VAT recovery would your debt-stress thesis no longer hold?”

5) “Do you assume Trinidad gas prices stay flat indefinitely — and if so, why?”

6) “How much incremental cash flow would a $1/mcf uplift generate — and why doesn’t that change debt serviceability?”

7) “Are you arguing Touchstone cannot survive, or that it cannot grow without new wells?”

8) “Do you accept that debt can be serviced but deleveraging requires success?”

9) “Why would lenders force a default when interest is covered and leverage improves via VAT or pricing?”

10) “What covenant specifically is breached after VAT recovery or price uplift?”

11) “Is there any non-drilling scenario under which you believe debt is serviceable?”

12) “Are Cas-4, Cas-5 and CR-3 equally necessary, or would success at just one suffice?”

13) “What specific cash shortfall causes insolvency after interest, VAT recovery, and gas price uplift — and in which year?”

14) At what brent level do your valuation model crumble?

No, crypto boys is a true millstone. Always comments and questions based on his negative ego echo chamber, where he's the invisible knight.

Never answers.

Millstone, you're still behind on answering those questions - I've added another.

1) “What do you mean by ‘not serviceable’ — inability to pay interest, or just lack of comfort?”

2) “Which year do you believe Touchstone actually defaults if none of these wells succeed?”

3) “Why do you exclude VAT recovery when assessing debt service, given it directly reduces net debt?”

4) “At what level of VAT recovery would your debt-stress thesis no longer hold?”

5) “Do you assume Trinidad gas prices stay flat indefinitely — and if so, why?”

6) “How much incremental cash flow would a $1/mcf uplift generate — and why doesn’t that change debt serviceability?”

7) “Are you arguing Touchstone cannot survive, or that it cannot grow without new wells?”

8) “Do you accept that debt can be serviced but deleveraging requires success?”

9) “Why would lenders force a default when interest is covered and leverage improves via VAT or pricing?”

10) “What covenant specifically is breached after VAT recovery or price uplift?”

11) “Is there any non-drilling scenario under which you believe debt is serviceable?”

12) “Are Cas-4, Cas-5 and CR-3 equally necessary, or would success at just one suffice?”

13) “What specific cash shortfall causes insolvency after interest, VAT recovery, and gas price uplift — and in which year?”

14) At what brent level do your valuation model crumble?

Oil above 70. That's pretty massive compared to the price last months.

I wonder if they hedge something here. At least it will have a significant impact on the cashflow.

Other oil companies look to be doing very well since the price began going up. Not here. Yet.

Brent @ 68 = 100.000 EXTRA in revenue EACH DAY.