The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Hey NorViking,
I really can't see onshore holding up the Anchois development, but in saying that it depends on what either the farm in partner and / OR CHAR management are trying to do.
BDC comments are informative in that I did not relook at the EIA RNS and understand the onshore inclusion, I just assumed due to the time scale present for onshore that it was not. It had obviously therefore been something that the board had been working on for some time.
I just remain rather stressed on cash runway and further dilution, but we are all signed up now so are very much in their hands.
But I agree on your "if", but surely the whole of Anchois, Lixus and Rissana do NOT have to be agreed in one deal: Operators have HAD a ruthless reputation in the past , but having worked for them for over +20yrs, the days of intent of bankrupting contractors (or partners) on finacials and delays on payments are very much long gone....so s it down to CHAR (their financials) and what they are trying to play.
The Moroccan Gov what gas, my bit is what they want to agree to pay ( they will have real influence in that imo).
CHARs business modle imo is flipping difficult to follow.
GLA
Rgds Sft
Remember if the onshore, following exploration, is deemed commercially viable, its CPR, FEED, Environmentals, FID then (secure financing) Sanction, equipment pipeline and contractor procurement and build....all in a year? Can't see that imo? Hence me agreeing with NorViking and others now.
It could be as Jim alluded that onshore derisks Rissana due to the geology, how this all marrys up into ONE all encompassing RNS will be intresting.
Rgds Sft
I suppose (hope), once they have signed the gas contracts and then the farm in, in theory they can then secure creditors to get them across the line.
I still feel (again hope, in trying to understand the finance logic) AP gone down the previous share raising route due to his previous experience with creditors in his old mining company, that he left over extended?
@ BDC is that to production? They have to strike onshore first of course, and have money to get there.
Which as NorViking and others ( me too now) feel will be all packaged in one?
Rgds sft
Ps that's not to say if AP had NOT invested, it may well have gone under but its been the consistent share placing that to date has kept the company solvent.
As others have said the 6% ers (2×) have come in with investments, so AP and the board have sold them something.
They could have come in on a credited loan or bond but the bought a pice of the dream just like us 😀
GLA
The 2x RNS's must be close. The farm in RNS will determine how the gas project(s) will be funded and give an indication on how much spare cash will be left to support the company untill there is a revenue stream comming in rather than out.
Then we will see if the market re valuation see's what we hope for I.e. the board still need prove they can derisk the current potential for further capital raising via share placing.
Is that why JOG dropped back? Was there farm in capital sufficient to not only pay for the development but keep them solvent to reach income????
Genuine question?
GLA, follow the numbers is my opinion.
Rgds Sft
Hey NorViking,
I am guessing (and really hoping) TotalEnergies remain the firm favourite.
Gas is a good energy transfer medium and significant expertise in new field development (West of Shetland and build of Shetland gas plant as a UK example), they have *presence in the country with petrol stations and renewable aspirations , they already have a relationship with Chariot in project Nour.
* https://totalenergies.com/morocco
Fingers crossed on a pivotal farm in RNS this year.
Rgds Sft
Hi NorViking,
Thank you for the conformation, I think it was you then that posted such before.
You could be right regarding tie-ing it in with the offshore development and this would probably encompass the exploration costs, or part of it, then we have to look at the all the further addtional costs and steps to get ONshore to production: Drilling, testing CPR, FEED, environmentals, FID, Sanction, equipment procurement, contractors, development etc etc) which has not been covered in the most recent raise and would need FURTHER investment.
So in balance its going to be the most cost effective way, is to group everything?
Everything being Anchois development, exploration of Lixus AND maybe the South of Rissana? AND now onshore?
I was leaning towards the onshore being Chariots own enterprise (seperate income stream) but as time goes by and considering Chariots cash runway you are probably right.
Rgds Sft
Hi NorViking, just for clarity are you saying that YOU actually heard AP say that the onshore licence (unproven gas field) was the reason why there is a delay? Or is this something that another had posted?
My thoughts have been that CHAR were going to exclude the recent (surprise) onshore licence announcement and speculative exploration (resulting in further share placement and further dilution) from the confirmed offshore find, so as to provide a seperate income revenue to support (not enough to fund) their other 2x "pillers" that continue to drain the remaining company bank balance!
Ps not forgetting they needed the last share placement to stop from running out of with in a limited time frame.
I still see the conformation (signed contracts) for the price to be paid on gas supply as the sticking point, as before, once that has been agreed and signed there is a legal requirement to issue a RNS.
Without knowing that; then financing / farm out can not proceed? I.e. partners cannot calculate investment vs return?
Ps: the 2nd RNS being the farm in also needs to provide sufficient runway cash to keep us liquid for 2 years ( offshore production, possibly not onshore production).
IMO.
Rgds Sft
Interesting artical:
"Shell Egypt, a subsidiary of the UK-headquartered energy giant Shell, has made a new gas discovery in an offshore block located in Egypt’s Mediterranean Sea. Stena Drilling’s drillship was used to drill this well, which is the first of three planned in the oil major’s current drilling campaign......"
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/shell-finds-gas-in-mediterranean-sea-with-stena-drillship/?utm_source=offshoreenergytoday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_2023-11-24
Rgds Sft
I occasionally look at PANR and also the associated LSE bb
On there a poster "Olderwise" placed a extract from PANRs October Webinar.
I found the CEO discussions on financing their company, the realities required to get they there and then to profitableity exactly as what you would (and should) expect.
https://youtu.be/JJ7DvA8gK9s?t=368
Worth a watch, not very long, and in my opinion a good comparison to different styles of operating.
Rgds Sft
Hey GP, my sentiment remains: Untill we know what we are getting on finances (Gas per and farm in) CHAR is not derisked. We remain open (in potential) to further fund raising and resultant share dilution.
Once the above is clarified investors are hopefully able to have "some" idea on funding over the development period to gas.
Rgds Sft
Dear dear GP, its me that is VERY disappointed.
Please look up WHAT BOE (Barrel of Oil equivalent) means 🙄.
I really do give up.
If that's too difficult for some try:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/barrelofoilequivalent.asp
Sft
Hi all,
The gas finds are proven, with independent conformation. The demand in country is very high, the demand internationally very high ( winter is going to get very expensive again).
This is all down (imo) to final detail on 1 to 3 dollars per BOE (barrel of oil equivalent).
The but is the knock on affect on CPF and subsea equipment pecurment, rig, ships, contractor personnel availability.
I know how I am thinking; on the stages of announcement (s) on required (RNS) disclosure s balanced with.....
Again, I ask Jim, who is the most respected numbers man here to do an independent burn rate? And respectfully, NOT " Fully funded to......" what
1. Offshore we do not know the (hoped for) renumeration for field exploration. What about off shore new exploration.
2. Onshore cover to 1st oil (thought to be quicker than offshore ( exploration confirm its there ( could fail), FEED, Fid, Sanction development....Time line??????? Vs cost
Ps not intended as challenging or derogatory, just asking you to consider rather than....
Respectfully Sft
Ps wtf does malcy have any relevance in this industry, the guys a complete 🤠 +🤡.
Summary: I firmly belive the Gas contract is the hang up BUT again the knock on affect (equipment etc etc) time lines, farmin renumeration and time line on receipt of that cash oall are significant and influencing factors on a STILL NOT de risked company.
PPS IT ALL CHANGES ON THE RIGHT RNS 👍
Rgds Sft as per keep the faith GLA.
Hi BDC,
A: Users can't delete posts.
B: I Like how you incorporated my proof of findings. As stated before IMO they had to do the fund raise due to diminishing funds (working capital) that the main or first part states it for exploration drilling was not the main requirement.
You just do not get it do you.
Rgds Sft
Hey BDC, you are a very strange chap, if it was my intent to hide anything why would I quote the particular RNS No. for all to check???
I have shown clearly the wording, that has allowed them to spend as required due to the falling company cash reserves. If the gas contracts and farm in payment are signed and expected / hoped for cash from the farmee comes in VERY shortly then they are safe if not they will need the cash.
Will the hoped for farm in payment be sufficient to get us to onshore or offshore first gas, or will there be more raises required.
But as you and ICB are not into numbers that not directed at you two.
Your starting to sound rather desperate in your attempts to discredit my thoughts and a bit weird, especially if you think I am deleting posts.
Keep a grip there's a good chap.
All the best Sft
Hi BDC
Please Ref RNS
10 Jul 2023 16:32
RNS Number : 5475F
Chariot Limited 10 July 2023
"..............
Highlights:
· The net proceeds of the Fundraise will be used as follows:
o For near term onshore drilling and development planning on a new onshore Moroccan Licence, expected to be awarded imminently; and
o New ventures AND WORKING CAPITAL."
End
ITS ON PAPER And the numbers show they NEEDED THE CASH
ALWAYS READ THE small print 🙄
I really struggle to understand the following, but hope I have answered to your satisfaction :
"Why would you even want to work out how many years or months the company could keep going for?"
ANSWER: pretty important I think??? YOU DO NOT??????
For surely your due diligence is concluded at that point (you simply don't believe them - strong sell).
ANSWER: Yes now I know when /if they need to raise more cash vs potential farm in exploration renumeration vs outgoings operating costs vs potential outgoings to develope onshore (if the Go it alone) vs best guesses on outgoing ( known not the unannounced I.e. suprise purchases or companies).
Re STRONG SELL Thank for your advise BUT I will decide when I wish to exit my investment.
For continuing to work out how long a $19 Million pile of cash will last to pay a bunch of lying fraudsters for is completely irrational.
ANSWER: NOT toooooo sure who is sounding like the irrational one but okay, thank you for the information.
AGAIN it's good to disagree, Whimax pointed out an obvious error in one of my comments and I thanked him the observation. It was a good point and helped me.
I get the feeling your not trying to be informative or instructional in my case, I may be wrong of course 🤔? In which case I apologise 😂
Kind rgds Sft