Member Info for Surfit

When does the 10yr tax break start i.e. from start of production of the 1st (now onshore) well?

Rgds Sft

Hey Hubenstein, thanks for the info.

Rgds Sft

Hey Surety,

Despite the dilution, which has been exasperated by the two other arms we remain with Anchois as the only realistic revenue stream. The markets continues to only look at that viability. Then if we consider a management team that expend ( the other two arms) before there is any income, coupled with Namibia bankruptcy, CHAR as a company are ii uninvesteable, hence the speculative ownership +80 on us lot....primarily because non on this bb (use to) think about that. I still see a risk of further cash injection even if it goes well...numbers please gents.

BUT

One other thing I ask you ( I think) is that you have an average of 3/4p how on earth when it was that value / post Namibia pre AP could you justify the investment....I am guessing (surely) it was a small punt...what would make you invest...or was it post AP investment? To invest at that time has no sense...

You do not have to answer that, if its a private strategy.

I only invest ( use to) on post drilling results but after RKH ( my first real try) I did lean management and contract ( Sam blew 175million!) Most paid back by the FEED costs! Insane!

Again if your strategy is private I respect, I kinda think its scatter gun on distressed assets??? That not ment to be derogatory, its what some do?

Kindest Sft

Hey Surety, thank you for the reply, good of you.

It was the Ai reference that really tweak my interest. So any reference is really appreciated. I have used simple Wall St on evaluations and have some doubts ( read ignorance) over how they come up with their reports...I have not signed up I.e. paying for such, I take the free samples....and actually emailed them questioning their assessments...for example they had not at the time and around 6 weeks after included AA investment size as declared by RNS.

I still sit in the camp of looking at income vs outgoing vs assets (proven) as to why CHAR sit where they do.

Others seem to see potential as important but OnG is not grabbing the "following" that it use to.

But the latest drilling results as others have said look to reinforce "some" confidence in the CHAR geo depth. Flow tests both onshore and off will be the deciding factor....why it was not confirm with the Stena rig on Anchois at the time ( they cut the programme short, that I do know) still baffling, I suspect it was money and it has introduced risk!!!!!!

Cash flow cash flow ( we have been too diluted) hence AP looking to sell to Petra his old company. He was (imo) the driving force behind that arm/ venture...if they can sell it for a decent profit....I will owe him an apology.

Again thank you for taking the time to reply.

Kind rgds Sft

Hi Surety, That's an VERY interesting comment ".....I cant validate this easily, as the data is collected through open AI..."

Question: Care to elaborate or direct me to site or further reading?

Rgds Sft

🙄🤡

Hey Jim, fully agree.

Just need onshore to come in and production secured and as you say the flow test for Anchois. That will then hopefully facilitate a rerate and maybe start to bring in ii's.

No point in them comming in until the former and possibley the latter (for full confidence) are confirmed.

All the best.

Rgds Sft

Let us all look forward to the de-risking of the company....with VERY limited cash runway:

ITS Nothing to do with "mm's" apart form changing the share price through spread range.

Onshore to keep us afloat

Successful drill required

Successful / commercial quantity AND flow rates

Conformation of onshore (still no conformation of offshore) gas contract rate

Conformation of (not guessing) on shore finance (no mention from BoD's)

Feed/fid/ sanction for onshore

Timescale to (if all above successful / market precieved the above results as positive) income generation vs remaining cash vs time

THE marketcontonues to see Chariot CURRENTLY remaining highly speculative.

Yes it looks POTENTIALLY good...but what does a real broker/institutional investor have to take to his manager to justify an investment other than it "looks good" see private investors posts...but yes boss the company still has had no income in 11/12yrs...but as we have never invested in OnG before their geo team say its all good...well apart from the bankrupting Nambia (every one else (Shell/ Total struck oil but not the Char geo team) exploration.🤔😂

The rerate will follow the derisking.

GLA

Rgds Sft

It's on this site????:

Vol Sold 2,869,515

Vol Bought 1,734,672

All that matters is the markets thought's on RISK!

Very bored of detailing it.

The MM's are being a bit greedy with a 3.93% spread???!!!

That's it in a nutshell Belgrano (Your not an ex submariner by any chance).

It's pushing the Kurds into illegal exporting, which I assume was set up when they were fighting daesh to keep themselves in the game.

Now that threat has reduced, it looks like Iraq want to cripple them to remove wealth and strength.

Erdogan and family were beneficiary's at the time and after ( I belive).

With the US wanting to reduce irans influences will they help the Kurds or throw them under the bus to strengthen relations with Iraq? Trump pulled out and Bush left them high and dry in Gulf 1.

It imo, hangs on what the US will do?

Rgds Sft

Hello Itsaponzi,

1. I see no mention of GKP in the artical, where do they sit in precived "culpability" in this?

2. I suppose the question to be asked now is, with Erdogans visit concluded to bother Iraq and Kurdestan: If Turkey has completed (TBC of course) the visits highlighted focus discussions regarding security and actions against the PKK /Turkeys incursion into Iraqi (Kurdish) territories, water and oil, if the first two have achieved an accord would Turkey have been given favourable terms to receive oil via the planned restart of the Kirkuk–Ceyhan Oil Pipeline and asked not to take anything from the Kurds?

Note: I read on a post that the Iraqi oil is not what the Turkish are currently set up to process? (Not sure how accurate this is)

BUT

The Kurdish goverment must get something from such iraq and Turkey and what support do the PKK get from the the incumbent Kurdish goverment currently.

If they do not the Iran would be the only beneficiary?

Rgds Sft

Col. Nathan R. Surft eventual breaks after the masterful cross examination by the brilliant, insightful and eloquent Lt Daniel "The bold" Kaffee

https://youtu.be/7bVg5R5oq0g?feature=shared

😁

Best regards Sft 😂

Hey Jim, appreciate the replies.

Couple of points that for form and deeper diving:

1. The market would surely understand the farm in deliverables but I think the market (or even the 6%, pure speculation of course) was POSSIBLY expecting more cash I.e. a % free carry rather than loans.

2. Looking at Energeans debt and ability to finance

Referencing Simpley Wall St

https://simplywall.st/stocks/gb/energy/lse-enog/energean-shares/news/energean-lonenog-has-a-somewhat-strained-balance-sheet

BUT

But as of 21st of march 2024 and reference Energeans 2023 full year accounts:

"...Funds were used primarily to repay Energean Israel's $625 million notes due in March 2024. As a result of this refinancing, Energean's weighted average life of debt has been extended to more than six years and results in a weighted average interest rate of 6.13%"

Sft note: I am not sure if this is a factor for obtaining further debt or Morocco financing.

3. 85% looks very good!

I am invested in Kistos and they have been involved in 2x failed ( not commercially viable) drilling campaigns (Hollad and the Benriach, WOS).

I am not sure what the % was allocated to Benriach

https://www.oedigital.com/news/502301-totalenergies-to-spud-highly-prospective-benriach-offshore-well-in-q2

4. " My understanding is the onshore retail customer avivo, wil provide such funding" VERY much appreciate that information Jim, but where is the information from and is there a precedence for this already.

5. Not giving the 15mil straight away, but via a caviate, could this have spooked the markets or investors some what???

6. No further comment other than it may be precived by investors as a reflection of poor management decisions / directions on running the company.

But the market possibley react well to cutting loss leading direction/ projects and if the do cut or manage to sell, could result in a SP lift.

7. Costs are possibley minimal but puts more pressure on the onshore being a success as it is still an financial drain. Increasing risk factor.

Up side is very much of significant potential especial as partnered with TotalEnergies.

8. Fid Q2 for Anchois but no income until production....time line to actual production

Again market investors must be doing calculations on Chariots cash reserves (including last fund raise, 10mil time + meeting 15mil criteria, balancing Loukos success and income to Anchois production.

This is why there is a perception of real risk of a further fund raise required a lot hangs on Loukos

As before, hazard hunting balancing controls, mitigations...risk really starts to get removed if Loukos is FULL confirmed commercially viable.

I thank you for your compised and muture comments and if my points can be undermined all the VERY much better. I KNOW I am short on knowledge but if I can think of them how much better can professional energy analysts do????

GLA

Kind Rgds Sft

"Your points are actually non valid for a non share holder looking to consistently FUD eloquently"

Dear dear me TheBold, how many times do I have to state I own CHAR shares, a reasonable amount in my opinion.

This consistan deflection is very illuminating and I think some readers on here will see through your and other posters attempt to undermine such considerations of why the share price is where it is.

I stress its my opinion ONLY and welcome criticism of the points.

For example

Point 4: if I remember correctly, you previously thought finance would/ could come from the onshore gas reciving customer?

I not having experience or examples on this for of financing took it as an potential option. But as it has not been confirmed by CHAR it remains in the Risk section

point 3: CHAR belive it's possible other wise it would not be drilling, BUT there remains RISK.

ALL below havering degrees of (again IMHO) RISK....

and my point remain maybe the market feels the same.

I am now not going to continue with the ping pong.

POSSIBLE REASONS WHY SP WHERE IT IS.

1. the small amount of cash paid out to aquire i.e, the VERY limited FREE carry: instead we have we have sold for finance ( see 2)

2. possibley the partner, namely the debt presently carried and the ability to obtain finance...this MAY be a factor?????? Comments???

3. potential risk on onshore not being commercial viable I.e.the drilling is to confirm.

4. Finance required to fund to onshore sale

5. To recive the 15m this requires addtional OFFshore drill with confirmed flow rates (correct/incorrect?)

6. Management realisation (RNS) that the have to sell or finance/ understand revenue return on the South African "renewables" folly.

7. Hydrogen venture costs/return/ finance

8. ONshore success REQUIRED to keep the company liquid to get to OFFshore production.

Would the 2x 6% ers will have been in talks with management before and after farm in and not seen / recived what was expected?

Sincerely Sft

Hi Wimax, I call my recent move, exiting a % of my exposure as damage limitation and an attempt to invest in other opportunities (that may fail of course) cash whilst we wait for the areas of remaining risk to be reduced. .

See previous post

As before I belive my points raised have some validity, and would welcome removal of such.

Kind rgds Sft

Hello TheBold

Thank you for your concerns. I find investing interesting and have time on my hands presently. I hope to continue to learn through the process, by success or failure in such. I use the Risk Assessment process as a away to do so. Its a tool that is used often in OnG. In fact a high level HAZID is the first part of the process on if a project/workscope can actually be aloud to start. Hazards come in the form of financials as well as indury or damage to asset.

I still think a BB and usefull and informative vehicle to discuss such, although there are always some that dislike perceived hazards. If you know the hazards and can see they have been addressed its called a mitigation or removal of a hazard.

As before I belive my points raised have some validity, and would welcome removal of such.

GLA

Rgds Sft

I welcome, as Wimax has on occasion, counter points to my risk assessment's. BB's are here for such. But there remains a paranoia they "some" are here to ramp / deramp for gain rather than discussion.

Ref my posts on the: 20 Feb 2024 11:11 and 5 Feb 2024 13:45 where I had replied to both Wimax and Thebold

In relation to some posters to undermine the poster rather than the message, could be regarded as a motive in itself.

My comments and opinions (imho) are valid, but there seems a reluctance to discuss or consider such.

Rather, blame any other factor, it is OF course valid to consider ALL, for example the whole of AIM failing as an investment route "really could" be a factor to CHARS struggles.

BUT

I belive the points I have raised MAY be closer to the mark.

GLA

Rgds Sft

Hi Wimax,

For information: I retain just over X00,000 shares in CHAR.

As stated several times (but I appreciate you may have missed the 2 previous posts informing and confirming (to the bold before) such. I informed the BB I sold a percentage of my holdings, taking a hit, to invest in what I believe to be sooner returns and IF successful would MOST likely reinvest that % which I had with drawn.

Kind regards Sft

I also agree GP: Wimax raised a valid point regarding AIM.

I suppose we have to consider how many of the AIM company posters on this board have invested in and how many of those are generating an income, let alone a profit.

I am not sure about you comment ", and is largely derisked as an investment"

If it was de risked why sell? If the 2x 6% are exiting it began after the farm in, which (imo) was precived as a poor deal, in particular:

1. the small amount of cash paid out to aquire i.e, the VERY limited FREE carry: instead we have we have sold for finance ( see 2)

2. possibley the partner, namely the debt presently carried and the ability to obtain finance...this MAY be a factor?????? Comments???

3. potential risk on onshore not being commercial viable I.e.the drilling is to confirm.

4. Finance required to fund to onshore sale

5. To recive the 15m this requires addtional OFFshore drill with confirmed flow rates (correct/incorrect?)

6. Management realisation (RNS) that the have to sell or finance/ understand revenue return on the South African "renewables" folly.

7. Hydrogen venture costs/return/ finance

8. ONshore success REQUIRED to keep the company liquid to get to OFFshore production.

Would the 2x 6% ers will have been in talks with management before and after farm in and not seen / recived what was expected?

Addtional comments:

Maybe the days of big free carrys are well gone and financing for OnG projects are gone for such companies like Chariot? Certainly the lagers operators are NOT struggling to finance (or self finance) the ongoing (larger?) projects I.e. GoM, Guyana, Norway etc etc

1x 2023 Example only

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/round-up-major-multi-billion-oil-gas-projects-greenlighted-in-2023/#:~:text=With%20energy%20security%20running%20the,%2C%20OMV%20Petrom%2C%20and%20ADNOC.

It's also intresting how the UK LSE is loosing listing and the US is energy companies have reportedly out done the even the tech stocks

https://theconversation.com/there-are-ways-to-improve-the-london-stock-exchange-crisis-but-theyre-not-pretty-225834#:~:text=The%20LSE%20is%20not%20seeing,decade%20and%2040%25%20since%202008.

Food for thoughts

GLA, best Sft