Member Info for TerryM1

“Is everyone except you mad?”

Obviously not as reflected in the SP drop under half in 5 years while its peers are flying, the only mad ones are those who think it is OK/good to break even over 10 years ignoring inflation.

“Across all the words and numbers in the annual report and AoC’s linked document there must be something you like or will admit to using as a metric to keep you invested.”

What I like is the mess that has been caused on regular basis give me great trading opportunities, will be trading out of purchase of £9.80 and £10.30 soon, also got a dividend on each of these. Investment total disaster, trading very profitable. Hoping to trad this to profit one day.

You have really proven yourself to be the Chemical Ali of investors.

Now give it a rest, it is boring!

Jim800

“Terry -you keep telling us which metrics you don’t like and which words you don’t believe.”

Off you go again, did not take you long to feed you obsession with me again!

“How about a positive post where you tell us which metrics it is that keeps you invested?”

What is positive about the SP performance over the last 5 years down to under half, dividend trashed, SP performing multiple times worse than it peers.

I am l still invested as I believe the shares will rise from here then I will continue my strategy of trading out of this stock, I have a number of trades now well into profit which with a bit a luck I will take soon. Now answer my question which I have asked you a number of times but you refuse to answer, what are “world macro events” you mentioned that only effect DEC SP, still waiting.

“Revenue up”

Well it would be after all the buying

“Profit up”

How about per shares and of course up recently as HH hitting highs, what happens when HH falls like it has been since these accounts.

“EBITDA up”

I explained that this is meaningless as it is before interest which is up a lot, bit too difficult for you to understand.

“Debt leverage down”

Not checked this, what metric are you using, is this just a short term blip, how does it compare to 5 years ago before the deal fest started, try to give some figures.

“Reserves up”

Of course Reserves up, when you are buying everything you can. Now what about NAV per shares which is what counts, also as stated Reserves up a lot less than debt has gone up and no mention of additional liabilities e.g. AROs. It is the NAV per share that counts but DEC will not tell is that!

“Yep debt up - but we know that’s the strategy”

Not just up but up a lot.

“Yep Interest costs high - but that’s the cost of the strategy.”

Not just high but increasing on a huge amount of debt at a time when interest rates were falling.

“I (and the rest of the market seemingly) think the report was good enough to underpin a significant and maintained share price rise and get a large secondary offering away at a price a couple of $s higher than SP from mid Jan.”

What do you expect when HH was up so much! Share price down to under half in 5 years, down from $15.84 (Dec 2025 high) before this report and you think this is good! You just keep telling yourself all is rosy every time the SP rises a bit and ignore all of the drops. In fact just keep hoping to break even over 10 years ignoring inflation and adding in compound interest from dividends. LOL.

Asp1

Good spot with the write down seems a good explanation. DEC's accounts are difficult to interpret when comparing performance over different years, some useful figures publish are are not in all years also announcement like the write downs are not easy to spot but statements that are favourable but IMO misleading are very easy to find. This year we have

"Acquisitions helped deliver over 100% growth in Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted Free Cash Flow"

The EBITDA went up because of the BI, i.e. Before Interest, well of course it would as the Acquisitions will improve earnings but this is offset by the cost of debt taken on to buy the asset which does not appear in this figure. The FCF contains one offs so for a year to year comparison is meaningless.

Another thing to be taken into account are the liabilities which are largely ARO costs as there are now more wells, also more shares so looks as thought NAV and NAV per share have gone down.

Lets just hope the disaster of shares as part of the Maverick deal is mostly over although I suspect there will be some quick profit taking if SP remains above $14.45 but at least the black cloud of the shares EIG held as gone, as I have been saying for a time these were always going to dumped it was not if but when. There were 2 secondary offerings and a fund raises because of this deal even with the BBs there is large share dilution still from the deal not only the shares EIG got but the fire sale fund raise. Hope Rusty has leant a lesion from this but it probably more about hope.

As I have been saying on every metric that does not include one off these so called accretive aqucitsions have failed spectacularly including the most important one of all, total shareholder returns.

You may say this is due to misunderstanding of the model but IIs not only have access to more information than us PIs and have experts on the area of accountings and other things and they clearly do not like what DEC are doing and they are the ones that set the SP.

The COF is another important metric getting on for 10%, going up as interest rates come down, no opinion but fact, DEC is regarded as a company which has an increasing risk profile and has increased it chances of defaulting on the debt.

As far as EIG are concerned they know this area and DEC very well, they sold them the assets and had a member of the BOD, they can't wait to get out, this tells me all I need to know but make your own mind up but do use facts and figures not tainted by one offs.

“Last try Terry "

Great.

Last part of post cut off, should read.

This obsession has turned into the Chemical Ali of investments.

Jim800

“Terry - you don’t need to cut and paste from AI”

I don’t need to but as you have not got a clue how basic accounting works I was trying to help you but it seems you are beyond help.

“Adj FCF Q4 24 was $53mn

Adj FCF Q4 24 was $152mn

That’s up 187%. The number of shares had not increased by anything like that so adj FCF / share over the Q4 year was UP!”

Not getting it are you! You are using the FCF that contains one off, like you makes no sense, explained it in tedious detail with very simple examples many times to you in the hope you may one day get it. These are for just a quarter (less reliable that full years for comparison). Not relevant anyway as I am looking over 5 years to see how all these acquisitions have affected the underlying business. Look also at Average realized gas price in the periods. You can cherry pick figures which contain one offs to try and prove you are right but just shows you have not even basic understanding.

“The rest of your tedious post is just trying to disguise the fact you are WRONG again because you can’t get over your emotional negativity”

No, it is tedious as I need to explain in the simplest terms that even a 5 year old could understand as you clearly have not even the basic understanding of accounting but still you don’t get it.

“Performance over last 5 years has been poor - yep but that doesn’t change the numerical calculations from 2025 report”

That is what I have been trying to explain to you, as average realized gas price has increase a lot in that period the only other factor is how DEC has been run and it is clearly the acquisitions that caused this or do you think it is “world macro events” you mentioned before but as usually you cannot back it up with any, still waiting to hear what these are?

“Yep the number of shares increased”

Amazing, something that has sunk in, at least you managed to understand that.

“And just as importantly Adj FCF / share will increase as number of shares reduces.

See if Terry can manipulate that into a reducing adj FCF / share to continue the emotional negativity!”

Not getting it are you, the number of shares reduces because DEC has bought them, in order to buy them they have to use their cash, that means more debt which mean more interest to pay which reduces FCF, obviously too complicated for you so I have to explain in very simple terms again.

“Arrow street reduced short again on 9 Mar.

Am sure Terry will be along soon to find a negative in that”

You are really obsessed with me 3 posts in a row and you have to mention me in every one trying and put one over on me, must try harder or better still give it up.

Now try to give it a rest, as can be seem I only reference you in reply to you trying to put one over on me, as I have said many times if you stay away from me I will stay away from you, all you do is start pointless arguments comparing apples to pears without facts.

This obsession has turned into the

As you can see some of last posted repeated, cut and paste went wrong, would be good to have an edit facility

Jim800

“Assumed that was because it had gone up again and countered your doom narrative."

This not a "doom narrative" but simple comparison taking into account share dilution and looking at average realised gas price to make sure it was down to DEC not external factors. What are you using to see how well DEC is doing or likely to do except guessing and wishful thinking. Try to answer this at least.

Have you managed to find any of those world macro events that you believe affect DEC that seemingly do not have any impact on its peers, still waiting!

Instead of feeding your obsession with me do some research on the performance of DEC in the last 5 years since the deal fest started and also some very basic accounting so you can use figures which make useful comparisons i.e. those without one off and take into account share dilution and in DECs case also gas prices, that way you will not get mislead with one off adjustments and wishful thinking, then you should have a much clearer view of what has been happening. This will help you how to understand how a company is performing and help in investment decisions.

For me

“ I reckon with compounded interest on the dividends (or re-investment in other shares) over last 10 years I must be close to getting my capital back.”

Getting you capital back is not sign of success especially if you add in inflation. Better still compare against alternative returns for the 10 years, e.g. similar companies, tracker funds, indexes, bank building society interest etc and let me know how successful putting your trust in Rusty has been.

 

Instead of feeding your obsession with me do some research on the performance of DEC in the last 5 years since the deal fest started and also some very basic accounting so you can use figures which make useful comparisons i.e. those without one off and take into count share dilution and in DECs case also gas prices, that way you will not get mislead with one off adjustments and wishful thinking, you will have a much clearer view of what has been happening. This will help you how to understand how a company is performing and help in investment decisions.

For me

“ I reckon with compounded interest on the dividends (or re-investment in other shares) over last 10 years I must be close to getting my capital back.”

Getting you capital back is not sign of success especially if you add in inflation. Better still compare against alternative returns for the 10 years, e.g. similar companies, tracker funds, indexes, bank building society interest etc and let me know how successful putting your trust in Rusty has been?

Jim800

"I notice you didn’t calculate special Terry adj FCF / share from last accounts Terry.”

Not sure I can make much sense of what you are saying but I will try. I did use the Adjusted FCF which does not contain one off but seems to be other way round in the report. Anyway the one I am using does not include one offs.

Here is a brief explanation of FCF

• “Free Cash Flow (FCF): Defined as Operating Cash Flow minus Capital Expenditures. It represents cash available for dividends, debt repayment, and growth.

• Adjusted Free Cash Flow (Adj. FCF): A non-GAAP metric that adjusts FCF for non-recurring items (e.g., litigation settlements, restructuring costs), changes in working capital, or specific adjustments related to foreign exchange or commodity prices.

• Purpose: FCF is best for quick comparisons and standard reporting, whereas Adjusted FCF helps investors understand the underlying, sustainable cash flow of the business.

When to Use Which

• Use FCF for a quick, standardized view of liquidity, debt management, and dividend sustainability.

• Use Adjusted FCF when a company has "lumpy" expenses, one-time acquisitions, or significant non-cash items that mask the true, recurring cash-generating ability. “

As I am looking to compare like for like on how DEC basic business is performing over the years to see the effect of the acquisitions I am excluding one offs.

I have explained this to you many many times. I will try again, think of it like taking you earned income and adding in a house sale one year, a car sale in another year and an old phone sale in a different year and using these figures to see how you are performing in your job over 3 years. Far better off just comparing your earned income, you may wish to divide by number of hours worked in each year to get a like for like, bit like comparing FCF per share without one offs. The clue is the fact that FCF that contains one offs (like your house sale) and being one off will not be in other years (you can only sell something once unless you buy it back again).

Add in OakBloke. Now how many years have they been predicting this elusive recovery. This time next year Rodney we will be millionaires.

MrG123

I guess it just may be possible in the very long term may work out, but it has completely failed over the last 5 years (for me long term), the total shareholder returns (in DEC's case losses) is the most important but it can be seen from the FCF per share (for those who think it will lead through into profits) it is totally failing while the price DEC get for gas is up a massive amount. This is why the shares drop on every new deal.

You can count me out for any fundraise, bought in at one and regretted it ever since, so far these fundraises are just good money after bad, hopefully it will turn around but I am not taking the risk. They keep asking for money with no profit in sight, once may be acceptable but no signs this will end, so far just jam tomorrow statements is all that is to show for the cash injected into this company.

JC01

On all metrics this acquisition fest has failed spectacularly, SP trashed, dividends trashed, massive share dilution, confidence trashed, DEC stuck with huge high priced fixed term, fixed interest debt and a lot more AROs to be paid for.

5 years ago FCF per share was $7.21 when when gas average realised price was $1.72 .

Now FCF per share $3.59 gas average realised price was $3.94.

In the last 5 years the debt and AROs have greatly increased DEC liabilities as well as trashing FCF. All of this while while DEC's gas average realised price up 2.3 times.

Rusty has the cheek to call these deals accretive, it is clear from the FCF and market reaction DEC paid far too much for these assets and it is no wonder EIG want out, they know what they are worth more than any of us PIs. Would not be quite as bad if he stopped, took stock, run some basic numbers and stopped this crazy buy all you can at any price strategy but de doubles down in the hope one day it may just work or more lightly does not care, if all goes wrong he will increase his salary and give himself more free shares for all the great work he has done.

The most damming metric is how far DEC have fallen behind it piers, for EQT probably the closest around 400% times worse off.

DEC stopped buying shares back on 9 Jan at a price around $13.50, since then could have bought shares back below $13 and they are now buying them back at $14.45, how does this make any financial sense.

Genghis15

"those bemoaning the EPL better prepare for a shock ; higher oil/gas will lead to a press/public clamour for higher windfall taxes. not lower."

That is why SQZ should have pursued purchases outside of the UK as I have been saying for a long time just like Shell, BP, Harbour, Kistos and many more. I have been slowing moving my investments from UK centred companies to those with very little assets, if any in the UK. You cannot trust UK Governments especially Labour, they will take everything they can from you and that will not end until a complete reform of the UK government/politics takes place.

Over 5 years DEC down 56%, dividends cut by 2/3s, EQT the largest natural gas producer in the Appalachian Basin up 230% tells you all you need to know, there are other gas produces also doing a whole lot better than DEC. The difference is they have not got Rusty in charge, they take their duty to shareholder value seriously which is something Rusty happily ignores.

"DEC should be surging"

Yet is is not, perhaps something to do with the way Rusty runs the company, the huge high priced debt, latest acquisition, shares in the hands of companies who don't want them but had to take them to unload unwanted assets, threat of the next Trust Rusty cunning plan, lack of BBs etc.

Trump has helped me, when he brings tariffs or something else that bring down the market it has given me great buying opportunities. EONG and AGNC (US mortgage company) are 2 of a few that work out well.

Was looking again to ENOG but it is holding up at present.

You can complain about Trump or you can take advantage of opportunities to get in cheap or just ride the wave upwards like Uranium or Uranium miners.