Member Info for tonynorstrom1

"The posts here have overwhelmingly been positive for the last months or so"

Response:

"Tony, yes it has but lets have balance eh!"

I think this says everything - what do you want - more Contrarian views ??

"What state did the company have in assets back in 2018 to justify £1 share price to what they have now? Thanks" When someone asks this question (quite innocently in this case imo). The answer quire clearly is to do with the share count - this is not ramping, deramping - its justs just a statement of fact.

Just to clarify - I was not taking a shot at Doc's report - I think it was very good and worthy of lots of discussion.

piohc1,

Here's another gem for you recently posted by Doc on his channel

"Knowledge is Power"

Go get Gatorade before you keel over.

I'm all for balance. The posts here have overwhelmingly been positive for the last months or so. Someone posts something about the share count and you seem to object.

JAdam,

With respect - Clearwater, Docs report etc - thats all thats been spoken about the last 2-3 weeks.

Fastfood,

Probably nearer 20x - I recall they had about 40m shares at that time or less. Couple of people touted £35.00 as a target and were almost locked up. Adjusting for the dilution SP is now about £1.75

Fastfood,

Yes - both Oil and the SP holding up pretty well. Volume here ok, a little light on the TSX. Not much of a reaction from the Market to the new WHI report. Suspect most here were expecting a report at least as good as we got and perhaps a little better based on some of the musings here on Clearwater. You might have expected WHI to touch on this but I guess they couldn't otherwise it would mean they would have been party to price sensitive information.

Question - did WHI screw up the previous reports by not factoring in the Lone Note?

There's a decent chance the update from the Company will provide upside news and hence a bump to the SP.

I was actually comparing with the February report - however, the question is the same and the obvious difference to me is the loan note.

Nice to see the valuation of the Canadian Assets being valued up - but the value of the Shares are related to net assets i.e. equity - debt.

JAdam,

No that was not what I was looking at. Value of Canadian Assets = 18p reduced to 15p after balance sheet adjustments - virtually the same value as the previous report. So I was looking at where the difference was in the balance sheet adjustments.

JAdam,

Forget Serenity - look at the net value of the Canadian Assets after balance sheet adjustments - spot the difference

Bullish report - however, has anyone put it side by side and compared with the February report - notice anything ?

What's happening - everyone sleeping - new WHI report issued !

Maestro,

Last comment on this particular trail - the link you provided I couldnt open - but if it is the graph that Doc also posted, the graph has been edited and I3E added in. The question therefore is pertinent on whether the exact same approach/data has been used to calculate FCF and hence valuation.

I agree that I3E looks to have significant value - just need to make sure correct metrics are applied to estimate what this is.

Maestro,

Not diverting at all - I had the Mirabaud report on excel more than a month back - I have ranges for fcf, div & SP under various scenarios including production up to 30k boepd, tax, royalty, Fcf multiples, debt etc.

I have already ready seen the graphs - as I’ve said , I would’nt hang my hat on them until the numbers have been checked & understood. The fcf for example - is this actual, forward or trailing and is it the same for all Companies reported. Have you checked any of the figures?

I get the impression ( apologies if I’m incorrect) that numbers and graphs are being cut and paste without any verification and accepted as fact.

I'll answer your question - what I think is unimportant - its what the market thinks that counts. I think a better way of trying to place a value on I3e is to look at a couple of peers and do a side by side comparison of various metrics (production / split, revenue, debt, reserves, opex).

Doc threw out a couple of peers - after a very quick review - KEL looked worth a side by side comparison (similar production mix, 24k boepd, 0 debt ............). My challenge to you is to compare metrics against KEL including reserves and report your findings.

Not at all Maestro. There's no logic there at all - what if they drilled 10 dusters for $100m ? They in fact drilled 2 dusters on Liberator - how much are those drills worth - the results tanked the share.

(before I get corrected - 1 duster and 1 sub-economic find)

Maestro,

who says Serenity has no value put on it. Prior to Toscana - i3e had a MC of about $7m from memory. The NS were the only assets so the market value of Serenity & Liberator were approximately $7m at that point in time. I'd venture to say that out of the current $95m market cap - approximately $7m are attributed to Serenity and Liberator. So again:

PVR - 2C 400m bbl, 3C 600m bbl
i3e - 2C = 0 (Management say they THINK there is 100m recoverable - Serenity. They also thought that they would have Liberator phase 1 running at 10,000 bopd last year. As doc would say - its all about data, data, data - remove the emotions)

from the latest RNS - PVR have 6 wells supporting the above reserves (oil in each).

Maestro,

I don't know anything about PVR but took a quick look now - it looks like they have 2C reserves of 400m bbl and 3C of 600m bbl.

i3e have no booked reserves for the North Sea. Whilst its incorrect to say that the "possible reserves" are given no value - it certainly looks like they are given very little value. Mirabaud include a notional reserve of 17m bbl when trying to ascribe a NAV. Until i3e do a proper appraisal or at least confirm a FO - the market is not likely to value them much more than theybare currently.

Maestro,

"Plenty of metrics have been given but u tend to disregard" - this is not true. I have looked at and done some analysis on the Company Accounts of many of these companies - looking at reserves, Debt, CF, production etc. I think one of the things some people are guilty of here is taking facts, figures and graphs at face value and just re-tweeting the conclusions without doing any analysis themselves.

There was a graph for example a month or so back plotting the metrics of 6 or 7 peer companies (EV/2P & EV/flowing barrel). This was widely shared on twitter and here - jist of the graphs was to demonstrate that i3e was sitting at about 1/3 of its peers. What was not highlighted was that I3e produced a higher proportion of gas that all of the companies shown which significantly impacts the Comparison. I.E. i3e may well be undervalued but no where near the x3 that was being implied (based just on these metrics)

CF is an important metric but not the only one - NAV and reserves are also very important. Based on my experience above - I wouldnt bet my house on the latest graphs on cf and years to pay off the debt without checking the figures myself. Are they comparing apples with apples ? Some of the Companies that you have mentioned have significant debt - which could be a problem. It also means that they are highly greared to the POO so in a higher price environment, the SP might outperform as well as the debt being paid off quicker than anticipated.

Maestro,

1) None of them including I3E are currently paying a dividend.
2) "Anyway i3e should be valued similar to candian oil and gas." - very general and not always true. You've got to look at more than 1 metric / factor to properly value Oil Companies - Oil Production, Debt, reserves etc. Many of i3e's peers produce more oil as a percentage of the mix.
3) Bags since March is not a proper comparison for various reasons which I wont go into except to say i3e was not a producer in March. I think valuation comparisons now are much more meaningful.