Member Info for tonynorstrom1

"its been used to pay the divvy" - no, you're the Divvy!

i3e borrowed CAD 75m (£43.8m) - just over £29m was used to pay off the loan notes and arrange the new facility leaving about £14m.

The bulk of the £14m was used to pay off "accounts payable" which were the final bills from the 2022 Capex program and the 2023 Capex progam. If you look at the YE 2022 accounts, there was a large working capital deficit due to the 2022 capex program. Since then i3e has been paying off the new facility (just under £1.5m per month in interest and principal) and conserving / building cash. i3e now has a resonably healthy £17m in cash.

i3e's cash flow from operations is sufficient at todays oil and gas prices to cover all costs including tax, pay a dividend and fund a small capex program - so i3e is definitely not funding the dividend from Cash resources.

Exploration and evaluation assets note 9 £63,036,000

This is how it appears on the balance sheet of last years interim report as a "Intangible Non-Current Asset". If they were not able to sell and let the licences lapse - they would have to take a full write down on the above figure. NAV is stated at just over £160m - so if they wrote off the full amount - NAV would fall to around £100m. There would be a corresponding non cash charge on the income statement.

Theoretically it should not impact the share price as the fundamentals of the business are not affected i.e. cash generation, reserves etc and as you say there is very little if anything in the share price currently for Serenity. However, in practice the SP would probably take a hit even if only temporarily.

I dont think the above scenario will happen until they decide what to do with Serenity and they will only do that when they find out what happens with Tain. It is possible that they may take a partial write down at some point because in effect the accounts are saying that the North Sea Assets are worth £63m whereas if they are not able to develop or sell Serenity - they are worth zero.

Net debt free is not the same as debt free - it just means that they have cash equal to the outstanding debt. They will still be paying off the debt for just over two more years. By my calculation - the outstanding loan will be £22.8 m by year end 2024.

We also have the Accordian facility which is CAD 25m and is currently not drawn.

No - the loan (CAD 75m) gets paid off over 3 year on a straight line basis i.e. CAD 25m per year or £1,225,567 per month. The loan was taken out end of May last year.

Depending on Oil & Gas prices and the H2 capex budget - we could be close to net debt free by the end of the year. If its an aggressive Capex budget then of course we wont.

By my calculations - debt stands currently stands at £30,639,177 and cash £17,940,242 i.e. net debt of around £13m

I would say that looks reasonably accurate. You have to bear in mind that capex and dividends are now subject to the end of quarter Covenant checks which would ordinarily mean the dividend can only be declared early March with a payment date in April.

The other encouraging point is that LNG facilities typically have a payback period of 6-7 years and there still building them - the big money is betting that there is still a long runway ahead for Natgas.

"we remain positive!"

Nice article - a bit more encouraging than the one on Exxon Mobile moving out of EQ. One thing worth noting is that Exxon was focused on / producing Oil in EQ whereas Europa's assets are gas fields. Also encouragingly here are still a fair number of Majors and Mid Size operators in EQ focused on gas.

"Another offensive and ignorant post" - Not really Fairdealer - its factual as was my previous post - it seems you have a problem with the facts

Offensive is accusing people of peddling untruths without any foundation.

As for where Shorters do not get their shares from - I have told you - not from Hargreaves Lansdowne and I would venture to say not from any other reputable online broker unless the broker offers shorting and has expressly got the permission of shareholders to lend out shares

So where do they get their shares from:

1) Not from Hargreaves Lansdown !

2) Unscrupulous Brokers

3) Brokers that offer a shorting service and have expressly got shareholder consent to lend out shares

4) Managed Funds - this has been widely reported in the press in the past.

So there you go - let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.

Addressing some of the comments:

“Yet more nonsense from self-appointed expert. HL may state they do not lend shares but where do shorters acquire shares?”

- If you don’t know where shorters get their shares – don’t go and make sh@t up. Hold you hands up and say “I don’t know, I will do better next time and go research the topic properly” then maybe you can self-appoint yourself as an expert !

And for those that said “I cannot let you get away with peddling such untruths” and being “disingenuous” – lets cut through the nonsense and take a look at the long-term share chart on yahoo. I’ve summarized below what I see but encourage interested posters to pull up the chart for themselves. I’ve also posted some selected numbers for reference from the chart.

1) In June 2005 the SP was around 36p

2) The chart shows some volatility but entered into a long term down trend falling to about 5.5p in 2009

3) Recovered to about 13.7p on the 9th May 2010

4) There was a very short-term spike up to 41p on the 13 Feb 2011 that lasted a matter of days

5) By the 24th April 2011 the SP had already fallen to about 18p around the time Paul left the Company

6) And a matter of months latter on the 14th June 2011 the SP was around 11p and has been on a down trend ever since

Looking at the SP in the months before the spike and the following few months after Paul left (ignoring the spike which appeared to be due to a short-lived event) – a representative SP at the time seemed to me to be around the 13-14p level.

From 36p in June 2005 to 14p around the time Paul left and 11p only 1 or 2 months latter – I don’t see how I can be accused of peddling untruths and being disingenuous. It seems to me that I’m the one that is owed an apology here. And it’s worse than the headline numbers above suggest– an ex-colleague of mine once said – “if you’re going to fall over, fall quickly, get up immediately and start running “This didn’t happen here – it took 6 or 7 years to fall under Paul’s tenure and no one has gotten back up since!!

29.7p 1st Jan 2005

35.4p 1st Mar 2005

5.49p 8th Mar 2009

13.4p 1st Oct 2010

11.98p 10th Oct 2010

39p 1st Feb 2011

18.1p 1st April 2011

19.2p 24th April 2011

13.8p 26th May 2011

6.1p 20 Nov 2011

I rest my case your Honour!

canuck - your conflating completely different issues - stay on topic please !

“is it also 'factually incorrect' to say they couldn't be bothered to find a cfo for almost a year?”

i do not know the answer to this with 100% certainty - but i would be prepared to bet that you are also factually incorrect here with 99% certainty. i do not know the reason it took so long to fill the cfo role but i do know that you don’t know the reason either and i’d also go onto say that it was not because they were not bothered.

stop making **** up - email them - ask the question and then let us know what they say.

There’s been a lot of nonsense on here about nominee accounts – it is a widespread myth that UK nominee account operators (most brokers and stock trading platforms) lend their clients' stock. The FCA prohibits this, unless explicit permission is obtained from each client. I know Hargreaves Lansdown don’t do it – I’ve asked!

Also, there are benefits for Investors in having nominee accounts – it allows the brokers to pool funds amongst other things for more efficient administration resulting in lower costs for customers. Most brokers worldwide operate the same way with I think Singapore one of the rare exceptions. If you don't like nominee accounts - get them to send you a share certificate - just watch out the dog doesn't chew it up or get burnt in a house fire !

It’s also a nonsense that online brokers get to decide when you can vote and when you cannot.

My previous reference to Paul what’s his face not having sufficient votes was in reference to the results of the re-election of directors where the directors put forward received significant shareholder support. WH was not on the ballot this time round but seeing that he was probably the most popular – it seems clear to me that Paul was not going to get very much support at all.

This all ignores the fact that Paul’s tenure as CEO was a disaster in terms of share price performance – just take a look at the graph! Not only that – he did not seem to be willing to take on any questions why he would be a success second time round given that he had failed previously. I rest my case your Honor!

I didn't say that it wasn't a good thing - just pointing out that Canucks assertion that i3e couldn't be bothered is factually incorrect. The move towards Canadian reporting standards or at least quarterly reports is clearly positive - not sure it will be i3e's main catalyst but more information is obviously better and it will definitely go down well with Canadian Investors who complained about only getting two proper reports a year and well after the close of the respective accounting period.

Line fill has commenced:

https://boereport.com/2024/03/20/trans-mountain-oil-pipeline-begins-filling-ahead-of-final-construction-challenges/

That's about 3m bbl to fill. I read elsewhere that the first Cargoes via the pipeline have already been sold for May/June delivery. You can already see the discounts on Canadian Oil shrinking meaning more dollars per barrel for producers including i3e.

Line fill of the Coastal Link Pipeline (Gas) will commence shortly. Got to be a positive for gas. AECO moved up a little yesterday - to early to say we are out of the woods yet with gas prices though the average prices in March are sitting slightly above those in February. But with LNG Canada coming on stream later this year - surely better days ahead for AECO. Also Oil Sands is one of the biggest Consumers of Natgas and they are ramping up production !

Better days ahead for i3e - surely ?!

Canuck - whether you like it or not - this is a uk company with a primary listing in the UK and not a Canadian Company. AIM rules require a interim and final report and not quarterly. Question for you and its not difficult or a trick question - why would you be reporting to Canadian Standards when the primary listing is the UK and Canadian shareholders hold less than 10% of the stock. I would suggest that you would not.

Now that Canadians own more than 10% of the stock - we are now bound by Canadian reporting regulations and hence quarterly reports. So nothing to do whether i3e could be bothered or not - Quarterly reports were not previously required despite what shareholders like you intent on bashing the stock / management had to say.

IBB_Invest,

What a stupid question - do you really want me to answer it ?

Contango,

I made a couple of comments previously:

1) I stated the timeline for an update on financing had not been addressed. This was incorrect as highlighted in Rabito's extract below. Honest mistake since it was not addressed in the Initial Summary, Chairman's comments or section on "ongoing activity in 2024" - where I would expect an important item to be addressed. So guilty as charged for not reading the full RNS properly.

2) The second point I made was that there was no indication in the RNS that the financing is on track. This is what is stated in the current RNS dated 18th March 2024:

"The Company intends to provide an update on its overall financing initiatives over the coming weeks....."

and this is what David Hobbs stated during the "Investor Meet Company" presentation on the 24th January 24 (51m mark)

“We told you that we would anticipate having the first substantive announcement around the non-equity based funding during the 1st quarter – we are still on track for that”

“We told you that we anticipate that by the middle of the year having the full suite of funding laid out for you and we are still on track for that.”

So, there is potentially a big difference between an “update” and a “substantive announcement”. Hopefully the update lives up to expectations.

Its a Moronic comment Kever - PANR is an exploration Company if you didn't already realize . Pure play exploration companies by definition don't have revenues i.e. they incur losses until they prove up there fields and monetize their assets.

Do you think you are adding any value here ?

Apologies - David Hobbs did address the timing of the funding update and without going back and checking appears to be reasonably consistent with what was said previously.

I'm guilty of switching off before getting to the last line of the RNS. The funding is key and as David Hobbs himself said will be the primary driver of value in the short term. Funding validates the technical / business plan .

Contango - there was nothing in todays RNS to say whether the financing was on track or not.

Timelines were given for the updated Resource Reports but nothing for the finance. Given that David Hobbs previously advised that PANR hoped to update the market in Q1 - will he meet this timeline.