Member Info for tonynorstrom1

Kever - how are the results terrible - seems like you want to go out of your way to trash the stock.

Agreed though that there was no update on financing other than to say “progressing”. I suspect you were not the only one to notice - I assume todays pull back was because of this.

You can use your shares to vote if they are held in. Nominee account - you just have to get a supporting letter from the nominee. They managed it at Reabold. The problem here was that Paul what’s his face did not have the votes or correct paperwork. Part of not having the votes was that Will Holland still has the support of many Investors.

From 6m 30s in Majid talks about the focus moving forward and the need for additional investment in the key assets (Clearwater, Central Alberta & Wapiti). Did he forget Montney or is it considered non-core ? The Montney produces around 1900 boepd of which 45% is Oil & Condensates so hard to believe they will let this go. Are they considering selling off the their North Montney sections which is about half the acreage and is gas weighted ??

Interesting updates coming up.

Https://www.google.com/search?q=i3+energy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enZA1031ZA1031&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgAECMYJxjqAjIJCAAQIxgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCAMQIxgnGOoCMgkIBBAjGCcY6gIyCQgFECMYJxjqAjIJCAYQIxgnGOoCMgkIBxAjGCcY6gLSAQkxNzIyajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d40448b3,vid:MUqfgAqw1hw,st:0

6 months old but ties in with latest RNS - well worth another listen

SP up on increased volume - that's got to be encouraging Stas is it not ?

Its good news in the sense that it adds clarity to those who were not sure what the RNS said / meant - but it was actually already stated within the RNS in the 1st couple of lines:

"The Circular will contain details of a proposed normal course reduction of capital (the "Capital Reduction"), being undertaken to ensure there are sufficient distributable reserves to facilitate dividend payments in the long term. "

IBB_INVEST,

"All of its Canadian peers get market notes from TD, RBC, Desjardins, National Bank etc. i3 have made ZERO attempt work on this during the quiet 2023/2024 pricing years"

I would challenge you on this particular statement and I don't know the correct answer to 1) below but 2) is at odds with what i3e have stated on record:

1) I would be reasonably confident that you don't have the information to state "All of its Canadian peers get marked notes". I could be wrong but 99.5% of private investors including myself don't put in sufficient research to confidently state that "all" i3e's peers get coverage. I've no doubt that some get the coverage but i would venture to state that many do not particularly the small cap companies like I3e with a market cap of les that CAD 200m. Am I wrong - can you list i3e's peers who do get the research notes.

2) The second part of your statement does not match with what i3e have stated in investor podcasts - Ryan Heath stated that they were having conversations with up to 4 Investment Banks and Canancord Genuity handle their PR in Canada and have issued several research notes.

email them and ask and see what they say.

I did see a couple of comments from posters on the CEO BB stating that they rarely received responses from i3e to email questions - both the Inquiry form and Camarco Email - I passed on this feedback to Majid and he stated that he would take this up with Camarco and look to improve responses / communication.

If a recall correctly David Hobbs said at the end of last year that PANR hoped to update the market in Q1 about progress on project financing - the clock is ticking - will he deliver ?

And just to add a little different perspective - Gas is at multi-year lows - CAD 1.70 / GJ it averaged CAD 3.60 in 2021.

and something that not many people here may appreciate is that Edmonton Light traded at a $9 discount to WTI in January, $8 in February and about $7 currently. Last year the discount was in the more usual range of $3 - $4. So on average were currently getting about $4-$5 less than we were last year in comparison to WTI.

On the positive side:

1) were paying down the debt - each month, this alone adds 0.1p to NAV.

2) The dividend is relatively safe and were generating a little bit of cash after payment of the dividend and debt.

3) Macro for gas is improving - some of the big producers have cut production, some of the large basins are approaching peak production and LNG Canada is starting up this year.

4) The trans mountain pipeline should reduce the discounts on both Edmonton Light and WCS

As an aside a poster on the other BB called IR asking questions of the recent RNS - unfortunately he did not appear to fully understand what he was told and he jumbled the messaged- but one thing that did come out of the call was that the Capital Reduction currently has nothing to do with any Corporate Action eg asset sales and return of capital to shareholders.

Nomad,

I was typing out an email to ask i3e the question and something popped into my head - why would they need to do another capital reduction when they have recently completed one for £51m as you state - that's sufficient for 3 or more years of dividends.

The RNS starts with:

"(the "Capital Reduction"), being undertaken to ensure there are sufficient distributable reserves to facilitate dividend payments in the long term"

but goes on to say:

"The Board considers it highly desirable that the Company has the maximum flexibility to continue the payment of dividends in line with its dividend policy and otherwise to return value to Shareholders."

and otherwise return value to shareholders - could this be linked to a sale of non-core assets and a special dividend or significant share repurchase?

"I wonder if there is something unusual in the account set up that is leading i3e to do this every year. "

Distributable reserves have to be sufficient to allow distributions to shareholders and they ordinarily come from retained earnings. The parent company which pays the dividend doesn't generate any earnings hence the financial engineering between parent and group company accounts.

It is interesting why they needed to do another capital restructure so soon after the last - maybe a good question for i3e.

Whatcangowrong,

I dont think at current Oil & Gas Prices they are generating sufficient cash to pay out a special dividend - better to conserve cash for a better "tactical" choice as Jezzo infers but I am interested in what you mean by:

"Having said that there is always one consistent mgt say one thing then do a U Turn." The emphasis on always - off the top of my head I can only think of the u-turn on the dividend which was forced - they simply could not afford the dividend as it was.

"...but does open for a buyback if they so desired as there will a lot (£148,396,755) of distributable reserves."

I know you probably didn't mean to phase it exactly like that but distributable reserves has no direct relationship to how many shares they can buy back unless they have the cash.

They have about £17m in cash and are required to keep a minimum bank balance of about £6m so theoretically about £11m available but as i3e have reiterated recently - they don't think buybacks is the best use of cash.

The other restriction on what they can pay out in dividends and/or buybacks are the financial covenant checks done quarterly and distributable reserves play no part in those calculations.

Illuvise66,

There is no change in proceeds i.e cash in the bank. This is an accounting exercise affecting what is reflected in the Parent Company Accounts and the group Companies. In short you have to have distributable reserves shown in the Parent Company accounts to be "allowed" to pay dividends. These distributable reserves are not related to available cash and you will note that the RNS goes on to clarify that dividends will also be subject to the underlying profitability of the Company.

"Premium Buyback of 3p - nice"

There was a lot of discussion after the previous capital reduction and what it meant for the share price - which was nada !

The key points as stated in the RNS: there will be "no change in the number of ordinary shares in issue" and "will not reduce the Net Assets of the Company".

Net assets stay the same, number of shares stay the same means the net assets per share will stay the same and hence the SP. This is merely a change in how the capital structure is reflected in the accounts.

Maybe its an unsolved mystery to you - but for those that emailed in to find out what it was all about - i3e provided an explanation.

It was a typo - the Project was under consideration at the time the RNS was drafted but left in by mistake at the time of issue when they had already excluded the project from future plans. The wording in the RNS points to that (if i3e holds a working interest)

Https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIHhbxFbEAAwKk6?format=jpg&name=360x360

great info if anyone wants to run comparisons with i3e

What is the unsolved mystery about options - what RNS are you referring to?

Not sure why you cannot open - It seems to open fine. Not much to it:

its issued by Odyssey Trust Company as agent for I3 Energy Plc

Meeting Type: Special Meeting

Meeting Date: 15th April 2024

Record Date for notice of meeting: 13th March 2024

Record Date for Voting (If applicable): 13th March 2024

Beneficial Ownership Determination Date: 13th March 2024

Aimshame,

I agree with your comments on a merger - I guess I didn't understand what was meant by "vending the company" - highlights the importance of using plain English to communicate your point or perhaps I'm just slow on the uptake. On the question of whether Management would be receptive - it would be a good question to ask Will Holland at some point - he's not shied away from difficult questions in the past.

It they were to execute this sort of move now - then you would dilute the impact of Inishkea and EQ - however, if we are still sitting in the same boat in say 8-12 months with no tangible progress then it would be harder to Will to justify his salary in a standalone entity

On Serenity - the 33rd Licensing Round is not complete yet and my understanding that a decision on Tain being awarded out of round would only be made after completion of the 33rd Round. I suspect the future of serenity would depend on the success of being awarded Tain. With regards to whether Eog could afford to fund their part of a Tain / Serenity development - imo almost certainly not as I think would be the case with i3e - both parties imo would have to farm down a further % or alternatively sell the licence.