Member Info for tonynorstrom1

I've not been selling since 32p and in fact the SP has never closed above 32p - it should also be noted that the SP has not spent much more than a handfull of days above 30p so there wont have been too many selling above 30p.

"Have you been selling from 32p as the price has been dropping & still posting that you 'remain bullish' ......." - typically misleading from you. "We remain bullish" is a quote from Eric Nuttall which I have posted from time to time in the last 4 months or so when the SP was in the low 20's. It was posted a little bit tongue in cheek and its based on Nuttall's thesis that we are in the early stages of a 6 year or more structural bull cycle and belief that the decline in Oil prices will reverse its year long down trend from last year June (which coincided with the peak in oil prices and i3e's SP). If correct this is very positive for Oil Companies and It looks like he may be right albeit a little early with his call. So yes I remain positive on i3e - not much they can do when the Oil prices have crashed from last years highs other than manage the factors within their control - but over the full cycle i3e should do quite well. Their assests are good, the management are reasonably good (imo) and they have a new debt facility with available funds to spend on growth projects. So for me a temporary set back with the dividend but well set for the future.

Lol - how are you Pete - 11 ? Well as long as your amused - lights maybe on, nothing between the ears but still with a smile on your face - good on you !

Its a rant GGG - always the same rant - time to change the record !

That old chestnut Austin - you can do better than parroting Pistol Pete!

Peter - looking at how many likes Stas has - I appears you and Austin are in the minority. Being negative is not necessarily "balance" - sometimes crap is just crap.

Louis10(oillman jim),

No problem with that Jim - but if you're honest with yourself - you seem to be the only one that thinks you are adding value - most others from what I see think otherwise - but have at it !

Louis10 or Oilman Jim (whoever you are today):

"What on earth do you all do outside of here?" - What on earth do you do Jim - you only have to look at your posting history to see that you're an obsessive nut case.

I saw on one board - they refer to you as FUD - In my opinion it should be FUDD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and DECEIT, Your modus operandi is always the same - you jump onto a share spreading FUDD to try to further your trading. No problem with taking a negative view on a share or its SP - but when you throw in lies and misinformation which you have been caught out doing on many occasions including i3e and PANR - that crosses a line and is scum bag behaviour.

"Just love the way on here that the person who gets the share price movement right is wrong, and the person who gets it wrong is right." - Even a broken clock is right once a day and if your referring to me - I gave up giving SP predictions a long time ago. I provide metrics to show where peers are trading and where we would trade if i3e would trade on the same multiple but I stop short of making a prediction due to the vagaries of the market.

I see you taking a lot of stick on most of the BB's you post on - is it worth it and why do you do it...... and remember - you haven't made or lost anything until you sell !! I hope your paid news letter is received better than the majority of your posts - actually i dont but for your sake I do !

"we remain bullish !"

"Clearly future capex in the UKNS is ruled out as the company strives for a fdp that rests on unitisation and Repsol fid for Tain."

This is not strictly true - they are currently talking about a single well development tied back to existing infrastructure - so this would be independent of tain though would rely on getting Repsols approval to tie into their pipeline / manifold. Tain from the last information publicly available was a 2 well development - so any unitized field is likely to be a multi-well development. I suspect though that Serenity wont proceeds unless Tain Proceeds so 2 hurdles still to overcome - Tain FID and an approved Serenity FDP. One thing that Repsol might be waiting on is i3e's FDP. When they get this approved - this means that the NSTA agrees that Serenity is a feasible commercial project.

Point take though on the UK Management including Directors - if i3e are not able to get to an approved FDP and monetize or Develop Serenity - then its going to be very difficult to justify the current UK Team.

Https://4043042.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/4043042/Content%20Offers/2023.Q2%20Commentary/2023.Q2%20Goehring%20and%20Rozencwajg%20Market%20Commentary.pdf

I think this is up there with the best research available free - Gas Prices to rise significantly in 2024 (in their view) and converge with World & European Prices. Canadian LNG plants come on line in 2025 and how much gas do we produce !

Also predictably bullish on oil for the next decade - their thesis on US shale, particularly the Permian is playing out.

Would be interesting to convert the NGL's & Gas of both companies into per barrel equivalent of light oil on a $ earning basis and then work out their relative valuations. Well lets do it - rough and ready calculations:

InPlay = 8500 boepd = approximately 4650 bopd light oil (Market Cap £139m)

i3e = 22,000 boepd = approximately 8630 bopd light oil (Market Cap £170m)

(8630/4650) * £139m = £250m

250/170 * 13.1p = 19.3p

i3e has better debt ratio's and also about triple the 2P reserves.

TheA20(and the two posters that recommended you) - i'm sorry but i'll to have to give you an E-

4830 BOPD >>>>>>>>>>>>> light oil + NGL's (InPlay oil)

5238 BOPD(for Q1)>>>>>>> light oil + bit of heavy oil + condensates (usually trades at a premium to WTI) i3e

On top of this you need to add 5500 boepd of NGL's to the i3e figure.

The only reason I didnt give you an F was your comment on oil v gas. it's also important to recognize the big difference between NGL's and Oil.

Https://boereport.com/

Always interesting to see Q2 results coming out from i3e's Canadian Peers and doing a quick comparison. Take a look at InPlay Oil:

About 8500 boepd (i3e - +/- 20,000)

Net debt to EBITDA ration of 0.4 (i3e much lower at 0.13)

Revolving credit facility of CAD 100m recently renewed (similar to i3e)

"Maintained balance sheet strength with a low net debt" - so this is how InPlay describe their balance sheet. i3e have lower net debt, much lower net debt to ebitda ratio and correspondingly higher revenues.

Market Cap of about £135 v £175 for i3e

Futures pricing for WTI softens slightly towards the end of the year but AECO strengthens - so if they maintain there aggregate production guidance for the year - I think they could be close to $100m NOI. Q2 update is obviously important - is it going to be better or worse than expected ?

"So a portion of the $18m "spent" in 2022 is already accounted for in 2022"

typo

So a portion of the $18m spent in 2023 is already accounted for in 2022.

Jolly - I think you are inclined to think the worst and your posts reflect that.

"Ask management what was the reason for the delay then? Come on Tony."

I have asked them and I've posted the response here. Majid also gave a very credible explanation for the delay in issuing the Q1 update in his podcast immediately after the release - perhaps you should go back and listen again.

"Clearly there was an immediate need for working capital ( what portion, we don't know as it's smoked with the other good stuff). However, one would not draw down a whopping $75m, until there was a need for the acquisition purpose or organic growth (none of which have been clarified......"

The settlement date of the old load notes was fixed and you always have this issue of working capital when you role over or replace an existing LONG TERM debt facility - I already gave you an example of BP and perhaps an even better example is Tamarack Valley (i3e peer) - go check out their balance sheet - based on your reasoning (which no CEO, Finance Director or Fund manager would agree with) - Tamarack Valley is a complete basket case and yet they are a top pick of both Eric Nuttall & Shubham Garg. There is absolutely nothing dire or worrying - i3e'e balance sheet was strong in May and even stronger now. I don't know why they decided to draw down CAD 75m (get you currencies right) instead of say CAD 50m but we dont get to know all the inner working of i3e and neither should we - no Company provides a day to day update of all their internal business. My information (which may be incorrect) is that they had identified a M&A target and were running their rule over it. Was I wrong or has someone gazumped them like Chelsea has just done with Caicedo - I don't know.

"How you know what the current cash position is, I don't know. Unless you are speculating and trying to state it as factual"

Just because you don't know - doesn't mean anything. We have the cash balance at year end (2022 results). We know the actual production figures up to May, AECO and WTI up to today, Opex Cost, SG&A, Finance costs - in fact pretty much everything in order to come up with a pretty decent estimate. So I have never passed this off as fact - i've clearly indicated that the cash is my estimate. In fact I think the cash position I estimated is conservative because I accounted for the Q1 Capex costs in Q1 2023. As you should know - quite a bit of the Q1 drilling program actually commenced in Q4 2022 and as per normal accounting practice any costs incurred in 2022 or cash paid should be accounted for in the year in which they were realized (2022). So a portion of the $18m "spent" in 2022 is already accounted for in 2022 and should be added to my cash estimate for 2023. I tried to find out what this number is but the Company would not reveal other than to confirm the correct accounting practice and pointed me to the relevant notes in the 2022 accounts.

And AECO currently at about CAD 2.80 and an average of just over CAD 2.60 for August so far. Dire - really dire - lmao !?

"So much bigger loan and drawn how much Tony?" - I have no idea what you are trying to get at here but the purpose of a loan in general is to generate available funds in order to invest, so if your old loan agreement is expiring (and i3e's was) - it makes sense to renew with a bigger facility to maximise available funds if you are looking to grow including by M&A (and i3e are). It’s not like i3e got to the 31st of May (loan note settlement date) and said what do we do now - the plan was always to replace the loan notes with a new facility - they have talked about it for several years. The difference now is that pre-31st May - i3e had a debt of about £27m (loan notes) and available cash of about £13m. Today they have debt of about £40m but available cash of about £32m. It’s called leverage Jolly - what’s going to buy you more £13m or £32m and on top of that - they still have the CAD 25m accordion facility which is currently undrawn. But importantly i3e's net debt (debt - cash) was about £11m in May versus £8m now - it’s gone down!!!

"Also, you mean to say a mere £22m could not have been paid off from cashflow? Had to borrow and plug the gap, otherwise no Audit sign off. Quite dire imo."

The first thing to say is that they did not want to pay off the debt - as I said above, they wanted to maximise available funds for growth (acquisition or more wells) by replacing the old facility with a new facility. Let me give you another example to see whether it makes it clearer - go take a look at BP on yahoo finance - they have debt of about $55B and cash about $29B - they also cannot pay off their debt with available cash and why- they don't want to - they want to keep their funds in the assets generating income and this is the case with many / most companies. Are you describing BP's situation as dire??? Its leverage Jolly - no difference actually from having a mortgage on a house - many people could not afford to pay off the mortgage today in cash - but they don’t need to - they pay it off over time and one day after settlement of the loan they have an asset hopefully worth much more than they paid for it.

"quite dire imo" - so ok - that's your opinion but quite clearly mistaken imo - reasons given above!

You also keep on talking about this being the reason for not signing off the audit - couple of things to say about this:

1) This is speculation on your part - you have no factual basis whatsoever for saying this and in fact several of us emailed the company who stated that the loan notes were not the reason for the delays. You can choose to believe this or not - personally I have no reason not to accept the Companies explanation

2) The fact is the audit was signed off and now the debt is significantly higher - joining the dots as you like to do - my conclusion is that the auditors don’t see the current debt as an issue.

Jolly - your points are so vague - there hard to address properly.

1) they had a loan - it’s been replaced with another loan - so presumably if they had a hole in the balance sheet before - they have one now. Please explain what you think the hole is. Most Companies have net debt and it’s generally thought of as a good thing - leverage. I3E’s net debt was considerably better than many in the Canadian space - so again please explain the hole. Perhaps you might want to compare with Tamarack Valley or other peers in term of debt ratio’s etc. I’ m interested to see whether indeed you have any justification for you comments.

2) “Selective answering of my points” - I don’t think so - any question that’s been clear - I’ve responded to. If I’ve missed anything - please ask again and be specific - generalities are always difficult to address.

"Rest not even worth commenting on. Self evident, that they did not react intime. Until the audit showed a hole in the balance sheet.."

This is garbage - two points:

1) when should they have reacted in your opinion - and please give a date.

2) There was no hole in the balance sheet - what evidence do you have for that - the year end report shows a reasonably healthy balance sheet which the auditors have signed off.

"Of course I agree. Is it wrong and unfair to think about time frame AND at what commodity price?"

I think they told you the time frame - "future". So even if they did say 2 years from now or even 5 years from now - does that really tell you anything as an investor given that the situation is very dynamic and that a plan made for something say 3-6 months down the line may change very quickly depending on prevailing circumstances. I think your nit picking.

"Take them rose tinted glasses off. When they started drilling oil prices were far higher and we were getting a much higher return. At this point reserves should have been building up fast. You'd have internal management data monitoring reserves build up vs divis paid and expenditure. So you'd adjust accordingly to falling prices. You dont need to wait for a prolonged period.You're glossing over the time frames."

No idea what you are talking about here so difficult to respond - what would say is that i3e have made an adjustment and acted decisively imo. Had Oil and AECO moved higher like they have recently 3-4 months ago like many expected - perhaps the Q1 announcement might have been slightly different.