Member Info for tonynorstrom1

Pedantry - did you check up the meaning of it before posting - who is complaining about the update of the share registry ? If your concerned about it - email them - your whining is getting quite boring.

I didn’t imply that at all Pete - i’m saying for a stock that is currently suffering from negative sentiment - it seems completely counter productive to be moaning about these things - sort of like bitting off your nose to spite your face ? What are you hoping to achieve by venting your frustrations here.

I didn't say you needed to but as a shareholder - it would probably be more constructive than whining about it on here.

PanamaPete,

Lets get rid of the previous heading - have you emailed the company to ask when the will update the shareholder list?

Appologies Olderandwiser - there was a poster with a similar name so I am mistaken.

Substack only provides PAID subscriber numbers for the top 20 subscriptions - once you get to the 16th or 17th on the list on substack you are already down to hundreds of PAID subscribers and not thousands. Jim's blog does not appear in the top 20 financial blogs and ony the author has access to the information on paid subscriptions. Jim is deliberately trying to confuse twitter followers with paid subscribers on substack.

How is it possible that someone can get an average 400 views per tweet on a free service like twitter and then sell thousands of subscriptions on substack at £30 per month ?

Anyway - I dont want to clog up this board with this debate - just wanted to let you know who you are dealing with !

Olderandwiser - what about over at PANR - I see you regularly challenging the accuracy of the information he is peddling there.

Jim (aka Louis10) is a trader, peddles misinformation on numerous companies to further his trades and is promoting his paid subscription at the same time - agree it currently has nothing to do with PRD which seems to be doing quite nicely. But someone did ask here on whether Oilman Jim blog is worth the subscription. Just pointing out that based on the number of views his tweets get - I would say no.

"Clearwater is likely a dud, and I3 has been busy transfering wells from there to another operator."

i3e and its partner have drilled 10 or 11 wells aleady and as per the information they put out - all producing at or above their type curve. They are just about the cheapest wells to drill because they are shallow and open hole completion and dont require fracking - and they payout in 6 to 7 months. So im not sure where the "dud" comment comes from.

I also like the way i3e are going about delineating their acreage i.e. waiting to see the results from peers on adjacent sections before deciding where to drill next. This is what WHI had to say about Clearwater in their last update:

"Clearwater: ......The company revealed that its newly acquired Clearwater lands (12 sections with 100% working interests) are in the Cadotte area, where peers are expanding the Clearwater play..........Don’t be fooled by the modest per-well production, these shallow wells are being drilled for circa $US1.1m (a WHI estimate) and generating highly attractive economic returns. We have been inordinately focused on i3 Energy’s Clearwater acreage because it generates 100% oil and industry leading economics. We believe that confirmed success via forthcoming production can really move the dial for i3 Energy given its land base. We are encouraged that i3 Energy is successfully drilling its Clearwater acreage on a 100% operated basis and we are excited to see how these wells come in. We are also encouraged by i3 Energy’s peers in the area because they are growing the play into new regions and expanding the sequences within the Clearwater formation that are being targeted."

This touches on the second point in the post - "I3 has been busy transfering wells from there to another operator" Not to my knowledge they havent - almost certainly not active wells. As per Company announcements - they have been busy acquiring additional acreage. I think the poster is confusing the tranfer of inactive / marginal gas wells in Central Alberta to Axiom Energy which I think is a big positive - it reduces i3e's decommissioning liabilities and they actually get paid for the wells !

People make the mistake of thinking that Oiman Jim is an Industry expert and widely followed because he tells you this. I got fed up of Lewis peddling Jims paid blog so I had a look at some stats on twitter and compared followers and number of views against some recognized industry experts. Eric Nuttall is a Fundmanager of Nine Point Capital in Canada -- he has about 80,000 followers. Shubham Garg is an up and coming commentator and Manager of his own small fund (White Tundra) - been on twitter only a few years but is quickly garnering a following and has about 25,000 followers and rising. Oilman Jim has been on twitter since 2013 and has about 7900 followers. I looked up the first 20 tweets from each of the 3 and noted the number of views - see numbers below including averages. One thing that sticks out aside from his relatively modest following is that on average Jim only gets about 400 views per tweets i.e. only 5% of his followers tune in regulary to view his content. Eric on the other has a much higher following (80,000) and tellingly pretty much all of them tune in to read every tweet. Similar story with Shubham - massively more followed and viewed than Jim and twitter is free ! I think Jims content is pretty low value as the following / views tend to indicate. Numbers dont lie !

omj Eric Shubham (number of views per tweet)

1 1739 186,000 43,600

2 1151 59,600 14,100

3 263 52,500 2,850

4 1042 106,100 25,300

5 217 47,700 33,000

6 230 42,000 24,000

7 176 44,900 15,500

8 457 46,900 41,500

9 33 20,100 118,400

10 31 18,600 6,910

11 187 135,700 6,670

12 108 56,200 11,300

13 37 100,100 50,800

14 445 117,000 43,600

15 983 54,700 4,540

16 63 36,600 6,070

17 824 68,200 8,900

18 338 67,000 10,900

19 203 63,700 37,300

20 280 84,100 55,500

Ave 440 70,385 28,037

Hi 1,739 186,000 118,000

L 31 37,000 2,850

Dartron,

One of the area's I get marked down on is being too critical of dumb assess - but I'm not going to appologise - your a dumb ass - really no way of sugar coating it !

You asked the question on whether you were "accurate" with your assestemnt of debt etc - I though it was pretty clear in my response that you were pretty much wrong on all accounts with facts and figures to back up my point! Perhaps you should big up as you put it ?

But just to humour you and the dumbells that have liked your posts - i'll addresss your latest comments:

"Re loan notes: so they have a history of conducting poor financial deals that screw over shareholders." - This is your opinion and not fact - something you appear to be confused about. I refer you to my previous comments on where i3e were 3 years ago versus where they are now. I think the numbers say you are talking rubbish.

"have an opportunity to invest in wells that have internal rates of return of 100% - 300%." your back to ramping again.

Again the numbers say you dont know what you are talking about - look up clearwater and the reports are pretty much all the same - best economics in north america!.

Let me know what else you want me to debunk !

Joe - dont take a hidden dig at me - if you have any issue as to the accuracy of what I have posted - please point it out. As to the accuracy of Stas's post - I have not confirmed it or otherwise. Partly because I dont have complete information i.e what cash i3e have on the balance sheet. I could estimate it but I currently dont know if any of the H1 2023 capex is already accounted for in 2022 results.

Anyway try to be a bit more constructive with your posts - you almost give the impression of wanting to stir the pot.

So the only thing that I would agree with Dartron on - it's been a pretty disasterous past month or so for i3e shareholders - prior to the last couple of months i3e was pretty much tracking many of its peers down with Oil and Gas prices.

So what have been the big changes over the last month - divident cut, monthly to quarterly and sentiment / trust. All three could potentially be regained. This set back is not like a business failure where a new venture has failed and you have to permanently write off cost / shareholder value - nothing yet has permanently been lost unless you have sold out of your holding.

GGG asked a question a week or two ago about the value of a potential takeover and I think he mentioned 25p. i3e has been hard to value as it has consistently traded at below the multiples that many think it should have. If you look at the SP the last year - its tracked oil down but looking at the last 6 months imo the SP may have found a bottom of around 20p had it not been for the dividend cut so 25p seemed reasonable - perhaps a little higher. But the fact is were now at a little over 12p and I would be concerned about getting a hostile bid at less than 20p - imo at current prices i3e is significantly undervalued - John Festivals purchase a few months ago indicates the same along with the CFO's recent share options.

A question for GGG - he indicted that he has sold a quarter or a third of his holding looking to jump back in later - does he still see value at 12p and tempted to jump back in now?

dartron:

"by not preparing for the loan, they had to take finance on poorer terms (see interest rate above)" - so if you go back and look at the terms of the original loan notes - they gave out £24m in what turned out to be free or nearly free warrants / shares. so this is on top of the interest - so i would say the original loan note terms were quite punitive especially considering the market cap / shares in issue at the time was much smaller than it is now. so the new facility is way better in this regard

secondly as i previously mentioned - the old loan notes had an 11% interest rate for payment in kind. for a significant portion of the loan - payments were made in kind. so 9.5% v 11% - which is higher?

you also give the impression that they spent the majority of the cad 75 million on settling the loan notes - which is incorrect.

and i like this the best: "that loan note had a 4 year term, which also incurred interest each year, has in reality cost more than $22m." so i'm not calling out the term or the currency - i think most understood what you were saying even though it makes little sense and shows a complete lack of understanding on the purpose of debt. ok they are paying 9.5% interest but they have an opportunity to invest in wells that have internal rates of return of 100% - 300%. so again what is higher 9.5% or 300%. the wells in clearwater payout in 6-7 months and produce for 10 years or more

so what part of your post dont you think is "that inaccurate" - i would go one step further and say it's bat**** crazy !

Nice post Stas - Dartron should be calling me out for deramping - I understated the reserves by over 30m boe and as per year end results - NPV 10 pre-tax 2P are valued at $1.2B

So I would be interested to see on what basis Dartron has determined that i3e are fairly valued. Certainly sentiment is rock bottom but that I think will change over time.

What a load of drivel Dartron and riddled with inaccuracies but curiously Jim seems to like it! I think it also highlights that you don’t really know what you are talking about - certainly with respect to debt.

First off, most companies have debt (certainly in oil and gas) and have it deliberately to provide liquidity to fuel growth. A few other comments on the debt:

1) They also had cash on the balance sheet so the whole facility has not been exhausted on repaying the old loan notes.

2) It’s not on poorer terms - overall it is on better terms with more freedom on what I3e can do. There were a lot of restrictions that came with the old loan notes - we as PI's were just not privy to them and you forget that the old notes came with a large number of warrants - so the total actual cost to shareholders was significantly higher than just the interest rate. There are no warrants attached to the new facility!!!

3) The old facility had a two-tier interest rate depending on whether it was paid in cash or paid in kind - if it was paid in kind then the rate was at 11%. The other thing to be said is that interest rates have gone up since the old loan notes were established so nothing to do with i3e being FORCED to do anything.

“ I remember telling you in January I3E was not a growth share, when you also shouted me down.”

I3e have gone from a company with zero production, zero revenue and $30m in debt 3 years ago to 22k boepd production, 150m barrels of reserves and paying quarterly dividends . Your comments seem to lack a little perspective imo and I’m sorry that I appear to have hurt your feelings but you seem to be very good at putting your foot in it – but the good news is Jim likes your posts !

And things are so dire that they are still forecasting 3% growth this year !

Is this the same Dartron that thinks its a good idea to draw a CAD 75m loan and then pay off the principal and interest without doing anything with the loan ?

I think gas prices have a lot to do with it and also the dividend cut - i3e were amongst the 1st to pay a dividend, amongst the 1st to pay a monthly dividend and amongst the 1st to raise aggressively. Now that oil/gas prices have not cooperated - they are amongst the 1st to have to cut. Others may not cut and probably largely because they were way behind the cycle in raising an so have not yet reached a level that they would need to cut.-

Not 100% sure on the accuracy of the graph -Shubham Garg did not do a Q1 update on his valuations but said he will update for Q2 - let’s see what his figures say.

Bottomsup,

Views I think bare a direct relationship to the quality and credibility of any posts / tweets. I just want to make sure that fellow investors here know that Louis10 is Oilman Jim and that he is not in fact an Industry Expert.

This situation reminds me of a Comedian called Don Rickles - one of his favourite put downs was to call out an actor in the audience and I remember him doing it to both Clint Eastwood and Robert De Niro - " He's a great actor - you ask him, he'll tel ya". Does that sound like Oilman jim ?

Hey and my knowledge has nothing to do with the SP falling ! Investors here have to do their own research and make their own decisions - i'm still bullish although the SP is a little concerning - I believe it will turn around but DYOR !

"I'm seeing posts there with over 10,000 views, so not sure what Tony (1 follower) is on about"

Ok i'll be a bit more factual - i'd hate to misrepresent the facts - so I clicked on Oilman Jim, Shubham Garg and Eric Nuttall today - started from the top and took note of the number of views of the top 20 listed tweets. Results below along with the average number of views:

So theses are my findings:

Eric Nuttals average post has 160x more views than Oilman Jim, Shubham Garg who is a newcomer has 60x more views than Oilman Jim on average. Its perhaps also worth noting that the Canadian Market is much smaller than the UK.

So certainly no posts with 10,000 views in the last months for oilman jim - but Lewis10 should not let facts obscure his version of the truth.

Numbers dont lie and they say that Oilman Jim is not widely followed and probably for good reason - his commentary is low value !

omj Eric Shubham

1 1739 186,000 43,600

2 1151 59,600 14,100

3 263 52,500 2,850

4 1042 106,100 25,300

5 217 47,700 33,000

6 230 42,000 24,000

7 176 44,900 15,500

8 457 46,900 41,500

9 33 20,100 118,400

10 31 18,600 6,910

11 187 135,700 6,670

12 108 56,200 11,300

13 37 100,100 50,800

14 445 117,000 43,600

15 983 54,700 4,540

16 63 36,600 6,070

17 824 68,200 8,900

18 338 67,000 10,900

19 203 63,700 37,300

20 280 84,100 55,500

Ave 440 70,385 28,037

Hi 1,739 186,000 118,000

L 31 37,000 2,850

GGG is one of the more followed posters here but based on recent posts - I dont get it at all:

1) Concensus seems to be that i3e's biggesrt mistake is cutting the dividend after raising it 6 months prior. GGG was one of the most vocal supporters of them increasing it and in fact was asking for more. Now it seems consensus is that i3e were too agressive with the dividend and now again GGG is very critical of the Management sitting on the back seat of the bus and with the benefit of hindsight !

2) IMO not too much has changed in the fundamentals of the business other than low oil prices, a dividend cut and rock bottom sentiment. There's a lot to be optimistic about with regards i3e but GGG as a large holder seems to think its helpful to go back 2 years and again second guess management on past decisions. Extremely unhelpful imo for sentiment not to mention the fact that I think many will agree that he got it completely wrong on the previous equity raises which were widely recognized as bottom of the market acquistions on historically low multiples that were extemely accretive to valuation metrics.

Hey - but thats just my take !