Member Info for Unnd

Abzza the PSC does not work like that. The MG get there 5% royalty on any increase and then the profit oil is shared with the MG. Still an increase but not the full amountt.

ADW - yes it may be breach of the Cooperation Agreement but I doubt if PC accounts or the Finance Director have seen the Agreement. I have had it in this country where payments are held up pending the vat status. It would take longer to enforce the Agreement in court than to get the requisite approval from the Authorities, albeit tax authorities in any country are slow in providing written authority in such instances.

The Cooperation/Sales Agreement will not detail what tax is paid by which party. It is more likely to include a clause to state that each party will be responsible for its own tax liability under the relevant law.

Imo all parties will be aware of the tax liability, which appears to be nil according to MATD's legal advice.

In this instance it is probably someone in PC accounts, possibly the Finance Director , holding the cheque and covering himself whilst also keeping the money in the PC bank for a little longer putting further pressure on MATD's cashflow.

ADW just another thought. If PC or a proxy tried to buy the shares of MATD in the open market then the market cap would be a lot higher than it is now.

ADW I welcome your input.

Yes it does look a ridiculously high figure when you compare it to the market cap.

However the value is based purely on the 33m barrels of recoverable oil confirmed by MATD.

The MC however is based on many factors not least being the need for further funding. The market is sceptical about MATD's ability to extract the oil.

PC will be in a better position to judge the value of the $33m barrels based on Block 19.

It is now up to the CEO to get best value on best terms if he can.

I33 i get your point about taking the average price of oil at the time.

However i think your calculation on the oil price is incorrect. If $93m = $145m today then $41 oil = $64 oil today.

My take on the sale of the Block 20 PSC to PC remains at $165m (33m barrels x $5). Some posters consider that to be a low ball offer whilst other posters consider it to be too high based on MATD's market cap. Then there are posters who want to stifle reasonable debate and just revert to name calling.

Some posters don't

I33 you are correct that the deal is at 2005 prices. If you want to convert it to todays prices then you also need to convert the price of oil to todays price for a true comparison.

*Proven and Possible reserves

The SOCO sale took 4 months to complete from disclosure to the market.

I have just been reviewing the details of the SOCO sale to PC back in 2005 and it appears that PC paid $93m for 40m barrels of Proven and Possible oil.

The $93m included the approved costs of $53m that had been incurred by SOCO on the blocks prior to the sale.

The sale was for Blocks 19, 21 and 22.

As per my previous post the terms of payment for the $93m favoured PC not SOCO.

The sale to PC is the most obvious and logical step for MATD but we need the CEO to step up and agree a better deal with better terms.

For balance the details of the sale were as follows:-

1. $30m on completion of sale

2. $10m 18 months following completion

3. $53m on production exceeding 27.8m barrels.

The last payment was 10 years after completion and SOCO had to commence court proceedings to recover the monies.

It shows how PC drive a hard bargain.

Gigi I will try one last time. The base running costs are the base running costs. The low expenditure period relates to spending monies on additional operational activities. Quite simple really and I do not understand your reluctance to accept published and audited figures.

Gigi i think you are wearing rose tinted glasses and suffering from confirmation bias in what you read and hear.

We shall see what the wages, salary and GA is for 2024 very shortly, but to say that they will be $200k/month when they were $300k/month in 2023 and since then we have increased operational staff, it is being disingenuous to this board.

Gigi with respect you are posting a load of nonsense.

The base running costs of the company are circa $325k / month.

The monthly net backs are currently $168k/month.

It is quite simple really, its just maths.

ADW198 'Where did those rule of thumb calcs come btw, is $5 in the ground a generally accepted ballpark figure? '

It is just something that I have picked up on from commentaries on buy outs of oil companies over the years of investing. It comes with many caveats such as the difficulty and cost to recover the oil in a given circumstance.

ADW198 - whoever buys MATD's interest in the PSC will also take on that liability.

The most logical purchaser would be PC as they have everything in place and are actually processing, transporting and selling the oil for MATD in any case. However I am sure the stumbling block is how much they will pay against how much MATD will accept. In my opinion only PC are making things difficult on purpose for a low ball offer. MATD are trying to counter this by stating that the are talking to 3 entities and are approaching others.

With regards to value a rule of thumb would be 33mbarrels @ $5/barrel = $165m but are PC willing to pay that. From memory (someone please confirm) MATD have incurred costs of circa $55m on the PSC which can eventually be recovered subject to production levels and audit.

MATD are between a rock and a hard place at the moment with regards to finance but that is why the CEO earns the big bucks (excuse the pun), hopefully he can deliver for LTH's.

Doc83 yes it would cost monies, therefore the CEO may decide to do a placing with Petrovis for $1m at the current SP, subject to Petrovis agreement.

That may be preferrable than showing a loan on the balance sheet.

The last reported accounts (2023) stated that the wages ,salaries and G&A was $3.6m = $300k/month.

Since then MATD have told us that they have increased the operational staff in 2024.

We have also had inflation and no doubt salary increases.

I would be very surprised if the wages salaries and G&A for YE 2024 is less than $325k/month no matter what anyone states on here. It is just maths.

If we had $3m in the bank at YE then we now have $1.375 ($3m - 5months @ $325k) less what we may have spent on Block VII and the renewables.

When we eventually get paid for the recent invoices then it would be reasonable to assume that we will have around $2m in the bank.

If we are now producing 160 bopd then the nett back would be around $168k/ month based on Brent at $65/barrel (160 x30 x $35).

The going concern statement in the 2024 accounts is indeed going to be interesting but probably achievable with a small raise (say $1m).

Posters are free to dispute the above but it is based on common sense and maths and not an agenda.

For those posters that admit to being a ramper this is the Cambridge Dictionary definition of ramping - 'the activity of giving dishonest advice about buying shares in a particular company

WOS you keep skirting around the question.

The rules are that if something is a material event that will have an affect on the SP then it must be disclosed to the market at the earliest possible time - simple.

I take it from your response that you do not consider it to be material - ok but just state that and maybe the CEO might agree dispite chasing it every day and making it a primary priority.