Member Info for Unnd

TBT - It is irrelevant whether I lost or gained money on COPL. If you check my posts you will see that I tried to warn people about how the Bonds worked against COPL. Unfortunately in my view there is no case to answer for shareholders their.

Anyway that has nothing to do with my post on MATD - facts are facts whether yo like them or not.

I see that you are up to your usual divert tactics again and calling the messenger and not responding to the actual details in the message.

I think that I speak for the silent majority when I say that this board and LSE would be better without you as all this name calling reached a different level when you arrived and you are now you are asking posters to spoil other boards.

Gravy - no spin actual facts in the public domain. Please advise what is not correct or where the spin is.

I would also appreciate your costings or calculation of the cashflow at end of April - thought not.

IMO most reasonable posters would admit that cashflow is very tight and is the reason why the 2025 drill campaign has been postponed this year unless or until a JV transpires.

The cash position at year end is now stated at $3m (previously $2.5m by Progressive). If the Cooperation Agreement is signed this month them MATD have a chance of getting some or all of the £1m in store by the end of April. At the end of April the base costs (G&A etc) incurred by MATD would be around $1.25m which would give MATD around $2.7m.

The $2.75m would need to fund the remedial works to H1,H2,Gobi and Gazelle in addition to any expenditure on renewables and Blockv11.

Given that it could cost up to $2m to put H2 into production it needs to be sidelined whilst H1 is resolved - I think another poster did make this suggestion some time ago.

If MATD can manage to get H1 up to 400+ bopd then they will be self sustained with monies to fund H2,Gobi, gazelle, Block V11 and renewables over the course of the year.

It is now a slow burner unless PC make an offer.

For avoidance of doubt the 2023 end of year accounts states that wages, salaries and G&A was $3.6m which is £300k/month as a base. Therefore Q1 expenditure is minimum $900k but probably $940k due to inflation and increased workforce referred to in previous RNS.

Proquo - you need to read the thread again. TBT stated that I was wrong that is why I asked him what was wrong - see what I mean.

Proquo - I am all for being positive about one's investment but I draw a line at the shameless ramping and needless name calling that goes on on this BB. It is now worse that the COPL BB ever was despite the shameless ramping on there.

I am invested at 1.9p but I am not blind to the pro's and con's of MATD.

The CEO has battened down the hatches and he is cutting costs which is a good thing and once we get the Cooperation Agreement signed and payments are received we may see the SP move toward my 1.9p.

Abbza - that is correct so please practice what you preach e.g. refinery 2026.

Proquo - there is non so blind as those who will not see.

TBT - please advise where I am wrong.

I did not state that 200bopd is not the start but it is irrelevant to my post.

Please advise which part is wrong instead of attacking the messenger.

I think the SP is telling us what the market thought of the RNS and AGM.

Lets be clear that the CEO has now postponed the 2025 drill campaign to conserve cash to try to avoid a fund raise.

He is battening down the hatches and cutting costs wherever possible to conserve cash.

The priorities for 2025 are now limited to increased production, if possible, at H1 and H2 and cash permitting to undertake further works at Gobi and Gazelle. Posters may speculate on the costs associated with the those works but lets be honest non of us know what those costs will be.

With regards to a JV it appears to me that PC are delaying cashflow to MATD in the hope of getting a better deal on a farm in or a take over of the Heron PSC, but they cannot delay it forever as the MG will also want their share of production.

Despite what some have posted on here, 200bopd does not cover MATD corporate costs.

Hi Medjed - sorry if it was unclear but MATD can issue up to 640m shares at any time after the resolution is passed. However they cannot issue them at any less than the nominal value i.e. $0.01/share. Hope that clarifies the position.

Hi Adw198 - yes I agree that the cash burn was greater in 2024 but that included additional expenditure above the base which is partly unknown. If we assume that Progressive are correct with $2.5m at the end of Q1/24 and the minimum expenditure in Q1/25 at $960k that leaves around $1.5m at the end of Q1/25. Yes they then may have incurred additional costs for Block V11, renewables and licence fees but that is an unknown to shareholders at this stage. They may also have paid The Daqing Oilfield for transporting and storing the oil which again is an unknown and may be the subject of deferred terms when the oil is sold.

So yes agreed cash burn is unknown at this stage but you would expect the CEO to keep it to a minimum.

Apologies 6.4m = 640m.

Medjed - “Am I thick, Resolution 4 doesn't add up to me. $6.4m is not 43% of the total issued ordinary share capital. The current MCAP is around £20.8m which is $26.2m“

The 43% is based on the nominal value of the shares and not the SP.

The nominal value of MATD shares is $0.01/share.

Therefore under the resolution MATD can issue a maximum number of 6.4m shares at no less than $0.01/share.

Hope that helps.

Adw198 - the 2023 accounts confirm that wages, salaries and G&A were $3,6m which equals $300k/month as a base. There then may be additional exceptional costs for Block V11 and renewables etc. Taking account of inflation it is probably reasonable to say monthly base running costs of around $320k/month.

WOS - we need to put the RBL aside.

What I will agree with you is your statement *Of course other option is Petro China Buy Out of Block XX asset with JV partnership on New Blocks *

WOS - do you not understand or believe the CEO when he stated '' we have to demonstrate that we have a reliable production stream and revenue generation'. This is like teaching your grandmother to suck eggs :)

WOS - Mr Buck mentioned it with the proviso ' we have to demonstrate that we have a reliable production stream and revenue generation'.

WOS - do you not believe what the CEO stated which is in the real world ' we have to demonstrate that we have a reliable production stream and revenue generation'. I do not understand your objection. The CEO will need to find alternative sources of funding - quite simple really.

WOS - try going to the bank with the definition of an RBL and see if they will loan you the money without the means to pay it off. Your definition is the starting point. Lets get in the real world please. An RBL is a non starter at this point that is real.