Member Info for VistaMan

Rhodi, I am replying even knowing I am filtered by you, HAHA. I am more interested in letting the rest of the board understand my position than you, in fact I don't care if you read it or not. Typical response (filtering) from you when you can't formulate data / arguments to back up your discredited ramps.
1. I am not a troll or deramper. I have held TERN shares since 2015.
2. I used to own a lot of TERN shares but realised some time ago the way to make money here was to top slice on spikes.
3. I dislike blatant, unfounded ramping as much as unfounded deramping. I usually only post on boards when I have useful information to add OR when I feel somebody needs challenged.
I still have a significant holding here and like all LTHs just wish Sisto would stop the acquisitions / fund raises and get on with disposals as per their published business models. Until he exits with a decent price I am not supporting any further in terms of fund raising or share purchases.
All the best to genuine investors here.

Antelope, I don't want to start an argument but the £30MM valuation is based upon what the latest investor was prepared to pay for a share of FVR. I know TERN were quoting historical NAVs for years but the FVR valuation was current. I believe TERN is undervalued based upon investee performance / potential, otherwise I wouldn't hold but these constant ramping of the investee companies as a Unicorn with an imminent exit is simply nonsense.

Rhodi, I am sorry but you are a serial ramper and every bit as "useful" as the trolls on here. Only a ramper or a clown would believe that an investee currently valued at ~£30MM and that had grown 77% since the last valuation a few years ago would be worth £1 billion by the end of 2023. Tern invested ~ £1.9MM in 2018 in FVR and that plus follow-up loans have increased to £6.9MM. You are proposing a growth of 3,300% by the end of 2023! Its not credible.
As for the announcement today regarding the acquisition of PIRES resulting in a 21.5% dilution for TERN shareholders, I am surprised you are so positive about it given the imminent sales of DA and FVR and their unicorn valuations that you regularly for at least the past year post about. Al might be good at spotting investments but he certainly hasn't proven himself in achieving any meaningful exits for shareholders. I think if Al told you to go and sit on a spike you would be able to come up with a positive view from the top of it!

SFH300, Is it not the case though that we still own the same percentage of the company plus we now have cash as well?

Lemming, not sure where you get the £4.60 per therm from?

Vista

Lazypunter, I think the HL figures are correct. They have reduced your holding by 50% so that they can use the TLSA share price converted to pence. When you sell any shares now it will be TLSA and by telephone dealing with HL only.

Nice reply GGG. I have to say I have always been impressed when I meet Polish people and have worked with a number of Poles for many years. It sounds like your wife is one of many Poles helping distressed Ukrainians entirely voluntarily. I salute them and wish UK citizens had some of their courage and morality.

Excellent Update, full of details. Particularly liked the sections on the Montney and Glaucontic plays. Only additional information I would have liked would be how much of the US $47 million budget is being spent on phase 1?

Folks, I owe an apology on this subject. Going back through the admission document I had missed the fact that there is an "Historic Unrecovered cost pool" of ~ $140 million gross or $31 million net to UOG. Looking at H1 situation in terms of oil price, production etc this is sufficient for about the next 4 years if I understand it correctly to ensure UOGs take of revenue is the 42.53% quoted in the last interims. (And of course ongoing Capex will be added to this pool) Should oil prices stay high and production increases then this historic cost pool will be consumed quicker.
It doesn't explain in any way what Rift reports as a cash gap/hole.
Apologies, Vista.

MWAP, Using the flowchart on how revenues are divided I estimate that the company are currently taking ~32% and the Govt. 68%. The only variables are oil / gas price. Opex per boe and Capex. Govt take could vary in the range 57 -74 depending primarily upon the level of Capex.
Thats why UOG are so keen to keep drilling to maximise their use of the "Cost Oil - 30%" and thus their % take.
Vista

TheSwan, Look at the flowchart on how the revenues are divided. Then using this see how UOG come up with 42.53%.
To achieve this they are taking all the "Cost Oil - 30%". The only scenario that this is true is when Opex + Capex = "Cost Oil - 30%".
I am not trying to deramp the SP, the poor communication on the Ash water cut and the latest update have prompted me to research the company further to evaluate my current holding. I try to only post facts.

Read it and understand it!

GingerHippo, I believe your figure of 42.53% is too high. There is only one specific set of conditions where it can match that and that is when OPEX and CAPEX equal 30% , ie equal to the "Cost Oil - 30%" from the PSC. In all other circumstances it is lower than 42.53%. In the EXTREME case where oil is $90, Opex is $5 per barrel and there is NO Capex the figure is 25.8%.
So the actual figure is somewhere between these two depending on the level of Capex.
Using $5.5 million Capex as for 2021 with 1500 boepd and $5 Opex gives a figure of 31.6%

Vista.
PS I am a LTH, > 3 years and have topped up 7 times.

Agricore, Rift shared a link to the last results presentation which gave details of the PSC. From that document my take is that after Opex and Capex is deducted from the gross revenue then UOG gets 17.9% and the Egyptian Govt 82.1% of what is remaining. So you can see that UOG is incentivised to drill as they only pay 17.9% of THEIR share(22%) of the well costs. Thats why I think its misleading to solely compare EV / flowing barrel across multiple oil producers when they have greatly different PSC / Royalty which can radically alter the equivalency of their flowing barrel.
Vista.

TheSwan, I would agree with you that expecting some rotation into O&G if prices stay high / go higher makes sense.
My problem with UOG in this regard is that it is not particularly leveraged to higher oil prices.
As per PSC, if OPEX and CAPEX stays the same, then UOG will only receive an additional $1.79 per barrel for every $10 increase in oil price.
UOGs main vector to improve financial performance is to increase production and unfortunately the last 6 months has been a disaster and the company has been less than open in explaining the situation.

Rift, I agree with you, the effective take of 42.53% shown in that slide is very misleading. Its only true when the OPEX+CAPEX = the 30% cost oil. If OPEX + CAPEX is less than that then UOG only get 17.9% of difference between the 30% cost oil - CAPEX+OPEX. NOT 100% of the Cost Oil that the example would lead you to believe.
So in an extreme case if the OPEX + CAPEX was say ZERO then UOG would only get 17.9% of the 30% Cost Oil + 17.9% of the 70% Profit Oil.
Not one of the best PSCs I have seen.

The swan. Look at 2021 revenue and compare it to the multiple of their reported production rate and reported achieved oil price. See what percentage that gives.

Gingerhippo, what do you expect expect the installation of ESPs to achieve with respect to the water cut issue at ASH? I haven't seen a situation where ESPs actually reduce water cut but perhaps on occasion they have assisted in slowing the increase in water cut.

Agricore, remember that UOG only keeps about 35% of its revenue with the contract it has with the Egyptian Government. This means for comparisons with other oil cos who keep 100% its really only producing approximately 550 boepd and do the EV / flowing barrel on that basis.

I am afraid I have to disagree MWAP, the only people who are being successful in UOG are the Executive Directors who more than doubled their remuneration in 2020. The SP is down over a 1,3&5 year period. A rising SP or dividends is the only way success flows to the shareholders and there is nothing positive to report here. Despite the "drilling success", production is down and god knows if it will ever regain the heights of Q2 211. Personally I think its outrageous for 3 executives to be taking $1.15 million in remuneration for a shrinking company with an MCAP of £16 million.
Believe in the numbers, not the blather.