Member Info for Vyrnwy

On delisting, the company could file abridged accounts to Companies House. Abridged accounts contain a simpler balance sheet and notes. As already posted, it could also claim exemption from audit unless 10% or more shareholders requested one. So to the outside world, less information about company performance would be available to the public. Other than by attending annual AGM's, shareholders would not be updated on an ongoing basis as they are now. This was alluded to in the RNS notice of the directors' intention to de-list.. https://www.gov.uk/annual-accounts/microentities-small-and-dormant-companies

As the company is UK registered, there will be no requirement for an external audit as it falls short of all three measures above which an audit is mandatory. The only way for shareholders to have their company audited, would be if 10% or more by number or value asked the directors for one. Therefore shareholders would need to form a steering group privately to ensure that that happened. https://www.gov.uk/audit-exemptions-for-private-limited-companies

Mr English The consideration shares for the deal must have been for an imputed value. I'm guessing they projected an exit value at certain stages in time, at least based on the SP at the time of the deal. That won't be met. They aren't insiders but it bothers me that they went ahead with the deal just two weeks after the 2016 accounts were published and by December, five months later, they had deployed the first $500k. In any event, it seems too coincidental to believe that further deployment didn't occur in the last +5 months for any reason other than suspension given the 'this will be the first of many ' remark of WED in the first announcement. Where that leaves them and the agreement is anyone's guess.

Crikey - the spread is an eye-watering 133.3%

L1onheart Do you know what the company's most valuable asset is? Do you know to whom that asset is pledged? Do you know how much of that asset would be left once the company divested a good number of producing wells to raise the cash to pay the bank? Do you know how much longer the company could last on a much smaller scale after such divestment/? Do you whether the company is under pressure from other creditors - check the H1 balance sheet?

Extract from the Audit report to members in the 2016 annual report to shareholders issued almost a year ago: " Emphasis of matter � going concern In forming our opinion on the Financial Statements, which is not modified, we have considered the adequacy of the disclosure made in note 2.3 to the Financial Statements concerning the Group and Company�s ability to continue as a going concern. The Group incurred a net loss of $1,551,275 during the year ended 31 December 2016 and, at that date, the Group had net current liabilities of $438,248. The company�s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on continuing support from its lenders and its ability to raise funds on the open market. These conditions, along with the other matters explained in note 2.3 to the Financial Statements, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt on the Group and Company�s ability to continue as a going concern. The Financial Statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the Group and Company were unable to continue as a going concern."

My post stated that the agreed total minimum deployment of the WED agreement was to be "by1st December 2020." That date I posted is incorrect. The RNS that announced the agreement stated: "The CMA provides for a minimum capital commitment to be provided by WED of US$10,000,000 by 1 January 2020". That is a period of 19 months from now.

In the last 6 months of 2017, she presided over an increase in the shares in issue of 87%. The first by an issue of consideration shares to WED (for no cash but a management contract for fees and a free small share of first spacings). The second (which raised a$300k net cash) was to invest in new wells in Oklahoma. That rate of share dilution should raise serious questions. The WED Capital Management Agreement was first announced almost 11 months ago. since when it has only deployed 5% (over 5 months ago) of its agreed total minimum deployment by 1st December 2020. Shareholders should really be concerned about the absence of any further deployment of WED funds to invest on their behalf by Magnolia. I think this will only become clear with the issue of the 2017 annual results.

I've just recently invested. I've also been an investor in Eco Animal Health for some time. Both businesses appeal to me because they are about satisfying similar global demands relating to the need to economically feed the rising population. I had a look at Sirius some years ago before it had received its regulatory approvals but had other investments at the time and passed this up. It's come a long way since then and I consider the investment case to be very compelling. The company has an excellent BoD, mature and very experienced led by the project's founder. The strands of the strategy to deliver the project in all its respects, are well documented and presented.

Stanley. Are you a long-term investor in Sirius?

Yes, the case for investors is increasingly compelling, especially with TC in control. I'm keeping a watchful eye on the SP too.

I think the downward trend will continue, unfortunately, especially when the uncertainty about the bank loan renegotiation, injected by its reference in the Q1 Operations Update, hasn't been removed and the lack of movement from the WED agreement.

Smidsy I think investor sentiment would improve if further tranches of WED funds to invest and manage on their behalf were forthcoming. The Capital Management Agreement announced July 2017 provides for a 'minimum' capital commitment to be provided by WED of US$10,000,000 by 1 January 2020 up to $ 18.5m. The first tranche of $500k was announced on 11 December last year, getting on for 5 months ago. This pace seems slow to me especially when the minimum $10m is to be deployed by 1st Jan 2020 - that's 20 months.

A piece of positive news that I liked in the last update was "Following the rise in the price of oil, the Company is producing positive cash flow from its existing operations and this is expected to increase further since revenues lag oil prices by a number of months."

A piece of positive news that I liked in the last update was "Following the rise in the price of oil, the Company is producing positive cash flow from its existing operations and this is expected to increase further since revenues lag oil prices by a number of months."

A simple answer to your question about why the company has done so little. It's connected with your statement that the company has "an awful lot of capital to expand with and make profits". It has no capital to speak of but a lot of debt relatively speaking. I take it you can read a balance sheet so don't take my word for it. The WED agreement and share issue announced early last July didn't provide MAGP with instant new capital cash funds. The shares issued by MAGP were "Consideration Shares". The funds provided by WED to invest are theirs to be managed by MAGP on WED's behalf in return for fees, a portion of net revenue and an equity stake in the first well spacing.

A great company to be invested in - still at an early stage of development. A good BoD. Clear milestones established and being executed

I was at a hotel recently where the range of quality gins on the shelf was staggering and, of course, FT was similarly well stocked.