Caza Oil & Gas Share Discussion Threads

[ih_538282] 23/9/2015 11:30

PA where are you visiting? In UK It is the first day of autum today and it sure feels like it.

[pavey ark] 23/9/2015 09:18

Packing backpack and in a bit of a rush but if anyone has the time and inclination if you look up the trades done this month it is certainly difficult to make the case that YA have sold these 12m shares. Could be wrong though as I am in a rush.

[pavey ark] 23/9/2015 08:48

Read my post again ,agree or disagree,but at least read it.
Obviously YA aren't panicking and they are out $3.5mm to Caza UNSECURED.

[jotoha2] 23/9/2015 08:32

How can you interpret it as good , it smacks of panic measures , and that price means there are only one winner , and it will not be pi.

[pavey ark] 23/9/2015 07:52

Well good and not so good. It is the first application made by YA and it was for a small amount.
From memory the original loan deal was done in February and there has been a long period with no redemption.
YA can convert up to $1m per month so this is a small amount.
Don't even know if YA sold into the market as they are current shareholders and may have considered the low price at the beginning of the month a good point to buy but as usual it's hard to work things out when you don't have all the details.

(Final day of my trip so short 10/12 miles today and fly home tomorrow )

[sleveen] 23/9/2015 07:16

Funding news at last!

£150k raised: Keep the lights on money.

Expect similar every month to cover G&A expenses.

[balbains324] 23/9/2015 07:11

Well that's not the RNS I woke up for. Let's see if they put out another.

[pavey ark] 22/9/2015 07:24

Had a hunch we would hear something today but as I'm about to leave Weymouth on day four of my five day walk from Exmouth to Bournemouth I'm just pleased I can concentrate every brain cell on getting my feet to work in the right order.
These cliffs are pretty but do they have to go up and down,up and down ?

I've always suspected that MF wasn't going for a quick fix deal but as time has gone on I have to admit to not really knowing what's going to happen.
Rich Albro did say a while back that it was difficult for people not directly involved as they didn't have all the bits of the puzzle.

[mariposamia] 16/9/2015 22:19

Probrably correct everybody else are on the gravey train but he needs to ramp caza one more time before the bomb drops

[dynamohum] 16/9/2015 11:31

One has to ask the question, or litigation if unfounded.

[red rook] 15/9/2015 22:23

House Plans Vote on Bill to Lift Ban on Oil Exports
Oil companies have lobbied to have ban lifted; White House opposes bill
hxxp://www.wsj.com/articles/house-plans-vote-on-bill-to-lift-ban-on-oil-exports-1442329626

White House opposes GOP bill to lift ban on crude oil exports
hxxp://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/09/15/white-house-opposes-gop-bill-to-lift-oil-export-ban

[balbains324] 14/9/2015 15:26

amazing how this drops on such small volume

[pavey ark] 12/9/2015 09:59

Balbains: I think there has been a question mark against the likes of Goldman and others since this thing started.
These large US finance houses have research departments but they also trade in commodities so they are certainly not neutral (or to be trusted ?)
Never say never but the supply "glut" is hard to reconcile with an approximate oversupply of 1/1.5 million barrels a day when the total supply is c. 95 Mbod.

Obviously I don't know how it will end or where the price is going in the next year but there are a number of points which when taken together suggest that we could (and I stress COULD) be near the bottom.

1. The Saudis didn't ramp up existing production they brought on mothballed fields.
The large Saudi "super fields" are in decline as are all the worlds very large fields and once you are off the 15/20 year plateau the decline is fairly steep (almost all the super fields in the world are at this point or beyond).
2. The poorer opec countries when faced with massive declines in revenue had no option but to boost production to try and make up some of the loss.
I'm not a petroleum engineer but a sudden boost to production probably isn't good for the well or its long term prospects.
In addition these poor opec countries simply don't have the cash for the necessary maintenance of the infrastructure.
3. The Saudi losses are mounting and they have the war in the Yemen.
Although people point out how much oil the Saudis have and they can get it out for next to nothing I don't think anyone is suggesting that they could survive for long with oil sub $50.
$75 is required to balance the books.
4. Exploration and development has almost come to a halt so even a hint of a shortage could cause a spike in price.

As a previous poster pointed out, Russia and the other opec countries must be their target.
US tight oil producers certainly can't be squeezed out and it has been shown recently they can now go from spud to production in 30 days with increased production and greatly reduced costs. Even if some smaller producers fail they will simply be taken over by larger companies so increasing economics of scale.

The pure shale producers could be in danger and the Canadian tar sands was always a nonsense, environmentally and economically.

I did like old T. Boone when I saw him being interviewed last month.
T. Boone firmly predicted $70 by Christmas but I imagine he was only going on a lifetimes experience in the oil industry and did mention decline rates more than one.
He also said that the Saudis don't want to sell oil at $50 but he's not the one in Goldman's back room placing large "bets" on the future price, so who knows ?

One plus point is that if the oil export ban is lifted it will almost certainly be down to this current situation.

[balbains324] 12/9/2015 08:25

What do you guys make of goldman's oil report predicting $20 per barrel?

[pavey ark] 10/9/2015 23:24

"is the same dilution to YA itself"? I simply can't make any sense of that.
What you seem to be saying is that it is fine to raise $8m ,pay back YA and drill three wells but if you leave YA loan in place then raising $4.5m only to drill three wells is not fine.
The only way I can make any sense of your fractured wording is that your interpretation of the YA agreement is,true to form,very negative.
At this point I find myself in the uncomfortable position of understanding your view here and have on more than one occasion expressed my concerns to the company but it must be pointed out that contrary to most peoples expectations there has been no dilution .....yet.
Ah! I see now I was going by simple logic ( and arithmetic) and you were swapping debt and dilution without explaining yourself.

Anyway enough of this. I note that you have passed on my major complaint but I expected that.

I now find I am spending more time on this than I should and have decided to just accept that we have different views, not just about investing but what is acceptable in achieving ones investing aims.

[micronesiac] 10/9/2015 20:58

Any more news on lifting the export ban? I see the differential has closed slightly. Not sure how USA politics works and whether the boat has been missed..

[1628386] 10/9/2015 17:12

Best practice would be to view all posts on any BB with scepticism and only make decisions based on you own research. A great example is you PA, if anyone followed your posts and opinions in the last 12 months (since POO deteriorated) they would have lost over 80% of their money. So, as I say. BBs are for debate only .. always do your own research.

With regard to the partial fundraise...

You said...

"I try not to take any of your posts seriously but I am in wonder of the logic that suggests that it would be wrong to get a partial funding and drill MRE but it is OK to raise money pay off YA and drill three wells. You either raise $8m pay off YA and drill three wells at MRE or just raise $4.5m and drill three wells."

My god.. I tear my hair out sometimes ... The difference is that raising the money to pay off YA and pay for 3 drills is the same dilution to YA itself, so effectively the 3 drills would be paid from better money management!

If you leave YA and raise money for 3 drills you add to debt/dilution!! So they are VERY DIFFERENT.

.... and you warn others that my posts should be viewed with a high degree of scepticism! Hahaha .. Blimey!

[pavey ark] 10/9/2015 16:30

How many MARS Bars do you think Caza is now worth ?
Do you think MF can now "dabble" in a few more wells ?
4p a share ? Surely much more than you were openly predicting even when the oil price was higher.

I try not to take any of your posts seriously but I am in wonder of the logic that suggests that it would be wrong to get a partial funding and drill MRE but it is OK to raise money pay off YA and drill three wells. You either raise $8m pay off YA and drill three wells at MRE or just raise $4.5m and drill three wells.

The above is a trivial point compared to the fact that between selling your Caza shares and buying back in you continually tried to trash the company ,seizing on every possible negative and ignoring any positives.
Had you simply sold and then bought back in then eveything would be fine but you are deluding yourself if you think that is what you did.
Risk/reward, changing market etc are all very well but had little bearing on your behaviour and certainly nothing has changed that would/should make you change your mind about Caza.
The only logical answer is that your overly negative view was simply that and it had served its purpose.
You are obviously free to continue here but I must warn all that your posts should be viewed with a high degree of scepticism.

[1628386] 10/9/2015 11:53

PA

As I have said before... Investments in AIM are not to be done on a standstill basis, as and when new information arrives, it is always prudent to re-visit ones evaluation, and change as required. This market will have no compassion and the MMs are there to serve their purpose of happily taking your hard earned money.

Your partial refinance propositions have, in the past, been about raising separate borrowings against MRE and going for an all out drill plan to increase production. I argued against this and still would as more debt to fund drilling would just not make much progress at the moment.

Your preference share suggestion IN THE PAST was more to do with a FULL refinance which again I feel is too much for investors (of the preference shares) to take on at that amount.

This latest proposal of yours is different in that CAZA would issue $10m preference shares and retire YA and fund 3 wells (FOR SIMILAR DILUTION TO JUST THE YA LOAN) so this is different.

CAZA is in need of a short term plan that doesn't involve more borrowing and this plan 'keeps the wolf from the door' by drilling 3 wells.

You consider me to be "duplicitous, underhand, untrustworthy and now condescending." ... Well that's up to you. I feel you are just frustrated you buried your head in the sand and kept singing and dancing whilst around CAZA the fundamentals were deteriorating rapidly... That was your decision, no-one else's.

CAZA is now 2p and the risk/reward has changed back in favour at the moment. That's all that's happened with my change of view.

The circumstances now are finding a short term solution and a long term solution.

I thought your NEW suggestion last night was a good SHORT term proposal.

[buffythebuffoon] 10/9/2015 11:13

We can meet, and you can assess for yourself whether I'm the type to have been bullied.

Buffy