We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now


It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for default Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.

NTQ Enteq Technologies Plc

0.00 (0.00%)
23 Apr 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Enteq Technologies Plc LSE:NTQ London Ordinary Share GB00B41Q8Q68 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 9.00 5,000 08:00:00
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
8.50 9.50 9.00 9.00 9.00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
Oil & Gas Field Machy, Equip USD 6.25M USD -2.8M USD -0.0397 -2.27 6.36M
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
09:56:34 O 5,000 8.50 GBX

Enteq Technologies (NTQ) Latest News

Enteq Technologies (NTQ) Discussions and Chat

Enteq Technologies Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
11/4/202422:44Enteq Upstream plc2,156
15/9/201507:14*** Enteq Upstream ***2

Add a New Thread

Enteq Technologies (NTQ) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type

Enteq Technologies (NTQ) Top Chat Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 23/4/2024 09:20 by Enteq Technologies Daily Update
Enteq Technologies Plc is listed in the Oil & Gas Field Machy, Equip sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker NTQ. The last closing price for Enteq Technologies was 9p.
Enteq Technologies currently has 70,614,140 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Enteq Technologies is £6,355,273.
Enteq Technologies has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -2.27.
This morning NTQ shares opened at 9p
Posted at 13/3/2024 14:07 by optimist4now
Thank you ValueHurts.

I will amend my NTQ metric tracker to take the "salary in shares" point on board.

Fingers crossed for the up coming "customer technology demonstration".
Posted at 06/3/2024 11:51 by optimist4now
I cannot find any NTQ purchases from the not so new CFO.

Have I missed something?
Posted at 12/2/2024 12:09 by sturmey
I just posted this comment on the POS board. I have followed Paul Scott's cheerleading of POS with interest but there are too many red flags for me.

Talking my own book here but a better alternative to POS might be Enteq (NTQ). Half the market cap of POS at £7m and has a potentially massive new product (SABER). Same industry at POS (oil drilling). NTQ is cash rich and has decent institutional holders. Management have skin in the game and have taken shares as payment in recent years. I have held this for over 10 years and followed closely and have a large holding. There are some good comments on the NTQ board from the small band of followers and shareholders. It's a binary bet on the success of SABER (see today's update RNS) but the risk/potential return is positive.
Posted at 12/2/2024 07:55 by somerset lad
In the AGM statement of 29.9.23 NTQ said “A commercial contract is in place and customer-testing operations are planned later in the year as part of this contract.”

By the interims on 15.11.23, testing was planned for the new calendar year.

I'd been hoping that the next news would have been that the customer tests had been run and passed.

Today we're told that customer testing should "commence" by 31.3.24.

It looks from today's announcement as though the slippage is because the new Engineering Director has made further tweaks and NTQ have done a further round of testing at surface which has validated those tweaks.

NTQ now seem comfortable that they have a product that will work in the market as they've invited customers to a further set of downhole tests at Catoosa again by 31.3.24, and they'd presumably only do that if they're expecting the results to be good.

Overall, the direction of travel is positive and some patience to finesse the specification at this stage is likely to be repaid later.
Posted at 15/11/2023 07:46 by somerset lad
Interims out.

Remains bullish on progress with SABER and commercial opportunity. Outlook: “The SABER project has been substantially de-risked after the recent successful field-testing… Extensive and continued industry engagement, including recent attendance at the ADIPEC global trade show, has confirmed a high level of potential demand for SABER across the key regions, including applications to support energy transition.”

Not a lot of numbers to be added up, but good to see them back to a prompt reporting cycle.

Testing under the customer contract scheduled for the new calendar year (cf. AGM statement referring to later “this year” that I’d read, perhaps wrongly, as during 2023).

Cash of $4.6m on 15.11.23 (down from $5.1m on 30.9.23). They will have been buying components for manufacture (although the cash figure will reflect when they paid for the components not when they received them). “In April 2023, following the previous financial year end, Enteq divested of the assets and IP related to the XXT product line, for up to $3.2m, $0.9m of which has been received in cash during this period.” This implies up to a further $2.3m potentially to be collected from 1 October onwards (some of which may be in the $4.6m figure for today’s cash balance).

A bit ambiguous on a potential raise, saying they have sufficient resources for the “pending commercial phase” (which could be read as forever) but also “to bring it to a successful commercial launch” (which implies that there is a subsequent commercial growth phase which may require further funding). Personally I’d be happy to see an equity raise once the commercial viability and unit economics have been demonstrated, at which point the share price will, presumably, be comfortably above the float price, reducing the dilutive effect.

More emphasis on sales as a potential commercialisation strategy along with rental (previously the emphasis has been on rental with sales mentioned more as a passing possibility).
Posted at 23/10/2023 14:59 by somerset lad
Novision, we don't know the targets, which is not unusual, but not ideal. Thinking about incentives, Martin Perry has a 6.7% stake but is not a beneficiary of the awards. Whilst Martin is not chair of the remuneration committee, his presence on the board means (I think) that existing shareholders are protected when incentive schemes are put in place. Martin would presumably want to minimise dilution whilst strongly incentivising the core management team to get NTQ to major growth (see previous discussion about how much NTQ could be worth). Andrew has a fairly large shareholding (2.7%) so has an incentive also to think about the downside of taking too much risk. I'd like to see Mark buying in the market as well as receiving options that incentivise focus on the upside, but of course we don't know how much free cash he has.

Returning to 1gw's posts from earlier, I agree that we need to see what Cavendish say. The previous finnCap forecasts (from the July 21 initiation) were not ideal because (i) they did not match up with NTQ's calculation for the impairment analysis - if we cut through the theory and recognise that the house broker is a vector for the company's own forecasts then what the broker says and what the company says should match (subject to any changes over time); and (ii) they made no sense because they used scenarios but applied a "risk factor" to the revenue line in each scenario(if they want to do scenario analysis they should run the scenarios on their face and then weight the probabilities of each to get a blended view). I don't think Cavendish will publish a GM forecast though, because Andrew has always been very coy about that (although eventually the numbers will be clear to all in the accounts).

In terms of competitive response, I asked on the call whether SABER's offering a 30% saving meant that it would be priced at $3.5k per day vs market rates of $5k per day and was told that it would be priced in line with market at $5k. This surprised me a bit as I'd expect a novel technology being launched into a conservative industry to have to offer a headline discount to drive uptake / utilisation. But their answer was given with the benefit of one signed contract and lots of discussions with potential customers. Thinking about the incentives of the incumbents, there's no reason for them to reduce their standard prices in response to a competitor who is heavily capacity constrained (I modelled 5 units from 1.4.24 and looking again at the AR23 I think NTQ are modelling 10) because the profit sacrifice would be huge. Since prices are set individually, the competitors could in theory bid lower when they know they are up against SABER but the danger is that offering individual discounts pulls down rates across the market as a whole (Andrew has said previously that news travels fast in the US O&G market). Overall, the incentive for the incumbents is to continue to pull in the profits from their existing business (a bit like the Innovator's Dilemma discussion). If SABER gets traction, the competitors could try to kill NTQ by acquisition but antitrust is now very attentive to killer acquisitions (mainly in tech, but generally). Like 1gw, I do, though, see potential (in a success scenario) for NTQ to supply SABER to larger industry players, enabling the rivals to keep control of their customers and NTQ to improve distribution without much investment and NTQ seemed open to something along these lines when they were answering the IMC question about discussions with competitors.
Posted at 21/10/2023 19:21 by somerset lad
Final comment: the last question yesterday was about possible exit.

Whilst there are obviously lots of possible scenarios, at its heart NTQ is IMO binary: either it trips up for some reason and can't recover (in which case it's basically a zero, although someone might pick up the technology on the cheap) or it becomes a significant independent player by offering a better product at a lower cost to utilise, protected by IP (in which case the right longer term aspiration - despite the current lowly market cap - is a main market listing and FTSE 250).

I don't see NTQ as, say, a potential double next year on a private equity bid if the commercial trials are positive. NTQ would be a lovely opportunity for venture/private equity because (as already noted) there's a large TAM, a strongly differentiated product and robust barriers to entry, so the upside from success is huge and the downside is limited to a zero. That opportunity should be defended by the current shareholders.

Management is acting like they think there's a pretty good chance of the upside of the binary scenario playing out. Andrew Law took 61% of his pay in shares in FY23; whilst allowing that the capital markets weren't very receptive, if his main priority was his salary he would have pushed for a raise at any price to enable NTQ to pay him in cash. Similarly, IMO the new FD and new non-exec have not joined in the expectation of presiding over a managed wind-down. The board has sold XXT and the Houston site to generate cash to go all in on SABER: if the pay off from SABER were low or the chances of failure were high, they would presumably have hung on to XXT so they would have a business and jobs / board roles if SABER fails.

I therefore agree with management's answer to the exit question - they're focused on pressing on with the opportunity.
Posted at 21/10/2023 18:58 by somerset lad
To finish off the stream of thought: if the unit economics are good (GM of c. 73%) and NTQ can self-fund the roll-out to 40 units as at 1.4.27 (recognising that there are many reasons why this might never occur), what position would NTQ be in?

NTQ incurred Admin costs of $1.7m in FY23.
On yesterday's IMC they said that the current staff in the UK was sufficient to assemble 10-20 units p/a, which would allow NTQ to get to 40 units on 1.4.27.
The reality is that Admin costs will grow significantly as NTQ transitions from development to commercialisation, with sales teams, account managers etc.
Purely illustratively and without discounting, for FY28 (from 1.4.27) let’s assume 40 units generating gross profit (in today’s money) of $655k = $26.2m (plus some for redress, refurbishment and lost down hole fees). And central costs at $10m (up from $1.7m). PBT at $16.2m. Assume tax at 25%. PAT at $12.1m. 70.6m shares in issue. 17.2c EPS / 14.2p.

If NTQ overcame all of its challenges and got to this rough position, what multiple might a business attract that's able to invest capital in new units generating a GM of 73% and a payback of less than 7 months and is growing quickly?
Posted at 21/10/2023 18:50 by somerset lad
So, if the unit economics are potentially great for SABER (see above), how many units will NTQ be able to build and utilise over what period?

The impairments note in AR23 says 5-20 units during initial roll out in each “key region”.
On yesterday’s IMC, the “key regions” currently were said to be US and Middle East.
This implies an initial roll out of 2 x (5 to 20) i.e. 10 to 40.
But the recent non-exec announcement suggests that the Middle East is running a bit behind. And anyway it probably makes sense to put all the units and support into one region initially if there is enough demand.
So let’s assume NTQ starts its commercial roll out with 5 units on 1.4.24 in the US.
If the unit costs are $500k, this would cost $2.5m, which is well within NTQ’s available cash (though the incremental cash cost from today is likely to be lower than $2.5m because the fleet has already been partly constructed with NTQ needing to add/switch parts and assemble by 1.4.24).
At 50% utilisation at $5k per day / $900k p/a and a $500k unit cost, each unit crudely generates enough cash to buy another unit after 5/9 of a year, i.e. less than 7 months. This is consistent with Nov 21 IMC where it was said that the rental model becomes cash positive in a relatively few number of months. In practice the cash won’t come in straight away and there will be some cash drain as central costs rise during transition from development company to commercialisation.
Assume that each unit generates enough cash to buy another one after 12 months, so NTQ can double the fleet every 12 months from its own cashflow without needing to raise fresh capital.
This gives us 1.4.24: 5 units; 1.4.25: 10 units; 1.4.26: 20 units; 1.4.27: 40 units.
If NTQ reaches 40 units on 1.4.27 it would have completed its initial roll out across two regions.
Conversely (of course) there are many reasons why NTQ might not get to 40 units on 1.4.27, e.g. if NTQ fails the commercial tests, fails to win any new customers, fails to generate good utilisation.
Posted at 11/8/2023 12:08 by sturmey
FWIW, I copy below my posting of last October. Much of what I wrote then still applies with a significant difference that there appears to be more progress on SABER. Whilst still a "binary bet", I think the odds have improved after the recent RNS. Accordingly, I have added to my already large holding over the past 3 days.It is worth noting that I believe the company is in a closed period which will prevent insiders from buying before the results in September. Here is my post of last October. As a holder since 2013 (first purchase 10,000 shares@52p - ouch), NTQ has been one of my worst investments. Almost as bad as some of my forays into oil E&P (eg Aminex - ouch).Over the past 9 years, I have probably read every single RNS and perpetually looked for "light at the end of the tunnel". Good example of "jam tomorrow"?But I have kept faith with the management and have not given up yet.I recently re-read 1gw's notes of the AGM and also watched the recent video (available on youtube) of a couple of months ago, where Andrew Law sums up the SABER situation.1gw draws the analogy (IIRC) with biotech companies where success is a binary bet on one product. But a difference with NTQ is that NTQ is cash rich and has no debt.Whichever way you look at it, NTQ has elements of a binary bet on the success of SABER. But with the stock trading at just over half tangible book value, I would argue that the upside is considerably greater than the downside.Add the possibilty of a management buy out or a takeover, and I think there is a compelling case to buy at the current price of 8pI have put my money where my mouth is and increased my own shareholding considerably over the past few days. There appears to be more stock on offer at 8p despite ADVFN showing a spread of 7.50 to 8.50.
Enteq Technologies share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock