Petroneft Resources Share Discussion Threads

[katsy] 08/4/2014 09:37

You've been calling this wrong for years DB, these were posted when the share price was in the 20's, why should anybody still listen to you now, "Great management and bargain prices", lol

Dbarr0n 22 Nov'11 - 12:27 - 11912 of 25276 0 0

dmor ... I have every confidence in the management too, they have over 300 years of experience in the oil business, I cant think of any company of this size in the sector that can boast that. If they cant make a success of it there is little hope for the rest.

Dbarr0n
23 Nov'11 - 20:46 - 11913 of 25276 0 0

Market cap now equates to around $ .83 or 54 pence per 2P barrel if one takes it that they will have approx 170 million 2P barrels booked at year end.. Has to be a bargain at these levels despite the present market conditions...

[hopingformore] 08/4/2014 09:25

Curry. The likelihood is that Maxim will not allow the block to be sold, and as an ex member of the Russian State Duma he will be able to muster reasons why it could not be sold (unless it was to him), but I doubt influence would be sufficient to block an Indian farm in partner as Russia is trying to create more alliances with India and it would be politically difficult to block that.

If it did it would cause real problems as the Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation treaty exists between them since 1971 and it would herald the end of that agreement and too expensive a price for Maxim or RF.

[dbarr0n] 08/4/2014 09:13

CURRY ... You must not have much invested here if you would support that third plan .....

[currypasty] 08/4/2014 09:01

Dbarron

"The current board have not lost 90% of anything, it has all been invested in the company"

The only thing punters are interested in is the shareprice, we have no love for this or any other company. There is no other assessment of their performance other than the shareprice. They have failed.


I find it interesting that Natlata are suggesting a forensic audit of the accounts. That will be very interesting if it ever gets to that stage.


My opinion is the third way, sell the block pay everybody back, and give holders a special divi

[bmw30csl] 08/4/2014 08:59

Has anyone here emailed Pavel?

[hopingformore] 08/4/2014 08:59

DB: Of course they have no interest in paying for a full takeover. That is the point.

Their objective is to get control without having to do that.

But by engaging on their terms where I'm afraid the BoD are outgunned in that game, the BoD are on a hiding to nothing unless they turn the tables on Natlata by inviting them to bid in an open and transparent manner, thus seizing the initiative and emonstrating what you and I already believe, that this exercise in the name of shareholders is really about gaining control at least cost.

Because an organisation says its not interested in taking over a company but where its actions demonstrate the opposite, it needs the BoD to emphasize that point and take the inititiative by challenging a full bid.

Natlata did not raise its holding because it was concerned with shareholders, it raised it to gain control, and by offering a deal with payment in shares at a fixed price which would effectively wrest control without the need to pay a premium reflecting the assets.

Take that apart, and the best of doing that is pay up in a non fixed share price takeover or shut up, rather than engage on Natlata's terms of strategy where I'm afraid their experience in that sphere will outgun the BoD.

The arguments about non performance are valid, but need separating from what this is really about. It is about wresting control of the company at the least possible cost to Natlata.

[bmw30csl] 08/4/2014 08:56

Curry they could lose 100% of the rest!

[dbarr0n] 08/4/2014 08:45

hopingformore ..

What do you think they will be worth if Natlata get control? 5.5 p might be a very good in comparison, I for one would not be a shareholder here if I thought they would win the vote.

They have no interest in putting in a takeover offer, it would have been done before now if that was an option.
They only want control, and what they would do with the company after they get it is anybodys guess.
I am sure we will get some half baked plan in the coming days from them but doubt it will hold much water.

But when it comes down to it, I think most shareholders will vote against the resolutions once they see the nuts and bolts of the farm out deal ..

[hopingformore] 08/4/2014 08:32

DB: You can weave it differently which is a mistake in my opinion, because shareholders know how much their shares were worth or are worth now.

Personally I believe the BoD and yourself should change tack to challenge Maxim to put a proper takeover offer if he thinks he can do better.

If not his experience in psyops will eat you alive if you engage in a game he plays better than you, whereas if you change it to a definite put your money where your mouth is on a full scale takeover shareholders will either see an offer on the table and be able to reject it or not, or draw the inevitable conclusion that Natlata's actions were about circumventing the need to pay for a takeover, rather than any interest in protecting shareholders.

[dbarr0n] 08/4/2014 08:27

CURRY ... They can do a lot worse, THERE MIGHT BE NO COMPANY TO TRADE IN ONCE THEY GET CONTROL.

The current board have not lost 90% of anything, it has all been invested in the company. the share price does not reflect the companys assets, but that's about to change..

[hopingformore] 08/4/2014 08:24

Saint. I don't support the BoD, I support the shareholders.

The BoD cannot be said to have been successful in adding shareholder value.

But when you get a struggling company like PTR it then provides the opportunity for predators to think they can take the assets using the pretext of the BoD and shareholder value, when the usual story is they have no interest at all in shareholder value, with the only interest in increasing their own personal wealth on the pretext of being a white knight.

Maxim is well versed in psyops having graduated from the Military Institute of the Defence Ministry and the Russian Presidential Academy of State Service, so he should know exactly what buttons to press in any communications with shareholders.

If he really wanted PTR and was really concerned with the plight of shareholders, he would bid for it.

Within his letter gives a good reason why he has not.

Its about cost, not about PTR shareholders wellbeing in my opinion

Within the letter it explains how the price of PTR shares increased with the level of Natlata interest and purchases.

Obviously that would make it dearer to take out a company, as that stake increases.

So what better than use the discontent of shareholders and have a package effectively fixing the price of shares Natlata buys rather than be forced to pay an increasing premium in any open predatory takeover.

Natlata would get my vote if they launched a fair takeover, but not using psyops to effectively take control by fixing the price of the shares to do it.

[telegraph1] 08/4/2014 08:24

Time to put the deal on the table

[currypasty] 08/4/2014 08:07

Current board have lost up to 90% of punters money, I don't see how Natlata can do any worse

[dbarr0n] 08/4/2014 08:06

For anyone who needs help on how to vote.

[saint27] 08/4/2014 07:31

Hopingformore - I agree 100% with your view.

Natlata just want the assets on the cheap - is this is not the case then table a fair bid and let shareholders decide.

Natalata have no plans to pay off arawak debt or fund future exploration of the licence. I full accept that the last 3-4years for PTR's share price value have been very bad and there may be few ardent supporters of the current bod - BUT if the farm out deal is on terms similar to those suggested i.e. pay off ALL existing debt (both Macquaries and Arawak) AND provide significant funds for future exploration AND partner with an established and REPUTBALE internatioanl oil company then the two options are a no-brainer.

I will be voting for the bod and the farm out every time

[trawl] 08/4/2014 00:05

the deal may dilute the holding in lic 61 but
a 65 mil injection of cash even in dollars is more than the
current mkt cap

[dbarr0n] 07/4/2014 23:38

As of yet Natlata have not explained how they plan to repay Arawak $ 16.5 million next year or how they are going to fund next years development of Tungolskoye or develop Sibkrayevskoye in 2016. ( What dilution could this lead to ?.)

Considering they are the ones saying they made viable proposals to the company surely they don't need time to show us.
What dilution could this lead to ?.

In my opinion none of the 5 proposed directors below have anything to bring to Petroneft and are connected with more misfortune than success..

Pavel Tetyakov CEO based in Tomsk
Richard Thornton CFO and company secretary
David Sturt Independent non-executive director, chairman of the board, chairman of
the remuneration committee
Anthony Sacca Independent non-executive director, chairman of the audit committee
Fraser Innes Independent non-executive director
.........................................................................................

Natlata say,
From press speculation I understand this to be Oil India Limited. Neither
Natlata nor I are aware of the deal terms, but we have concerns that this farm-out may potentially
be value destructive and not in the interests of shareholders. For example, selling 50% of Licence
No.61 at the current valuation is almost equivalent to an immediate 50% dilution of Petroneft's
shareholders.

(1) I have yet to see this press speculation so where have they seen it ? .
(2) The Farm out deal will be done at a higher valuation than is currently being put on the company so it wont mean a 50% dilution, unless our shareholding is worth less after the farm out we cant say we were diluted.
I wonder what the share price would be with Natlata in control, Would we even be on the market ?.

[trawl] 07/4/2014 23:19

hearing that one of the proposed directors was involved in minco
does not instill confidence i had an interest
shortly after i sold it was delisted
one director bought an asset for a nominal sum
after most of the assets or cash had been stripped
it was a long time ago if my memory fails me
i dont mind correction

[trawl] 07/4/2014 23:19

hearing that one of the proposed directors was involved in minco
does not instill confidence i had an interest
shortly after i sold it was delisted
one director bought an asset for a nominal sum
after most of the assets or cash had been stripped
it was a long time ago if my memory fails me
i dont mind correction

[pwilk47490] 07/4/2014 22:50

And what are you going to do with the Arawak debt?

[hopingformore] 07/4/2014 22:48

If the story is as compelling as Natlata suggest, then they would have no hesitation bidding for the company openly.

The fact they have not says it all. It is not imo about adding shareholder value but adding natlata value at least cost.

The Board at PTR have a lot to answer for, but banging our own heads against the wall and handing the company over to a company who knows its value but doesn't want to pay that value may not be the best decision.

I'd support Natlata if they came up with a realistic bid, but not as an excuse to gain control without much cost to them

I have seen similar comments from Russian companies about AIM listed companies operating in Russia before, and it always ends in a similar story....assets moving away from shareholdlers.

One simple question to Natlata?

If you have all the answers and recognise the potential why are not you bidding for the company in an open and transparent manner.

[bmw30csl] 07/4/2014 22:10

The comment about the farm out being more dilutive before we have heard the terms says it all to me. They are fear mongers assuming that most of the investors are pretty unsophisticated.

[denis056] 07/4/2014 20:44

The farm in will presumably bolster the technical side of things. Whoever it is ain't buying a stake just to admire the reserves report . Very pessimistic crew bring lead by Katsy. How is ur glass half empty view of life Katsy ?

[pwilk47490] 07/4/2014 20:27

They have not touched on the Arawak Loan

[denis black gold] 07/4/2014 19:40

Nat raise a lot of valid points re. our current so called BOD... and no one could disagree with much their analysis on the current state of play at PTR...!!! That said, good or bad of DF and gang we know ZERO re. NATs ultimate goal here re. the Co..... But i too have to agree with with TOON above and others as this latest "kick the can" deadline surely has to be the BOD very last line in the sand...