Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Range Resources LSE:RRL London Ordinary Share AU000000RRS3 ORD NPV (DI)
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 0.175p 1,767,053 08:00:00
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
0.15p 0.20p 0.175p 0.175p 0.175p
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 3.96 -21.25 -0.34 13.3

Range Resources (RRL) Latest News

More Range Resources News
Range Resources Takeover Rumours

Range Resources (RRL) Share Charts

1 Year Range Resources Chart

1 Year Range Resources Chart

1 Month Range Resources Chart

1 Month Range Resources Chart

Intraday Range Resources Chart

Intraday Range Resources Chart

Range Resources (RRL) Discussions and Chat

Range Resources (RRL) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2018-07-19 15:16:500.18500,000884.00O
2018-07-19 15:05:310.1644,07969.95O
2018-07-19 14:53:300.162,5003.97O
2018-07-19 14:22:580.18546,066965.44O
2018-07-19 09:40:530.1821,21337.50O
View all Range Resources trades in real-time

Range Resources (RRL) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
19/7/2018
09:20
Range Resources Daily Update: Range Resources is listed in the Oil & Gas Producers sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker RRL. The last closing price for Range Resources was 0.18p.
Range Resources has a 4 week average price of 0.15p and a 12 week average price of 0.15p.
The 1 year high share price is 0.30p while the 1 year low share price is currently 0.15p.
There are currently 7,595,830,782 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 4,540,788 shares. The market capitalisation of Range Resources is £13,292,703.87.
19/7/2018
16:52
lewisyfawr: Share price .4c (.26p) on ASX at end of 19 July. Share price .18p on LSE at end of 19 July. Plummeted from about .25p in Jan 2018. So good day for Rangers. Yet one more rock solid day. Exceptionally small volume both here and in Oz, so shareholders not prepared to let any shares go at current prices. And great news expected in next few days!!!!!
19/7/2018
15:46
lewisyfawr: I would rather nas commented on share price recently. It has been nowhere near 13p since I bought at 1.3p in March 2014. And highest since then was a spike in June or July 2014 to 2.75p. Truth is that a lot of 7.5bn shares were bought for less than a penny in last 4+ years - so if Cantor are right with an expected price of .7p by end of 2018, there will be much rejoicing amongst many Range shareholders. Commenting on share price in Landau period is, in my view, quite historical no and totally misleading. WEALTH WARNING: MAKE YOUR INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON BASIS OF SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF RANGE SINCE 2014. AND DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
15/7/2018
09:52
martini069: did you say this Lewis ? Before our ONE resident bitter troll interrupted you Lewis, were you trying to say.............. - Oil price up on Friday - Share price up on Friday (LSE) - Share price 100% higher on ASX than Nov 2016 - but nobody cares - Volume quite a bit more on Friday - finished with 3 buys at just under .19p - Debts well under control. Paying 6%-9% and should be able to get better deal in 2020. - PR being prepared for a roll out in last few months of 2018 - Contracts being negotiated as I write. - Range are an AIM company - and by definition we would expect them to be precarious and needing a lot of luck and effort to survive. But, unlike many others, they are still there and doing quite ok, thankyou. And Lewis, dont forget to remind the sad deluded multi troll that the soon to be published full year accounts will be a MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT on last year accounts Thanks Martini. That was what I was trying to say before so rudely interrupted by 10 posts all the same yesterday. And four more this morning. All those 14 posts inaccurate or suspect in every detail.. And all agreed with and supplemented by the same poster, under different board names.
13/7/2018
07:48
thebreadmaker: I like the response from Razzle and Caneries60 on WS to Loadsofdebts 😂😂 “Loadsa, no one is arguing there hasn't been progress....it's just that it's too little, too late. Both waterflood projects appear to have stalled and are being now being marketed as lessons learnt (see Q and A). Expensive lessons learnt. Indonesia if all goes well will add 35 bopd this year. As Canaries says 'meh'. How long will it take to get new waterflood projects up and running? They seem to be in no hurry to accelerate development drilling in TT....the review has been ongoing since May. As I say the only thing that might save us is an RRDSL contract and then the margins are slim. In short we are unfortunately screwed as LTH's. The board have no interest in the share price....perhaps the whole idea is to drift until LO money is due, LO refinance but effectively own the entire company. That scenario is only 18 months away. Next small jump I am out after 7 years and at least 90% losses” “Loadsa, you were doing well until you went all Celtic on us, talking about someone suppressing the share price. No one is suppressing the share price, for one simple reason...NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN THIS SHARE. Let’s see what happens to the share price with FY accounts. I’m going for 20% up, then a 3 month drift back down, because, again, NO ONE IS WATCHING AND NO ONE CARES. Now, where are those Tena pads....?“
11/7/2018
09:21
nas_daq: Those who have been around the AIM market for a while will probably remember a company called Range Resources (RRL), and its infamous CEO Peter Landau.It was tipped by some to be the next big thing on AIM in the resources sector, but the reality proved to be a long way from all the expectation, with the share price plummeting from a high and a lot of questions being asked about the way that Landau had been running the company and the many promises that he had made via RNSs, many of which turned out to be false.A fair bit has changed since the company eventually ended up delisting from AIM, but now it is back, and I suspect that is largely down to the amount of debt that it currently has and the fact that it is probably going to have to raise money via equity funding in the future.Currently the company has producing assets in Trinidad and licences in Indonesia, where it holds a 23% working interest in the Perlak field, rising to 42% once it has completed a work programme, which includes 3D seismics plus well workovers.In Trinidad it owns 100% of the Morne Diablo, Beach Marcelle and South Quarry licences, along with 80% in St Mary's, and a further 80% of Guayaguayare Deep and 65% of Guayaguayare Shallow – although the production sharing contracts at the latter two have expired and the company is awaiting government approvals on new ones.The problem for the company has always been that it has been unable to drill shallow wells with low levels of production fast enough to outweigh depletion. Judging by the most recent production report for the three months up until the end of June not a lot had changed in that regard, with average daily production of 531bopd, down from 567bopd during the previous quarter. During the quarter the cash position of the company had also reduced by $2.4 million.This left the company with $17.5 million in the bank at that time, and since then it has announced a deal with Land Ocean to purchase Range Resources Drilling Services for $5.5 million – payable within three years and with annual interest of 6%. As part of the deal Land Ocean also agreed to reduce interest payments on the outstanding balance due to it of $39 million (including the $20 million convertible note which was issued back in February) from 10% to 6%.The biggest problem here is that although changes have been made, the company has still been running at a significant loss – the last set of financials, the interims up until the end of 2016, showed that the company had made a loss of around $9 million in six months, ignoring a large impairment charge.The last quarterly update, up to the end of June 2017 showed an improvement, with net cash inflows of just over $1 million, ignoring loan repayments of nearly $3.6 million, but given the size of the debt, plus the likely cost of work programmes – during that quarter the company spent just $230,000 on exploration and development, as compared to nearly $2.6 million for the full year – it is hard to see it making a net profit any time soon.It has since spent $3.2 million on the Perlak field acquisition, and although that has reserves and resources for oil-in-place of up to 500 million barrels, this is a field which has been producing since the 1940s and it will be interesting to see how good the economics are once a field development plan is put in place. Often there is a good reason why many of these old fields subsequently stopped producing and are often sold at a price which appears to be cheap.It also purchased several offshore blocks in Trinidad from Trinity Exploration (TRIN) for $4.55 million. These include 2P reserves of 2.6mmbbls and daily production of around 200bopd, taking Range's total to circa 800bopd. Given the problems that Trinity has had making these assets profitable for the company on a net basis in the past, it will be interesting to see how Range Resources fares with them.At the moment the company still has plenty of cash in the bank – especially with the some of the payments associated with these acquisitions being deferred – but I'm not convinced that the company is going to become profitable enough to meet its debts which fall due in April 2020, as well as carrying out all the work that it is proposing, even with the higher oil prices.Given that Land Ocean has just entered into a factoring agreement which means that the debt owed by Range has been passed on to Huayuan and Sichuan XW Bank, it may well be the case that Land Ocean won't be looking to extend the $39 million odd debt past maturity.It may look attractive at a current market cap of around £19 million at a share price of 0.3p to buy, given that it is producing oil, but I certainly wouldn't be rushing to buy the shares and still see it as a company to avoid, especially given the involvement of a number of Chinese companies.
10/7/2018
12:26
lewisyfawr: Q. Will the directors consider their position for the poor performance of the share price? Why should shareholders have faith in the current board of directors? A. Whilst we understand frustration of long term shareholders, we would like to reassure all shareholders that all of the Directors’ efforts are focused on delivering on set targets. We have a very clear strategy aimed at building a company with solid production, reserves and revenues. We aim to achieve this by delivering on our targets clearly defined in the recent presentation published to all shareholders, which can be summarized as follows: • Growing production and revenues in Trinidad through active work programme (waterflood, development and workover activities) • Commencing production and cashflows in Indonesia through planned workovers and reopening of previously producing wells • Growing third party customer base of the oilfield services business with the aim of increasing revenues for the company We have so far demonstrated production growth in Trinidad over three consecutive quarters, reaching production milestone in Trinidad ahead of target, acquired two new assets last year, commenced operations in Indonesia, and are continuing to grow third party customer base for the oilfield services having already secured a contract with a supermajor Shell. All of this underpins our drive to maximise long term shareholder value. Whilst we have no control over the share price, we are hopeful that with continued progress, we will see a share price appreciation. Q&A July 3rd
24/6/2018
17:10
thebreadmaker: As Lewis is trying to stop posts here you go fellow posters From 2014 but it’s just as relevant today Today’s epic disaster of an annual report from Range Resources (RRL) cannot have come as a shock to anyone. Worse is still to come. By any stretch of the imagination Range is vastly overvalued. At 1.07p (last seen), Range is valued at £53.4million. The company has just announced a $102.5million loss, has never been able to cover its costs, has substantially written down the value of its “assets” and has just been forced to borrow another $15million (what happened to the “game-changing” LandOcean deal?!). To top it all off Chief Executive Rory Scott Russell made the hugely embarrassing admission the company is “unlikely to meet [his] previously stated target of an exit rate of 1,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of 2014”. Apparently Mr Scott Russell is now confident of achieving this goal in H1 of 2015. Given the steaming mountain of manure he has had to shovel his way through since he took charge of Range in February, perhaps Mr Scott Russell has earned a little leeway in hitting his production target. This doesn’t change Range’s overvaluation problem. Nor does it solve the cash flow problems. Nor does it answer a far more relevant question. Just what has happened to all of Range’s money? To Range’s credit, the latest accounts provide a full warts and all view of the company. Believers in “New Range” would do well to read through these thoroughly, including all the notes. Only the most deluded of shareholders will be able to find much positive in this horror story. It is no wonder Range has shed one third of its value today. In the long run, the release of this annual report might prove to be an astute move by Mr Scott Russell. As shattering as much of the information will come to those with high averages, one of the most troublesome aspects of “Landau’s Legacy” for Range’s board is the absurd valuation of the company. So long as Range’s market cap is bolstered by the false hopes, dreams and fantasies of long-term holders, no matter what the board does, a market reckoning is inevitable. Range’s market cap cannot defy gravity forever. As of today, it looks like it is finally coming crashing back down to earth, as reality has dawned. Assuming the share price drops further and reaches a far more realistic level (at least half the current value would be my best guess), then Mr Scott Russell and “New” Range might have a base to start building from. We shall see about this, but in the meantime extremely serious questions remain about what happened to all of Range’s money? Remember that over the years, this company has raised tens of millions of pounds from the market. It has also devastated the pensions of countless retail investors. I accept the principle of caveat emptor has to apply to anyone buying shares on AIM, but let’s take a look at the staggering admissions by Range today concerning the multitude of dodgy deals done on its behalf. Some of these are already known, others simply provide more unpalatable details and some are new shockers to digest. The $8million International Petroleum (IOP) loan – There is no escaping the utter disgrace of this transaction. Mr Scott Russell claims he reached a “a commercially satisfactory outcome”. As much as I want to give Mr Scott Russell a chance, the accounts prove what baloney this statement is. In Range’s own words “IOP remains suspended from trading on NSX and given the uncertainty over the valuation of the shares once trading resumes, the loan has been written down to US$1,500,000 being the US$500,000 cash receivable as per the agreement plus US$1,000,000 which is equivalent to the Company's 9% shareholding interest in IOP's forecast net cash position following the sale of the Russian assets.“ IOP was in default of this loan. Mr Scott Russell should have taken nothing less than the full value of the outstanding $7.5million (plus interest) in IOP stock. Even though this stock is essentially worthless, the 9% shareholding he accepted looks incredibly weak. The $13.08million lost in Colombia – Yesterday Range announced its relinquishment of its interest in the PUT-6 license, Colombia. In withdrawing from this project, Range surrendered the $3.48million performance bond (which has been appearing in Range’s cash balances for the last year or so, ho, ho, ho). It also had to write off the $9.6million spent on exploration. Moving forward, I see the sense in this move by Range. It removes a huge future financial liability from the company’s budget, in terms of what it would have been expected to pay towards further work. But what about the so-called farm-out that was meant to be happening here? What about the $13million the company has wasted on this project? Of this $13million, how much was spent on corporate advisory fees I wonder… The $37.2million write down of the Georgian and Texan “assets” – this is a corker, an absolute corker. According to the accounts, Range now values its holdings in Strait Oil & Gas (Georgia) and its Texan properties at $10,000,000 and $1,000,000 respectively. Rumours abound that Range (and Red Emperor) are on the verge of a $50million (or whatever the absurd figure being bandied about is) deal to sells their Georgian holdings. Given that accounting valuation rarely match up to transactional valuations, I’d be amazed if Range recoups even half the $10,000,000 it now claims its holding in Strait is worth. That is, if it can even find a buyer at all. And then there is Texas. Oh Texas, what sadness are the fading memories of claims you were going to be sold for “$30mlllion221;, “$20million221;, “sorry, it’s back on the market”. Now Range values these “assets” at $1million. In other words they’re yours for a quid! The $2.5million impairment to trade and other receivables – This just looks so bad. Generating revenue is challenging enough for Range, so it is most unwelcome news to hear that even when it issues invoices some of its customers or other debtors refuse or are unable to pay. In the grand scheme of a $102.5million loss, this $2.5million impairment looks like small change. But consider for a moment that in the last financial year Range’s total oil sales only equaled $21.2million…. The bloated cost base– Life is too short to itemise the individual amounts that Range spent on consultants, professional services and lawyers in the last financial year. Even so, of the millions that bled from the company in fees there are a few notable items worth mentioning. Peter Landau earned $823,516 over 2013/14 and Okap Ventures scooped another $780,000. This is just too outrageous for words and I’m actually laughing writing this part. $2.1million was spent on corporate advisory fees in relation to finance, up from $0 the year before. This is another laughable figure, when you consider the shocking state of Range’s finances. $1.1million spent on travel; perhaps a little less time needs to be spent in the business lounge by certain directors and a little more time in cattle class, methinks. The $3.5million lost in an equity swap, with Yorkville Advisors – Given how Range’s share price has cratered this isn’t too surprising, but it is yet another failed financial transaction from the Landau years. The $7.3million spent on royalties – Perhaps I’ve saved the worst until last, but when you consider that Range sold $21.2million worth of oil, this means that one third of this evaporated in royalty payments. Interestingly enough it appears that Range didn’t explicitly say how much it paid in royalties in its 2013 accounts, but rather seems to have elected to these in with “costs of production”. Make of that what you will… As appalling as the list above is, this isn’t the main problem facing Range’s shareholders today. Serious questions should be asked about where a lot of that money went, but it has now gone (apart from the royalty payments, which will be recurring). Range’s shareholders will try to look to the future. This is where Mr Scott Russell’s admission that Range is not likely to hit 1,000bopd this year becomes a serious problem. A cursory glance at the cash flow statements reveals how dependent Range is on external funding to stay afloat. Without loans and equity investment this company cannot pay its costs. In the last financial year, net cash outflow from operating activities was $6.2million. This was better than the $12.4million the year before, but hardly does much to lend support to the valuation case for Range. Worse still was the net cash outflow from investing activities, which was $8.1million. Again this was an improvement on the $30.7million Range bled in the previous year, but if it weren’t for the $15.6million net cash inflow from financing activities (down from $34.3million in 2012/13) then this business would no longer exist. This isn’t a matter of opinion. This is a cold, hard fact. Supporters of the company will claim that this is another backward looking view of the company. This is misguided. In the last financial year “revenue from sale of hydrocarbons” was $21.2million. Total costs of sales were $24.8million and general and administrative expenses were $14.5million. This leaves a notional deficit of $18.1million. It is true that there is a lot of fat Range’s board can trim from the PLC costs (oh, those poor professional advisors, what will they do to survive?), but it is clear that improved operational performance in Trinidad isn’t just a nice to have. It is a vital necessity. Thanks to the foresight of those in charge of the Australian Securities Exchange (London Stock Exchange please take note) we shall see, in a month, the next set of quarterly production figures for Range. Anything other than at least a small improvement in production will be a major disappointment, no matter what spin is put on it. The numbers don’t lie. Unfortunately sometimes those producing them do.
24/6/2018
16:25
lewisyfawr: 14:37 From 2014 but it’s just as relevant today Today’s epic disaster of an annual report from Range Resources (RRL) cannot have come as a shock to anyone. Worse is still to come. By any stretch of the imagination Range is vastly overvalued. At 1.07p (last seen), Range is valued at £53.4million. The company has just announced a $102.5million loss, has never been able to cover its costs, has substantially written down the value of its “assets” and has just been forced to borrow another $15million (what happened to the “game-changing” LandOcean deal?!). To top it all off Chief Executive Rory Scott Russell made the hugely embarrassing admission the company is “unlikely to meet [his] previously stated target of an exit rate of 1,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of 2014”. Apparently Mr Scott Russell is now confident of achieving this goal in H1 of 2015. Given the steaming mountain of manure he has had to shovel his way through since he took charge of Range in February, perhaps Mr Scott Russell has earned a little leeway in hitting his production target. This doesn’t change Range’s overvaluation problem. Nor does it solve the cash flow problems. Nor does it answer a far more relevant question. Just what has happened to all of Range’s money? To Range’s credit, the latest accounts provide a full warts and all view of the company. Believers in “New Range” would do well to read through these thoroughly, including all the notes. Only the most deluded of shareholders will be able to find much positive in this horror story. It is no wonder Range has shed one third of its value today. In the long run, the release of this annual report might prove to be an astute move by Mr Scott Russell. As shattering as much of the information will come to those with high averages, one of the most troublesome aspects of “Landau’s Legacy” for Range’s board is the absurd valuation of the company. So long as Range’s market cap is bolstered by the false hopes, dreams and fantasies of long-term holders, no matter what the board does, a market reckoning is inevitable. Range’s market cap cannot defy gravity forever. As of today, it looks like it is finally coming crashing back down to earth, as reality has dawned. Assuming the share price drops further and reaches a far more realistic level (at least half the current value would be my best guess), then Mr Scott Russell and “New” Range might have a base to start building from. We shall see about this, but in the meantime extremely serious questions remain about what happened to all of Range’s money? Remember that over the years, this company has raised tens of millions of pounds from the market. It has also devastated the pensions of countless retail investors. I accept the principle of caveat emptor has to apply to anyone buying shares on AIM, but let’s take a look at the staggering admissions by Range today concerning the multitude of dodgy deals done on its behalf. Some of these are already known, others simply provide more unpalatable details and some are new shockers to digest. The $8million International Petroleum (IOP) loan – There is no escaping the utter disgrace of this transaction. Mr Scott Russell claims he reached a “a commercially satisfactory outcome”. As much as I want to give Mr Scott Russell a chance, the accounts prove what baloney this statement is. In Range’s own words “IOP remains suspended from trading on NSX and given the uncertainty over the valuation of the shares once trading resumes, the loan has been written down to US$1,500,000 being the US$500,000 cash receivable as per the agreement plus US$1,000,000 which is equivalent to the Company's 9% shareholding interest in IOP's forecast net cash position following the sale of the Russian assets.“ IOP was in default of this loan. Mr Scott Russell should have taken nothing less than the full value of the outstanding $7.5million (plus interest) in IOP stock. Even though this stock is essentially worthless, the 9% shareholding he accepted looks incredibly weak. The $13.08million lost in Colombia – Yesterday Range announced its relinquishment of its interest in the PUT-6 license, Colombia. In withdrawing from this project, Range surrendered the $3.48million performance bond (which has been appearing in Range’s cash balances for the last year or so, ho, ho, ho). It also had to write off the $9.6million spent on exploration. Moving forward, I see the sense in this move by Range. It removes a huge future financial liability from the company’s budget, in terms of what it would have been expected to pay towards further work. But what about the so-called farm-out that was meant to be happening here? What about the $13million the company has wasted on this project? Of this $13million, how much was spent on corporate advisory fees I wonder… The $37.2million write down of the Georgian and Texan “assets” – this is a corker, an absolute corker. According to the accounts, Range now values its holdings in Strait Oil & Gas (Georgia) and its Texan properties at $10,000,000 and $1,000,000 respectively. Rumours abound that Range (and Red Emperor) are on the verge of a $50million (or whatever the absurd figure being bandied about is) deal to sells their Georgian holdings. Given that accounting valuation rarely match up to transactional valuations, I’d be amazed if Range recoups even half the $10,000,000 it now claims its holding in Strait is worth. That is, if it can even find a buyer at all. And then there is Texas. Oh Texas, what sadness are the fading memories of claims you were going to be sold for “$30mlllion221;, “$20million221;, “sorry, it’s back on the market”. Now Range values these “assets” at $1million. In other words they’re yours for a quid! The $2.5million impairment to trade and other receivables – This just looks so bad. Generating revenue is challenging enough for Range, so it is most unwelcome news to hear that even when it issues invoices some of its customers or other debtors refuse or are unable to pay. In the grand scheme of a $102.5million loss, this $2.5million impairment looks like small change. But consider for a moment that in the last financial year Range’s total oil sales only equaled $21.2million…. The bloated cost base– Life is too short to itemise the individual amounts that Range spent on consultants, professional services and lawyers in the last financial year. Even so, of the millions that bled from the company in fees there are a few notable items worth mentioning. Peter Landau earned $823,516 over 2013/14 and Okap Ventures scooped another $780,000. This is just too outrageous for words and I’m actually laughing writing this part. $2.1million was spent on corporate advisory fees in relation to finance, up from $0 the year before. This is another laughable figure, when you consider the shocking state of Range’s finances. $1.1million spent on travel; perhaps a little less time needs to be spent in the business lounge by certain directors and a little more time in cattle class, methinks. The $3.5million lost in an equity swap, with Yorkville Advisors – Given how Range’s share price has cratered this isn’t too surprising, but it is yet another failed financial transaction from the Landau years. The $7.3million spent on royalties – Perhaps I’ve saved the worst until last, but when you consider that Range sold $21.2million worth of oil, this means that one third of this evaporated in royalty payments. Interestingly enough it appears that Range didn’t explicitly say how much it paid in royalties in its 2013 accounts, but rather seems to have elected to these in with “costs of production”. Make of that what you will… As appalling as the list above is, this isn’t the main problem facing Range’s shareholders today. Serious questions should be asked about where a lot of that money went, but it has now gone (apart from the royalty payments, which will be recurring). Range’s shareholders will try to look to the future. This is where Mr Scott Russell’s admission that Range is not likely to hit 1,000bopd this year becomes a serious problem. A cursory glance at the cash flow statements reveals how dependent Range is on external funding to stay afloat. Without loans and equity investment this company cannot pay its costs. In the last financial year, net cash outflow from operating activities was $6.2million. This was better than the $12.4million the year before, but hardly does much to lend support to the valuation case for Range. Worse still was the net cash outflow from investing activities, which was $8.1million. Again this was an improvement on the $30.7million Range bled in the previous year, but if it weren’t for the $15.6million net cash inflow from financing activities (down from $34.3million in 2012/13) then this business would no longer exist. This isn’t a matter of opinion. This is a cold, hard fact. Supporters of the company will claim that this is another backward looking view of the company. This is misguided. In the last financial year “revenue from sale of hydrocarbons” was $21.2million. Total costs of sales were $24.8million and general and administrative expenses were $14.5million. This leaves a notional deficit of $18.1million. It is true that there is a lot of fat Range’s board can trim from the PLC costs (oh, those poor professional advisors, what will they do to survive?), but it is clear that improved operational performance in Trinidad isn’t just a nice to have. It is a vital necessity. Thanks to the foresight of those in charge of the Australian Securities Exchange (London Stock Exchange please take note) we shall see, in a month, the next set of quarterly production figures for Range. Anything other than at least a small improvement in production will be a major disappointment, no matter what spin is put on it. The numbers don’t lie. Unfortunately sometimes those producing them do
24/6/2018
11:20
thebreadmaker: From 2014 but it’s just as relevant today Today’s epic disaster of an annual report from Range Resources (RRL) cannot have come as a shock to anyone. Worse is still to come. By any stretch of the imagination Range is vastly overvalued. At 1.07p (last seen), Range is valued at £53.4million. The company has just announced a $102.5million loss, has never been able to cover its costs, has substantially written down the value of its “assets” and has just been forced to borrow another $15million (what happened to the “game-changing” LandOcean deal?!). To top it all off Chief Executive Rory Scott Russell made the hugely embarrassing admission the company is “unlikely to meet [his] previously stated target of an exit rate of 1,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of 2014”. Apparently Mr Scott Russell is now confident of achieving this goal in H1 of 2015. Given the steaming mountain of manure he has had to shovel his way through since he took charge of Range in February, perhaps Mr Scott Russell has earned a little leeway in hitting his production target. This doesn’t change Range’s overvaluation problem. Nor does it solve the cash flow problems. Nor does it answer a far more relevant question. Just what has happened to all of Range’s money? To Range’s credit, the latest accounts provide a full warts and all view of the company. Believers in “New Range” would do well to read through these thoroughly, including all the notes. Only the most deluded of shareholders will be able to find much positive in this horror story. It is no wonder Range has shed one third of its value today. In the long run, the release of this annual report might prove to be an astute move by Mr Scott Russell. As shattering as much of the information will come to those with high averages, one of the most troublesome aspects of “Landau’s Legacy” for Range’s board is the absurd valuation of the company. So long as Range’s market cap is bolstered by the false hopes, dreams and fantasies of long-term holders, no matter what the board does, a market reckoning is inevitable. Range’s market cap cannot defy gravity forever. As of today, it looks like it is finally coming crashing back down to earth, as reality has dawned. Assuming the share price drops further and reaches a far more realistic level (at least half the current value would be my best guess), then Mr Scott Russell and “New” Range might have a base to start building from. We shall see about this, but in the meantime extremely serious questions remain about what happened to all of Range’s money? Remember that over the years, this company has raised tens of millions of pounds from the market. It has also devastated the pensions of countless retail investors. I accept the principle of caveat emptor has to apply to anyone buying shares on AIM, but let’s take a look at the staggering admissions by Range today concerning the multitude of dodgy deals done on its behalf. Some of these are already known, others simply provide more unpalatable details and some are new shockers to digest. The $8million International Petroleum (IOP) loan – There is no escaping the utter disgrace of this transaction. Mr Scott Russell claims he reached a “a commercially satisfactory outcome”. As much as I want to give Mr Scott Russell a chance, the accounts prove what baloney this statement is. In Range’s own words “IOP remains suspended from trading on NSX and given the uncertainty over the valuation of the shares once trading resumes, the loan has been written down to US$1,500,000 being the US$500,000 cash receivable as per the agreement plus US$1,000,000 which is equivalent to the Company's 9% shareholding interest in IOP's forecast net cash position following the sale of the Russian assets.“ IOP was in default of this loan. Mr Scott Russell should have taken nothing less than the full value of the outstanding $7.5million (plus interest) in IOP stock. Even though this stock is essentially worthless, the 9% shareholding he accepted looks incredibly weak. The $13.08million lost in Colombia – Yesterday Range announced its relinquishment of its interest in the PUT-6 license, Colombia. In withdrawing from this project, Range surrendered the $3.48million performance bond (which has been appearing in Range’s cash balances for the last year or so, ho, ho, ho). It also had to write off the $9.6million spent on exploration. Moving forward, I see the sense in this move by Range. It removes a huge future financial liability from the company’s budget, in terms of what it would have been expected to pay towards further work. But what about the so-called farm-out that was meant to be happening here? What about the $13million the company has wasted on this project? Of this $13million, how much was spent on corporate advisory fees I wonder… The $37.2million write down of the Georgian and Texan “assets” – this is a corker, an absolute corker. According to the accounts, Range now values its holdings in Strait Oil & Gas (Georgia) and its Texan properties at $10,000,000 and $1,000,000 respectively. Rumours abound that Range (and Red Emperor) are on the verge of a $50million (or whatever the absurd figure being bandied about is) deal to sells their Georgian holdings. Given that accounting valuation rarely match up to transactional valuations, I’d be amazed if Range recoups even half the $10,000,000 it now claims its holding in Strait is worth. That is, if it can even find a buyer at all. And then there is Texas. Oh Texas, what sadness are the fading memories of claims you were going to be sold for “$30mlllion221;, “$20million221;, “sorry, it’s back on the market”. Now Range values these “assets” at $1million. In other words they’re yours for a quid! The $2.5million impairment to trade and other receivables – This just looks so bad. Generating revenue is challenging enough for Range, so it is most unwelcome news to hear that even when it issues invoices some of its customers or other debtors refuse or are unable to pay. In the grand scheme of a $102.5million loss, this $2.5million impairment looks like small change. But consider for a moment that in the last financial year Range’s total oil sales only equaled $21.2million…. The bloated cost base– Life is too short to itemise the individual amounts that Range spent on consultants, professional services and lawyers in the last financial year. Even so, of the millions that bled from the company in fees there are a few notable items worth mentioning. Peter Landau earned $823,516 over 2013/14 and Okap Ventures scooped another $780,000. This is just too outrageous for words and I’m actually laughing writing this part. $2.1million was spent on corporate advisory fees in relation to finance, up from $0 the year before. This is another laughable figure, when you consider the shocking state of Range’s finances. $1.1million spent on travel; perhaps a little less time needs to be spent in the business lounge by certain directors and a little more time in cattle class, methinks. The $3.5million lost in an equity swap, with Yorkville Advisors – Given how Range’s share price has cratered this isn’t too surprising, but it is yet another failed financial transaction from the Landau years. The $7.3million spent on royalties – Perhaps I’ve saved the worst until last, but when you consider that Range sold $21.2million worth of oil, this means that one third of this evaporated in royalty payments. Interestingly enough it appears that Range didn’t explicitly say how much it paid in royalties in its 2013 accounts, but rather seems to have elected to these in with “costs of production”. Make of that what you will… As appalling as the list above is, this isn’t the main problem facing Range’s shareholders today. Serious questions should be asked about where a lot of that money went, but it has now gone (apart from the royalty payments, which will be recurring). Range’s shareholders will try to look to the future. This is where Mr Scott Russell’s admission that Range is not likely to hit 1,000bopd this year becomes a serious problem. A cursory glance at the cash flow statements reveals how dependent Range is on external funding to stay afloat. Without loans and equity investment this company cannot pay its costs. In the last financial year, net cash outflow from operating activities was $6.2million. This was better than the $12.4million the year before, but hardly does much to lend support to the valuation case for Range. Worse still was the net cash outflow from investing activities, which was $8.1million. Again this was an improvement on the $30.7million Range bled in the previous year, but if it weren’t for the $15.6million net cash inflow from financing activities (down from $34.3million in 2012/13) then this business would no longer exist. This isn’t a matter of opinion. This is a cold, hard fact. Supporters of the company will claim that this is another backward looking view of the company. This is misguided. In the last financial year “revenue from sale of hydrocarbons” was $21.2million. Total costs of sales were $24.8million and general and administrative expenses were $14.5million. This leaves a notional deficit of $18.1million. It is true that there is a lot of fat Range’s board can trim from the PLC costs (oh, those poor professional advisors, what will they do to survive?), but it is clear that improved operational performance in Trinidad isn’t just a nice to have. It is a vital necessity. Thanks to the foresight of those in charge of the Australian Securities Exchange (London Stock Exchange please take note) we shall see, in a month, the next set of quarterly production figures for Range. Anything other than at least a small improvement in production will be a major disappointment, no matter what spin is put on it. The numbers don’t lie. Unfortunately sometimes those producing them do.
01/9/2016
13:51
topicel: Legacy issues brought up by someone or somebody interested in squeezing extra value out of RRL share price? Maybe. Certainly as Abrahe says an opportune time to take advantage too based on current anticipation for real 2016 progress. Topicel
Range Resources share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
add chat code
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:40 V: D:20180720 00:37:58