Sdx Energy Share Discussion Threads

[winnet] 08/10/2024 11:42

it wasn't mentioned in the accounts was it, as it was "held for sale"...

Ned, can you ask your mate, the FD, what the production figures are?

[neo26] 08/10/2024 10:39

What are they producing in SD now?

[winnet] 08/10/2024 09:59

TBF they suggested Egypt may now not be sold. Let's hope they've done the math and the revenues are solid.

[tnt99] 07/10/2024 22:45

Expect to 10 times on sale of Egypt assets which must be imminent See someone starting to load up here!

[neo26] 07/10/2024 17:09

Define large holding 900k?

[littlened] 05/10/2024 12:09

I am aware of a deceased estate disposing of a large holding of SDX,along with rest of the portfolio,probably this week.A good opportunity to top up ?

[neo26] 02/10/2024 14:18

Look at GBP rns today where the ceo has rolledover loan owed by a year and interest free.Aleph are leaches they have destroyed shareholder value here..

[winnet] 01/10/2024 07:19

Apologies, I thought assets held for sale removed from that figure. I'll check that.

[34adsaddsa] 30/9/2024 18:38

It's the company's net equity. It does include the assets being held for as sale, as well as the current gross asset value, which rightly includes any impairments.

It's the company's number, not mine.

[winnet] 30/9/2024 17:43

It does't include SD as its being "held for sale", 34. It also contains a major impairment of 5 million USD.

[34adsaddsa] 30/9/2024 17:04

Net equity down to $4.8M.

[roman2325] 30/9/2024 16:12

In the half year report posted this morning, they are evaluating all options. This means no buyer. Logically they are not going to give it away, but there are literally hundreds of assets up for sale, that their owners can no longer finance (because banks are pulling out of hydrocarbons). And most of these are from the majors that are a lot more attractive than this. They don't know this because the CEO is new to the sector, but I suspect he is learning.

If they want to develop it they need to partner, and its simply too small for anyone who's got the financing to consider.

I work in the industry - these are not conspiracies lol

[littlened] 30/9/2024 16:07

Winnet,BOD are not going to give SD away.If what they feel is a fair offer they will sell,but they do not need to and are happy to develop SD in those circumstances and can obtain the funds to do so

[winnet] 30/9/2024 16:06

I think Ned asked the FD why he wasn't buying stock and he confirmed they are in a closed period.

This is confirmed by the RNS "we had entered into advanced negotiations on both assets"

advanced negotaitions means they have a buyer. So I disagree. It depends on what you interpret by the term "advanced". I believe this means detailed due diligence on the assets and negotiation over price.

[roman2325] 30/9/2024 15:58

Winnet - the doc states they are 'actively evaluating all of their options for the asset' (which you yourself wrote about 10 mins ago). This means they do not have a buyer, but are trying to find one. And as we have repeated hundreds of times: they cannot find financing, so they cannot afford to develop the asset themselves.

This is putting 2 and 2 together...they want the market to believe they don't HAVE to sell the asset (as you yourself said, trying to avoid a distressed sell) but anyone following the stock knows yes they do have to sell.

None of this prevents them from buying the stock - they just don't want to because its worthless!

[winnet] 30/9/2024 15:29

Roman, the directors are actively negotiating the sale of SD. Someone of your experience must therefore know that they cannot buy stock. Its called insider trading and our MD is far too pretty looking to go to jail.

You're trolling me with these comments, no?

[roman2325] 30/9/2024 15:23

Why would they say the price exceeds 3m if it was 11m? There is no logic in that at all. Further, if they say the price exceeds 11m (for example, insert any number you want), then surely the share price would go up, which is what they want.

Not once have any of the directors stepped in to buy stock which is a fair idea that they see this as trading at par, or above. They have corporte brokers reminding them of this every day and they still choose to ignore it.

Red flags all over this, im just waiting for you to post "Just you wait....this time its different"

;)

[winnet] 30/9/2024 15:22

Thanks Ned. What do you think about the remark in the document that says "including a sale of the asset or potentially developing it." concerning SD. I don't see how this stacks up against their remark relating to the "going concern" status being contingent on "The Group sells its remaining asset in Egypt (South Disouq) - for sales proceeds of at least $3.0 million.".

You cannot develop it, if you need to sell it to maintain your going concern status. Also, where is the cash for developing it going to come from unless they perhaps farm out some of it and retain a small stake? IMO that would be the least attractive option.

[littlened] 30/9/2024 15:04

Good one Winnet,just shows how flawed his logic is

[winnet] 30/9/2024 14:54

Roman,

I don't know whats going on in the SD negotiations [just like you don't], but I do know when the cap was 7 million GBP they stated that it would require shareholder approval as the figure was more than 75% of cap. The read-across was it was going to be in excess of 6 million USD. I guess, and its only a guess, that as the share price has cratered, the buyers have been turning the screw on the number and SDX have been "messed about". Hence SDX has not completed the deal as I guess, again, it's only a guess, the number is too low and they don't need to sell yet, given they are a going concern... So this has nothing really to do with common sense... but more to do with the fact that SDX is seen as a distressed seller.

The issue is that the SD numbers have not been disclosed as the asset is being "held for sale" so it's tricky to work out what production numbers look like. However, there are some historical numbers to look at and we know it is worth much more than we got for WG [bigger asset, more reserves, greater production]. In theory, it should sell for double [ish] the price. But then, like I say, its not a rational economic sale.

The analogy about your son is an odd one. He cannot borrow 6 million USD at 19%. I'll leave you to think about that remark for a second.

[roman2325] 30/9/2024 14:23

Hi Winnet - 2 questions in response:

1. If Aleph want to see the business do well, and don't expect the business to go bust....why are they charging 20%? (Now secured). I repeat - my son (student with no income) can borrow at 19.9%...what do we conclude?

2. Quite simply - why has the share price fallen to 2p? And why has it been falling for several years?

For good order, if the SD price was "exceeding 5m" they would have said so. It is misleading (and against LSE rules) to publish information that could have been construed as something else. People will trade off the back of it, and could lose a lot of money. As it stands no one is going near this so the board are in the clear...but common sense tells us it will be around 3m - dont you think?

[winnet] 30/9/2024 12:07

They are not equity investors

-----------

But they are equity investors, Roman, because they have a large stake in the business. Why bother acquiring any interest - presumably, according to your thesis, to take advantage when they scavenge the carcass? But they've then got a huge bad debt if they go under, so there's not much logic to it...

I don't think I am delusional, I just disagree with you! I think some of your predictions are bordering on conspiracy theory stuff. Yes, they want to secure the loan, but the fact they would offer it in the first place isn't because they expect the business to go bust, but they want some insurance if it does.

I don't see any LTH jumping off the cliff here.

The only worrying thing for me is the price for SD was noted as "exceeding 3m". I hope its at least double that! That would be a large downward revision, which I guess is why we still have it.

[neo26] 30/9/2024 08:04

What are they producing in SD? Not very clear..

[roman2325] 27/9/2024 13:33

You are both delusional.

To think a credit investor, would lend to an O&G minnow, without having a back-up plan if (when) they go under (which 90% do), is beyond moronic. You need to wake up.

Why would they lend to an (incredibly high-risk) borrower when every other lender said no? (If you work in corporate finance this has been common knowledge since before Jay)

They are not equity investors hoping SDX strike it big, they are not expert geologists who think they know better than the geoligists working that area for decades, they are distressed debt investors who have a plan B when their client can't pay them back.

The fact only 1 investor turned up to the AGM should tell you you are the only investors left