Trinity Exploration & Pr... Share Discussion Threads

[arlington chetwynd talbott] 05/2/2024 23:34

nocents - I do not think it is a conspiracy (as I said, I am no Pavey Ark) but it is keeping everyone in stuck in the weeds - and strathroyal makes good points about the difference between what folk think they have been promised and what TRIN actually committed to. Folk really need to look at the big picture, at what the last two years tells them must happen for any kind of meaningful recovery: sack the BoD, or at least JB (financial failures) and JM (operational failures) pour encourager les autres.

[strathroyal] 05/2/2024 21:35

nocents - I pointed out previously on here that despite what Pavey is writing, the 15% is an aim not something written in stone. It's there in the annual report, they've paid the dividend and no doubt will continue to do so but that's all we will get until the cash is back in the account. See Annual Report page 4 Return To Shareholders, second paragraph.

[skyship] 05/2/2024 16:35

Dear ########

Thank you for your email. Please be assured that we have passed this on to the Company.


Kind regards,

Verity

[arlington chetwynd talbott] 05/2/2024 14:56

nocents - if I was a conspiracy theorist like Pavey Ark, I could begin to imagine that the whole Trinity/Cavendish discrepancy thing was a clever ploy designed to divert shareholders from what really needs to be addressed and what really needs to happen.Sack the BoD, or at least JB and JM pour encourager les autres.

[skyship] 05/2/2024 14:50

No reply for me...

Do they essentially endorse Cavendish stats?

[aqc888] 04/2/2024 17:52

The joys of investing in AIM !!!

[nocents] 04/2/2024 17:45

I am hoping Trinity get on the case. Ab did not hear back from the Chairman. No-one receives a response from Vigo re. cash-flow disrepancy, but I guess they can’t unless Trinity deal with it. Essentially , Cenkos need to re-issue an accurate note. Like immediately.
I have just emailed Vigo again and asked for it to be passed to Trinity.

[arlington chetwynd talbott] 04/2/2024 15:58

Fair points - people often see what they want to see. For far too long, failing to learn from experience, TRIN shareholders have treated BoD statements that are essentially aspirational as if they can take them to the bank (and been duly disappointed)."BUT if the CEO has got his figures as wrong as this then as the dreaded phrase goes he must 'consider his position'"No, TRIN shareholders need to look at the last two years and consider JB's position for him. He is not going to.

[pavey ark] 04/2/2024 14:51

Went over the TRIN statements, results/updates and the Cavendish update.

Everything depends on how much information Cavendish got directly from TRIN but in the past these reports have suggested that they work fairly closely with each other ????

Spotted a few errors but nothing major and largely compensating errors....If I closed one eye and squinted I could probably add c.$1m to the operational cash flow but that's not my job.
As has been pointed out the asset allocation is way out.....West Coast/onshore is nonsense.

The final figures from Cavendish rely on a number of assumptions and these depend on how much info they got from TRIN.

The 5% reduction in production (2024)obviously makes a dent in the SPT saving and there is no production allowed for Jacobin or any H2(2024) drilling.

I can't see TRIN commenting on the Cavendish report directly but people have made it clear that more information is required.

[strathroyal] 04/2/2024 12:58

The problem with the other thread being run by a conspiracy theorist is that sensible explanations to questions are seldom looked for. I haven't got a copy of the Cavendish report so I won't comment other than to note that questions were raised last year (in that case about production) and no mistakes were ever proven.

There were a couple of points that I was going to address however. As anyone who has read my comments will know, I'm not a big fan of the board but criticism of them nevertheless should be accurate.

So, firstly the 15% return to shareholders. The actual comment in the annual report states that they 'aim to distribute'. The dictionary produces various definitions of aim but none state that it is a firm committment as it clearly isn't. On the other hand the payment of the dividend does appear to be firm and has been upheld.

Secondly, the only reference I can find to the announcement of the 2024 guidance was in the 19/12 presentation where JB actually says that he would like to get guidance out by the end of January. Again that's an aim not a firm committment unless somebody else can produce a later comment.

[arlington chetwynd talbott] 04/2/2024 11:46

The focus on cash flow continues. FWIW I will repeat the post I made arguing that this is a mistake:

“You [Ab76] are interested in cash flow figures, but cash flow is not that helpful a metric for a business that has to continually combat diminishing output (i.e. combat declines). The cost of this particular exercise may be treated as a capital cost but you could argue that it is really a cost of sales, or at least that an oiler like TRIN is a much more capital intensive proposition than businesses in other sectors, where cash flow can be a more useful metric.

Basically, this means that you have a seemingly encouraging cash flow figure, which you like and are focusing on, or would be if you knew which of the two figures was the right one, but then the bank balance always ends up smaller than you think it should be - this is what has brought your investment to these lows. So you can see that focusing on cash flow is a bit of a trap for oil investors (and under this BoD TRIN is arguably the classic value trap - you think it is making progress but it turns out that it is running to stand still, and maybe, in light of Jacobin, not even that).”

Sack the BoD.

[skyship] 04/2/2024 10:53

Obviously none of us received an answer back from cavendish or vigo when confronted with our concerns as to the cash-flow numbers. That in itself pretty reprehensible; and perhaps implies there is indeed a case to be answered!

No doubt we will get answers tomorrow...

[pavey ark] 04/2/2024 10:19

Being an up front sort of a guy I suppose I expect the same in others....rather naive I know.

Now my expectation of proper behaviour certainly extends to the management of companies I invest in.....(doesn't always show but it usually does)

I say this because of two key issues that have come up regarding TRIN.

1. The 15% of operational cash flow to be returned to shareholders....I consider this to be a firm commitment and from a legal point of view it may have encouraged people to buy .
NB:this cannot now be changed to "well we could use the cash for this or that"..."we are a bit cash strapped and ONLY have x million instead of y million"

2. The actual operational cash flow ....we will see if the Cavendish figures are amended... if they are we are in a bit of a loop here and we go back to number 1 above.

If the Cavendish figures are not changed we have a rather serious issue with the CEO (former CFO) guiding us to a figure (19th DEC)that was totally wrong.

Andrew has pointed out other serious mistakes in asset values in the report and there have been changes at Cavendish / Cenkos so there could have been mistakes made ??

I should stress something that we all know.... either set of figures point to a company that is ridiculously undervalued BUT if the CEO has got his figures as wrong as this then as the dreaded phrase goes he must "consider his position"

Given the upside potential, the cash, the cash being generated I continue to hold.

All of this without even considering Galeota.....we do "live in interesting times"

[princebuster2] 03/2/2024 19:18

‘The purpose of this thread is keep nonsense to a minimum’ hehehhehehehhe!
And were supposed to be the bickering thread. Its more cival over here these days.

[pavey ark] 03/2/2024 19:17

Well you can catch his wit and wisdom over on the other bb although it could get complicated for him......."would the real ACT please step forward!!!"

EDIT: I don't want to suggest that we should go into a pearl clutching swoon over this BUT I can't really believe people think that it doesn't matter if a person is posting under several different names !!!???

[aqc888] 03/2/2024 18:49

Do his motives matter? If he’s putting forward an intelligent negative, factual viewpoint that can be debated…

[spectoacc] 03/2/2024 17:50

I am a recent holder here, below 40p I'm fortunate enough to say, and guess c.2 posts a day over 25 years makes me moderately prolific @J.

But @strathroyal has been around for years, and posting 99 times on one thread and once on another doesn't make him a troll. Clearly a holder, with some useful things to say, as does @AndrewB.

Big difference between filtering somebody (eg with 28 handles) and chucking them off a thread. Filter, if you're not keen on him/her.

[pavey ark] 03/2/2024 15:00

nocents, I did not ban strathroyal for ANY of the reasons you suggested.....please re-read my posts.

SpectoAcc, I think you are a recent poster here but I know that you are a very, very prolific poster on a number of companies and a number of topics.

I wouldn't mind if you expanded on your "ridiculous" comment.

[spectoacc] 03/2/2024 11:18

I think it would deter new eyeballs @Skyship, which of course ADVFN needs for its ever-more inclusive ads.

Bring back the Bullshare/Mike Boydell days.

But yes, they should do far, far more to address multiple handles and ramping.

As for banning @strathroyal - ridiculous.