Zephyr Energy Share Discussion Threads

[mojad5] 16/10/2024 10:35

log - think you need to dash back to Billy Smart's - he's missing one of his star performers.:)

[loglorry1] 16/10/2024 10:09

As usual the bulls just resort to throwing mud at anyone who posts something that isn't uber bullish.

The RNS today was inline and the market has treated it inline. Yawn!

[fenners66] 16/10/2024 09:15

Annualised savings of $150k - right direction.

Surely that deserves a directors' bonus of say $160k ?

[molatovkid] 16/10/2024 08:49

Yes....definitive proof.

[assagai] 16/10/2024 08:45

Tried to resist the childish stuff but here in Scotland we refer to that Large vehicle with a cylinder on top...you know the one that visits properties not on main drainage but with a tank that needs emptying as a ...... You guessed.
Strange choice?
Granted though , full of Sh...

[molatovkid] 16/10/2024 08:36

LogLorry and Jaknife.....ummm.....definitely a vehicular theme going on here.
Must just be a coincidence.

[loglorry1] 16/10/2024 08:02

The net debt position is what counts and the current account that is payables and receivables. I don't think you can tell much from a few $m either way. Having said that the net debt doesn't seem to be increasing which is a positive. The problem the bulls have (but won't admit) is that the decline and lower oil prices at the Williston will have a big effect and the Paradox is basically a failure.

It's also A LOT of expensive debt in total regardless.

[paddyfool] 16/10/2024 07:51

So the debt is down ¢7.8 million interest would have been broadly ¢2.8 for the period so the amount paid down is around ¢10.6 of which ¢3.8 million was settled by an equity for debt swap. This done at 4.85p. So there is some context for you all. Not the one sided trash put forward by certain people here!

[thinking] 16/10/2024 07:38

Lenders happy, interest rate reduced by 1% and borrowing down, nuff said!

[mojad5] 16/10/2024 06:56

I thought the clowns might stay at the circus today but sadly one's just turned up.

[loglorry1] 16/10/2024 06:54

Sigh! It's all inline as well you know. The D4E reduced the debt and the rate drop is down to reference rate falling.

[assagai] 16/10/2024 06:40

Oh no, debt reducing and interest rate down and lenders confident...what a disaster!

Sorry to steal your thunder Chuckles..

[molatovkid] 16/10/2024 06:29

To quote Noel Gallagher, Log And Jak are like men with forks in a world of soup....

See we've saved some money this morning !!

[fenners66] 15/10/2024 14:04

loglorry1 -
No I did say / or Not

Its not inevitable
Even the financing is not guaranteed
and after that anything commercial
and even later after that any actual return for shareholders

I agree JakNife a lot of the gamblers don't actually care.
If there is a perception of good news they can pump and dump.
If that's their thing then so be it.

Can't see Warren Buffett doing a pump and dump though.

He prefers , buy right and forget ...

[ride daice] 15/10/2024 14:00

How far are they from Skinwalker ?

[loglorry1] 15/10/2024 13:27

"and unless the company actually tells you the actual number of barrels of oil that they extracted then you'll never know."

... and the time period over which that amount was produced. I'd be a amazed if the produced more than 100 bbls of condensate over the multi-day test.

Obviously, CH can at any time put that critical data point out but he seems a bit shy bless him.

88E (who are also good stewards of your money) put out this result peak flow rate of ~50 bopd of light oil

Later due to Aussie listing rules they then had to admit they had only flowed 4 bbls IN TOTAL during the test!

[jaknife] 15/10/2024 13:18

fenners66,

"Why not wait for the real result - an actual commercial exploitation of the Paradox from which the company makes enough money to give the shareholders a return / or not."

The retail punters don't actually want to know the real result ... unless it's absolutely amazing. The likes of molatovkid would rather that the company lied to them. See:



and:

It's highly probable that Zephyr have already spun a story to shareholders. Back in July Colin told shareholders that:

"Condensate yield averaged 180 barrels per 1,000 mscf produced and peaked at over 600 barrels of condensate per day."

But by the second test in September the peak rate had declined by 15% to:

"At the peak production rates in the second test, condensate/light volatile oil represented approximately 510 boepd, and these liquid yields were on an increasing trend at the conclusion of the test."

And this was after the acid! It's only now that they admit that they've missed the target reservoir by a mile and need to drill a lateral.

I would bet that they've done the classic AIM ramp of only testing the well for an hour or two at the most. So many other spivvy oil companies do exactly that (UKOG was a classic) and unless the company actually tells you the actual number of barrels of oil that they extracted then you'll never know.

JakNife

[loglorry1] 15/10/2024 12:45

You make that sound like something inevitable? There's probably more chance of the usual AIM playbook which is death by dilution.

[fenners66] 15/10/2024 12:44

Why not wait for the real result - an actual commercial exploitation of the Paradox from which the company makes enough money to give the shareholders a return / or not.

Getting enough out of it to continue to pay the directors a fortune - does not qualify as a success under that criteria.

[greengold58] 15/10/2024 12:37

Aliens could invade

[assagai] 15/10/2024 12:33

Here's a thought.
Why not wait until the funding is signed off and all the details known

Then one camp will be correct and the other camp will be completely wrong and the argument will be over.

Then the camp that was wrong can pivot into a new argument like maybe the lateral drilling is bound to go wrong because the Paradox is full of evil spirits, or something like that.

[molatovkid] 15/10/2024 08:45

More likely, as responsible stewards of our capital, if the company were paying for it, they would say so and not then say there is 'no further exposure' to Paradox for the company. Get a grip!

[loglorry1] 15/10/2024 08:02

"I would say that funding workover preparations, acidisation and testing would constitute 'further exposure'."

We all know you would say that. However the company didn't! They wrote something else in the RNS and that was certainly not an oversight. These RNSs are carefully prepared. If the partner was paying for testing, workover, acid etc. they'd say so. Why on earth not say so ?