"super spanner" love it, but Vince is on ignore so can't see the inane ramblings, thought he promised never to come back? Come on Elena, post share on loan stats then we'll have a full house, very much like XEL
"for me the question is will Cole be able to strike the best deal possible in the circumstances even if it is not the deal he dreams about."
Given the BOD have changed the production plan from us requiring $320 million to get us to first oil to now requiring $700 million tells me that they are extremely confident they are going to bag the right deal............very bold move to make without being very confident imo.........
I don't doubt that your figures are correct as per the releases etc but look at this
"The economic projections in the Form 51-101F1 assume . . . "
They assume, but it is too easy to assume miraculous production levels being attained in 2016, what the Tracs report did not give was the profile of production over the next 20-30 years. RKH have slipped a year already and with a very accommodating govt to deal with. Xel could easily slip to 2017-18
There is too much unfettered optimism around. It is a decent investment but not something to go 'all in' on in my humble opinion
for me the question is will Cole be able to strike the best deal possible in the circumstances even if it is not the deal he dreams about.
Over the last few months ive bumped into at least 10 people in my home town alone and got talking shares.
Every single one of them has Xcite
Every single of them said roughly the same thing
They aint selling til at least 500p
Not one of them posts on BBs
Most said they were "adding"
Most hold £10k +
I had yet another talk last night with an investor, quickly i found 3 people in the room who all had Xcite in their portfolio....all again said they wouldnt sell until 500p, one is hanging on to the end or 1500p.
This is only my wee hometown and the people i bump into now and again.
We need to raise max of $250 million after RBL imo......($450 million RBL)..........
There is no way the big oilers are going to be playing games with us only needing that amount.........
WORST WORST case scenario, revert back to the original production plan where we only needed $320 million (say a $250 million RBL and $70 million placing) and tell them to take a running jump if they don't pay what we want........
P.S...........just to verify this, I found this in the RAR
The economic projections in the Form 51-101F1 assume that capital
expenditure in 2016 and beyond is funded from income from the sale of
crude oil production at that time. This expenditure relates to the
drilling of additional wells, followed by the Phase 2 infrastructure
and production facilities.
Set out below are the future development costs attributable to the
Field reserves from the RAR and Form 51-101F1, which uses a 2% per
annum escalation in costs commencing 1 January 2013.
Total = $3.4 Billion
revenue of approximately $28.2 billion for the life of field
development, equating to a weighted average of $113 per barrel of
Bentley oil. This weighted average revenue unescalated would be $83 per
- operating costs of approximately $7.8 billion, equating to $31.0
per barrel. These operating costs unescalated would be $20.8 per barrel
and are assumed to be funded out of oil revenue.
- development costs of approximately $3.4 billion, equating to $13.7per
barrel. These development costs unescalated would be $12.5 per
barrel and are discussed in more detail below.
- abandonment and reclamation costs of approximately $810 million,
equating to $3.2 per barrel. These abandonment and reclamation costs
unescalated would be $1.5 per barrel.
- undiscounted net revenue after income taxes (ie net cash flow
generated) of approximately $6.9 billion, which equates to the NPV10
(after tax) value for 2P reserves of approximately $2.2 billion.
I still don't understand where the other $1.9 Billion comes from?
After capex/opex taxes etc etc this field will generate $6.9 billion, giving us a NPV10 of $2.2 Billion.........
I stuck the annual estimates making up the $3.4bn capex into a spreadsheet with a 10 year timeline and I am coming out with, actually about $2Bn. Probably understated if anything in this context, NPV10 discounts future expenditure heavily
"what about this scenario, Suitor offers 400p per share +$200m for 80% of Bentley main blocks, Suitor fully funds and operates, Xcite retains 20%, Drills the living daylights out of New blocks, We get 400p, 20% retaining interests still worth a fortune medium to long term, We get Xcite drilling again "cut and paste", Statoil, sorry I mean suitor gets 80% of a monster field, Everyone happy, Xcite are in a strong position, the deals possible are mouthwatering"
You have got to say one thing for Rob, he does (refreshingly ) come up with actual numbers, whether you agree with them or not.
But in his scenario the cash alone in fact is very close to the full NPV10 or over $2Bn on its own, and for just 80% so that values 100% of Excite at almost $2.6bn.
On top of that the bidder will be taking all of the risk, including having to stump up $3.4bn of capex over the next 10 years (which will probably overrun as these things do).
So that is approximately another $1.9bn at NPV10m putting a total current value on Excite of $4.5Bn, versus $2.17Bn NPV10 on the TRACS report
'Xcite don't do production, Schlumberger et al do'
'Xcite havent ordered any long lead items'
Standby to be suprised at the approach Xcite will take and the capability the 'farm in' partners will bring.
Scaremongering by the usual suspects will have the scare removed when their shorts are burning.
Aye, sorry we have waited so long for a farm out that it now appears we are end of the queue for receiving our requirements !
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.