Cloz et al. Yep. In for the (undeveloped) asset sale by drilling a couple of wells to prove the Resource base to be a lot better than the analogous Saguaro position. Plan A hasn't worked out. What's Plan B?
I really need to see the HY BS (and it stands for Balance Sheet not a profanity abbreviations!) to get a better picture of our true financial position. I also need to see a reserves report and what level of detail we get (ideally it would be as detailed as what DEE laid out). Take my suggestion and look closely at DEE & PONY (as one has suggested) and keep looking at others (suggest CR, PIPE as listed entity and then Saguaro and Black Swan which being private wont give you their financials but they have useful presentations). Information is an asset. Plenty of posters operating in vacuum AFAICT.
As to what happens next ... whatever it is it will require capital that we don't have. Let's not sugar coat the issues. This is going to be hard. Lenders want to see significant equity (as in shareholder equity in the balance sheet) in the project and how safe (principal security - collateral value and cashflow for loan serviceability) is their loan.
For instance how many posters here recognize that we have debt in the financial equivalent of a optional CONVERTIBLE NOTE with monthly payments. It's very clear that if there is a shortfall between monthly oil sales and the lender can request (i.e. their option) the shortfall to be paid in shares (subject to shareholder approval) or cash. We took CAD$1M and agreed to repay CAD$1.2M over 3 years using monthly oil sales from Paradise as the security.
And our acreage position. What happens with the 10,651 acres at Pocketknife NE & SW that are not labelled as "core". Will they be relinquished? What really happened to the original TSV Montney's blocks? From TSV prospectus 25/8/2015
Inga & Fort St John = 20,480 Caribou & Pocket Knife = 32,640 Total TSV Montney acreage = 53,120
And at $130/acre it is approx $6.9M ... and that is relevant to CE1 how? CE1 FY2018 Annual Report has $18.94M of exploration asset from TSVM & TSKM acquistion ($356/acre) and our total Exploration Asset as $32.44M (~$450/acre)
Seems like that would (should?) have been part of the CE1 acquisition. That acreage falls into what is considered as very liquids rich (talked before about Inga area). Did we get it? Was it relinquished, Did we sell it?
Anyway I digress. To the "Pathways" you described Cloz (1) Do nothing ... pointless. They will do "something" ... the question is how. (2) Sell land at "loss" (being $500/acre) ... doubt if mgmt would call it a loss .. given the continued reference to $130/acre acquisition cost. Investors would I think see that as a large loss. (3) & (4) are to me the same thing ... Raise more capital, drill, produce (no point to drill & not produce other than to have PDNP on Reserves report) and further prove our "value" (5) Same as (1) ... just convincing someone to pay up.... which I'm sure they are trying to do (maximise value).
Leaves us back at just one thing. Raise money, drill, produce and continue to be an "asset available for sale" ... which technically should be reflected in their balance sheet ... it has meaning.
Can't run away from the scale and time needed to develop such a project. We keep referencing Saguaro. Their investor presentation has a good slide on it. $600M+ to get to this (early) point in the project
Along the lines of the discussion with CWhite, production aint no bed of roses either, but it is CE1's stated Plan B. C$15M for pipeline ... claim is that it can be debt funded from production from these first 2 wells. I did rough up some numbers in this post https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/38418965/single to test the reasonableness of that given the information presently available. Better than standing still doing nothing.
CE1 Price at posting:
2.3¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)