The following is not investment advice and is just my personal opinion based on scant information and may contain serious errors or omissions.
Bit angry and frustrated at the moment particularly when I see investors trying to hide tears.
From the Recent e-mail from CTP that really rubs salt into wounds, “
In that vacuum, there has been some commentary on the merits or otherwise of the SOA, not all of it well-informed”.
Why wouldn’t shareholders including myself make uninformed comment ?
The answer is simple because we are lacking sufficient information from CTP to make informed comment.
Some of my bones of contention that could be answered by better CTP public communication over the last 3 years.
- Clearly the announcement on 26/Apr proves that CTP have not been legally constrained from making price sensitive announcements.
- I would like to know why the sudden requirement for well in excess of $50M in order for the company to proceed after a clean audit on the last annual report saying the company can trade as a going concern for 12 months (After the Audit) is not a mandatory ASX price sensitive announcement.
- Does anyone in their right mind really believe that CTP Gas could not make $12M per year? Back of cigarette packet economics…..Say 12M profit V P/E of 8 = 96 M divided by say 450 M shares = 21C/Share Value Directors signed CTP over to Macquarie for 20C (Lets just look at the gas component of the business).
- What went on….. 5.2 PJ (Presold to Macquarie at less than $2.00/GJ) Does CTP mean to tell shareholders that no one in Sydney would have entered into a futures contract for Gas for at least $6.00/GJ with a COP and Haulage of getting QLD gas to Sydney of about $8.00/GJ. Clearly a half decent discounted GSA sale would have significantly increased the share value of CTP.
- My response to the 3 dimensional chess board RC referred to when I asked “What is the takeover risk and mitigation” was to start modelling because quite frankly I was very uncomfortable with his answer to such a crucial question as it turned out posed just before Macquarie made their first takeover bid.
In many cases risks can be converted to opportunities.
This is now a huge electronic storyboard with spread sheet, Monte Carlo risk management & Strategic analysis layers focusing on the “Optionality” and “Risks”.
I am presently exploring the modular distributed LNG model which is becoming increasingly competitive for stranded gas.
There is considerable investment interest here because there is almost no subsurface risk and the units are portable & have a 20 year design life. In any case the stupid strategic software threw up the ridiculous proposition that CTP could have done some hard work and put their gas down the (Empty) Amadeus pipeline to Wadeye, paid them to liquefy it and put it on double B Cryogenic tankers which can go for 4 days with no trouble. Once these things are on the road they are just like double B loads of anything else. Better just take the computer seriously and do a bit of checking on this one but
wouldn’t we kick ourselves if we could have been selling gas for the last 2 years “To the Door” in a distributed market. I am not naïve I am letting this cat out of the bag because it is probably a long shot.
- Once the board Signed CTP over to MAC this triggered an extension of the above modelling exercise to looking at Macquarie’s strategic opportunity for the whole industry. It will be very interesting to see if they spot the path to the really big one before one of the other really big players does! I am just a simple sailor trying to figure why a huge organisation which plays on a world stage with the capacity to raise billions is mucking around with a small entity like CTP. Beats me why they didn’t just loan us a bit of money and watch us closely to make sure they got their money back and get on with multi-billion dollar opportunities.
Bear with me I am just a bit frustrated and feel let down.
Regards
OGP
(20min delay)