And what would be inherently absurd about that? AIM: GKP has...

And what would be inherently absurd about that? AIM: GKP has their oil valued at less. And theirs is a massive proven field, not a marginal yet-to-be-proven commercial strike without flow testing or appraisal wells.

The way I see the value is this:

Texas: $25m (the value has been falling for the last few months, so it's pretty optimistic to presume that $40m is the 'final' figure and it won't be further revised lower).

Trinidad: $70m (I don't agree with the theory that a piece of paper saying how extra recoverable oil COULD be found via water flooding increases the value of this asset tremendously. As such, I'm, looking at flow rates, which are only slightly higher than when the asset was first bought for $60m).

Colombia: $10m (the holding fee for this asset was approximately $10m, so I'll go ahead and presume it's worth about that until I see concrete evidence to the contrary, as no one's going to sell an asset on the cheap if it's worth a lot more).

Georgia: $10m, and I'm been generous. Poor flow rates across Georgia, the seismics were inaccurate, and the costs of operating there are large.

Puntland: $20m (let's take the 100mmbl figure, which is 20mmbl to Range, and value it at $1 per barrel).

Therefore I make total value of the assets currently around $135m. Convert into pounds and divide by number of shares in issue and you get about 4p.

The logical conclusion is that 3.5p of this share price is currently based off 'potential'. Whether this additional 'potential' valuation is justified remains to be seen, but Landau's track record at moving assets forward isn't great.

Plus there's the whole CCC loan thing, as well as working with David Lenigas.

4p a share for assets, then 1-1.5p for 'potential' would seem fair to me. 3.5p is IMO too high.