That's right Nanood ... because the more opaque, obtuse and obscure the communication the more difficult it becomes to focus on details that matter. And the harder it is to do that the more cautious one needs to be. A red flag IMO.
You've highlighted yet another perfectly good example of DD. "Revenue" - is generally accepted as the "top line" number from which ALL the expenses are deducted in the period to arrive at their NET INCOME. We have some here that do not believe that the cost of D&C a well should count towards that now (and certainly not from wells drilled in the past - those are numbers that are on the BALANCE SHEET Junior ... the same BS being relied upon for the "true economic potential" BS written).
Show me the money --> Net Income!
OK too hard
Show me EBITDAX and then add back the adjustments one by one and show me how enough excess cash can be earned to be reinvested firstly into the business and eventually to be returned to shareholders. A business with 70% return does that quickly so prove it.
BTW if there is "no better PRODUCING low cost listed oil company on ASX..at SUB ONE CENT....with at around 70% internal rate return/well.....that has great fundementals.....even at basement oil prices ..." then why did the Underwriters pull out?
Better still, how will the acquisition be funded AND wells drilled given the cash on hand and what has been raised ... especially since no drilling occurs till April sometime due to Elk disturbances.
IMO the above is "blooming obvious".
Your mission J101, should you choose to accept it, is "Less rhetoric and more insight".
AKK Price at posting:
0.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
