This has gone exactly down the path predicted by those who bother to read and understand the financial reports (particularly the BS (Balance Sheet) and Statement of Cash Flows) and their filings with COGCC.
Not picking on you
@orion123 but this is difference ... In a post 24/07/17 you wrote
1. Capex... they don't need to recover capex, they have no (effective) debt
&
Are their assets and infrastructure worthless?
I understand that (at the time) you were quite bullish on FPL. Also around that time and preceding months I also had a lengthy email exchange with Tim Hart (whose responses I shall keep private and which IMO did not constitute any inside information exchange) regarding the interpretation of their financial statements, their commentary regarding well and field economics and a few other points of interest.
My position has for a long time been that Pathfinder acreage was not the asset that is was being touted as and that in fact the millions spent in exploration and development (of Niobrara and Pierre formations) will not be recovered and therefore the Asset part of the balance sheet is inflated (and should be impaired) and therefore the Equity portion is likewise inflated.
What do you have reported now?? YOU STILL HAVE TO SEPARATE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FROM THE DIRECTORS REPORT
From the Financial Statements portions on Balance Sheet and the accompanying Notes (3&4)
* The company’s exploration and evaluation assets were impaired by $7,020,587
* reflects writedown of previously incurred costs related to drilling the Pierre wells
* which due to drilling results have been put on hold to pursue other projects which the directors believe will provide increased value to shareholders
OK then - contrast this to the Director's report at the beginning
* No mention of the impairment
* Still touting the 90 % probability of 220BCF of gas and 35MmBO of contingent resource at Pathfinder for a RESERVE REPORT DATED FEB 1, 2017. Good grief Charlie Brown, your own notes to the financial statements more than suggest this has been revised down by the statement (in note 4) of
"if in the future there is found to be an estimable increase in the recoverable value of the Pierre or other projects, then impairments previously recognized will be reversed". In other words why hasn't an updated Reserves report been done (and wasn't some bank supposedly interested in lending ergo would need updated and current Reserves report) to recognize this issue.
* it has often been repeated that at $60/BO there is $105K per month of net revenue.
Break it down to 90 days x 100 bopd = 9,000 BO x $60 = $540,00 of Revenue
For there to be $105,000/mth x 3mths = $315,000 of Net Revenue implies $185,000 of (operating) expenses
Royalties 20% = $108,000
LOE + Taxes = $77,000 or effectively $8.56 per Bbl (not bad really)
Remember this is field level operating cashflow only. Also means you are receiving $60 per bbl at the wellhead .... how sure are you on that if WTI index in $60??? No discount/premium - I don't think so.
Now make the requisite deductions for DDA (you cannot ignore this as the capital was invested up front and being expensed over time) and then those pesky corporate expenses of G&A (so payroll etc) and any financing costs.
Until you are cashflow positive at corporate level you're always going to have to stick your hand out for money.
Lets put in harsh terms ... you are asked to believe 100 bopd at $60 leads to $105K of net revenue.
This past 6 months has
Gross from sale of oil and gas as $366,588
34% achievement of stated "target".
Lets say production was a 50% ... so 50 bopd x 180 = 9,000 BO ... means FPL received approx $41/BO avg for last 6 months. Well you can calculate the WTI average price during Jul-Dec 17 and its $51.14. That would imply a local price discount of approx 20% to avg $41.
So ... read the financials carefully. And why don't they tell you how many Barrels of oil produced and sold in the last 6 months???
As the Robot was fond of saying "Warning, Warning, It does not compute'
Good luck should you choose to "invest".
