I can't reply to private messages. I only have the basic membership Sorry.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
A close @ $2.38 or higher would at least stop/reset the clock from continuing to tick towards the possibility of the next non-compliance notice from the NYSE.
I'm not holding my breath.
No single chart tells the entire story, especially when looking back over historical prices. Even this one, which charts Price, Market Cap and Shares Outstanding (all adjusted to reflect post-reverse split values) doesn't take into account changes in the business, commodity prices, etc. It does, however, at least allow me to distinguish historical share prices from the market cap.
PEIX Market Cap vs Share Price
Of course I can then go back through the Quarterly/Annual Reports to double-check against the actual number of shares outstanding, etc., (although to keep it in perspective and make sure I'm comparing apples to apples, I need to adjust those values to reflect the 15:1 reverse split). Those records also provide some further insight as to what's changed in terms of the operation, outstanding debt, etc.
Damn, that sucks. Well at least while the outcome for Vale is unknown at this time and the Gov't of Guinea could still ensure their rights to their percentage of the license. While that would provide little comfort for HDY in the event they are found of any wrongdoing, it would certainly be welcome news for Tullow and Dana.
It does indeed
A couple things might affect that.
First, this document states in a case of ongoing conspiracy, the statute of limitations goes into effect when the conspiracy is terminated. That also appears to be consistent with the application of the statute of limitations with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This document appears to provide a pretty good overview, including a discussion of how the act applies to charitable donations.
Note that the last filed 10Q states that "We understand that they are investigating whether our activities in obtaining and retaining the Concession rights and our relationships with charitable organizations potentially violate the FCPA and anti-money laundering statutes." The PSA was obtained in 2006, with subsequent negotiations continuing into 2010. Negotiations to secure the PSA extend back prior to 2006. HDY also established the Friends of Guinea and continued to be involved until quite recently. In other words, the DOJ and SEC may well be able to go back almost to the beginning of negotiations with Guinea.
No confirmation?
" In April 2014, Tullow will drill its first well in offshore Guinea."
Source: Tullow website
" Tullow expects a result from the Tapendar well in Mauritania in 1H 2014 and the drilling of the Fatala well in Guinea is expected to commence in April 2014."
Source: Tullow website
The final timing will obviously be affected by completion of the workover project in Ghana where to West Leo is currently operating. Obviously delays are always possible in a drilling schedule (all it takes is something like getting a drill bit stuck in a hole), but the intent is pretty clear.
This is why I was so focused on the warrants back in September. While they represent dilution, they also represent a significant cash raise that will allow PEIX to become debt-free and gain full ownership of the plants much earlier than otherwise. As long as the proceeds are used intelligently, the negative of dilution will be more than offset.
Yes, that would certainly at least give a range.
My posts were just following up on Dutch's topic of dreams, the first post being the ultimate fantasy, the second being the nightmare that PEIX is now hopefully leaving behind.
Now for the reality check:
As of Dec 31st 2007 there were 40.6M shares outstanding, or a total market cap of $282.3M Of course by then PEIX was experiencing trouble meeting financial obligations, accumulating debt, and had started printing shares (diluting) on a regular basis.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/778164/000101968708001167/pacificethanol_8k-031808.htm
So perhaps that represents a very conservative bottom range valuation? Or more realistically, a fair valuation prior to the just released results?
$282M/23.02M shares = $12.25/share
Wildest dreams? Well on May 12, 2006 PEIX hit an all time high of $630/share. Of course there were only 31.4M shares outstanding, or a market cap of $19.782B
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/778164/000101968706001183/paceth_10q-033106.txt
There are currently 15.59M outstand, but with full warrant dilution that would increase to 23.02M shares. So . . .
$19.782B/23.02M = $859/share
Now none of this takes into account changes to the operation since 2006, but how's that for wildest dreams?
It's actually possible that PEIX could be debt-free by June 30th.
Warrants represent a 58.7M cash raise if all are exercised. Pay down the balance over 2 quarters and they could actually retire all debt. Think bout what that would do for the bottom line.
Market cap chart for the past 5 years from Y-Charts. Regrettably it doesn't go back to pre-2008 when PEIX was really flying.
PEIX historical market cap 5 year chart
Probably wiser to look to market cap for those time frames due to the dilution that's occurred.
I've watched a few patent infringement plays and am currently carefully watching VHC as well as VRNG and have traded in them.
One big difference between VRNG and VHC (for example) compared to GERS is that there is considerable money invested in each of them, and each has been able to successfully raise capital when required to continue their court proceedings against the alleged infringers. If GERS offered a substantial (albeit risky) possibility for return on risk capital, it would be in the same position instead of having been diluted into sub-one penny land.
Even so, after years of courtroom battles neither VRNG or VHC (even having won their respective court battles in Federal District court) is anywhere near settled, let alone seeing positive cash flow as a result of their court victories.
Summary judgement? Standard procedure to ask for summary judgement. Rarely is it granted. Even if it was, the subsequent avenue for appeals will continue to tie up GERS for years to come.
An update on the warrant situation, and a key question on what happens to the exercise price of the remaining warrants when an issue expires.
The Jan 3rd expiration date passed without the share price reaching a point where any of the 814,000 $6.24 warrants would of been exercised. Shortly afterwards the share price briefly crossed the $8.00 threshold before falling back.
Here is the table I put together back in November of the warrant situation. The only alteration I have made is the addition of "expired" to the 2012 series that expired on Jan 3rd, 2014.
I adjusted the exercise prices to account for subsequent dilution that occurred up to Nov 2013. It is possible that there are errors in my calculations and application of the price adjustment formulas on my part, sothe prices may not be 100% accurate. At the time the chart was made, PEIX had not published updated exercise prices for the outstanding warrants.
The expiration of the $6.24 warrants means that the total number outstanding was reduced by 9.75%
Notice that the next series of warrants in terms of price is 1,8241,200 at an exercise price of $7.12. This brings me to a question that I do not have the answer to at this point. While the offer agreement had a provision to adjust the exercise price in the event of future dilutive events, I have not gone back and checked whether the agreements also had a provision to adjust the exercise price based on the expiration of those dilutive forces.
As the negative price pressure exerted by the ongoing existence of warrants is significant, this is a key question. For example, if such a provision exists, the exercise price of the next batch of warrants in line pricewise might well increase by 9.75% from $7.12 to $7.81. Considering we're talking in excess of 1.8M warrants, the implications are not small, both in terms of potential dilution for any warrants exercised, and in terms of the cash infusion that would bring to the PEIX coffers.
I am not currently at home (I haven't been there since mid-December) and don't have access to my notes. If anyone has done the due diligence on this, please post!
With Tullow now providing an April spud date, hopefully we'll see some more upward momentum
"The Group has a number of high-impact exploration wells across West and North Africa planned throughout 2014. Expertise in core plays and a focus on execution creates the opportunity for further material exploration upside. A major campaign of wells commenced in Mauritania in August 2013 which is targeting significant resource potential. In April 2014, Tullow will drill its first well in offshore Guinea."
insert-text-here
Yes that's true, the NSAI numbers did go up. There's also the price of oil, which was down in the $85 range when the last run-up started.
The trouble with the NSAI numbers is how to assign a value to them. I do have some tables that a couple different explorers put out, the last one was by AOI in Jan 2013 if memory serves me right. It's more focused on the enterprise value of onshore unrisked prospective resources though. It places a value of $0.16 - $0.18 a barrel on theirs, but they also had a discovery by then.
By comparision, Chariot put out a survey table in 2010 again I'm relying on memory) where they valued unrisked prospective reserves as $0.09 (average) and 0.06 (median) and if memory serves me right, that was for African offshore potential resources by explorers who hadn't made a find. Using the median price, 10BBBL comes out at $500M, which would place HDY's 37% @ $185M. But once again, you'd need to factor in water depth and the change in oil price. Even then, it's just based on market cap at that time for explorers who hadn't made a find. A successful well would change everything.
Both also produced risked numbers. AOI, (keeping in mind that had a find) valued risked @ $1.55 to $1.64. Chariot's survey valued risked @ $0.45 - $0.63 for explorers without a find. Now, how big was Fatala again, and would AOI's $1.50 range be an appropriate beginning measuring stick of potential risked resources if a find is made?
Not that the past is an accurate predictor of the future, but the last epic run-up saw a pre-split high of $7.00 plus, which translates into $56.00 post-split.
Factoring in the 36% dilution that's occurred since then, that bring that number down to approx. $37.00. Factoring in the farm-out of the 52% of HDY's past share of the lease to Tullow, that brings that number to the $18.00 range.
Given what Tullow has stated about their take on the potential, who knows? Lighting could very well strike twice in the coming weeks leading up to the spudding of Fatala. Of course if they should hit oil, those numbers will mean nothing!
I haven't updated my historical chart for a while. Here it is, right up to date. You should be able to click on it to see a larger version
For those who'd like to look at/download a larger version here's a link. Click on the chart image once the page opens.
We haven't seen this much volume since Oct 13th, the day the price dropped from the $4.40 range to the $3.70 range. Still not huge, but look at the volume the past 3 days. Steadily ramping up.
Tullow hasn't breached any agreement. Their latest statements regarding drilling dates were made on Nov 13th and they have said nothing since then that counters those statements. In fact, on their Nov 13th management statement summary page they state "In Guinea, a 4,000 sq km 3D survey has been acquired and the Fatala prospect (formerly named Eos) has been selected for drilling in early-2014."
Tullow managerial statement webpage
In the actual interim management statement, on which that summary is based, they again state "In Guinea, a 4,000 sq km 3D survey has been acquired and the Fatala prospect (formerly named Eos) has been selected for drilling in early-2014."
Tullow Managerial Statement document
Further, the slides for the presentation given the same day shows Tullow's drilling schedule on slide 44. It clearly states a spud date in Q1 2014.
Tullow Presentation Slides
They have said nothing further since that date to contradict that statement. Ray's comments confirm that timeline. He specifically stated that Tullow's rig schedule has the West Leo completing the current well in Côte d’Ivoire, then moving on to drill a well in Ghana before moving to Spud Fatala.
Trying to blow a cautionary statement that Fatala will be drilled in the first half of 2014 into an accusation that Tullow has breached their obligations is preposterous. Things happen in the oil industry. Rigs break down. Drill bits get stuck. Storms happen. No noe can guarantee a schedule. To state the well will be drilled in the first half of the year is simply an acknowledgement that things can happen to rig schedules.
In fact, I strongly suggest you look at the wording of the farm-out agreement. The language is VERY clear. There is no iron clad guarantee that the spud date will fall before or after April 1, 2014. In fact the Nov 21st 8K has the agreement appended to it in full. With respect to the time of the well, that document specifically states
Section 4.4 Farm In Well Commitment
In further consideration of the assignment and transfer of the Farm-In Interest, the Farmor and Farmee agree to vote in favour of an Operating Committee proposal to renew the Second Exploration Period and to enter into the Second Sub-Period and to satisfy the relinquishment obligations contemplated thereby. Furthermore, the Parties agree to use reasonable endeavours to agree a Work Program and Budget which provides for the commencement of drilling of the Farm-in Well not later than 1 April 2014.
Nov 21, 2012 8K with farm out agreement appended
All events to date show that Tullow has, and continues to do precisely that. The meeting to finalize the work plan for the well was held in October. The current rig schedule is not hard to figure out. The current well in Côte d’Ivoire was spudded in Mid-October. Allowing 60 days per well, that allows for a Fatala spud date around the middle of February. Even if each well takes 75 days to complete including transit time for the rig, that still allows a spud date in mid-March.
Hysterical statements are no substitute for due diligence. There is nothing to validate statements to the effect that Tullow has dishonoured the agreement. In fact, all the evidence demonstrates the exact opposite to be true.
I don't see the purpose of posting the same content over and over. I mean it's already well covered with the pinned messages at the top of the board. Perhaps if it's felt that the message needs to be repeated on the board every day, it could be removed from the pinned messages at the top. I mean it's not like we're blind. How many times does the same information need to be repeated? Personally I think it's rather insulting to the readers of this board.
I guess it must serve some purpose for IH but if anything it drives me away from the board. I wonder how many other people it drives away. It doesn't affect whether I hold the stock, I considered and factored in the patent suit a long long long long time ago. It just gets tiring.
Assuming they expire unexercised, it will reduce the warrant pressure overhead by 9.75%
I believe their actual expiry date is Jan 3rd 2014. I'd be very surprised to see the exercise price reached by then.
The outstanding warrants are something to continue keeping an eye on going forward. Bad news perhaps for traders who hoped to flip for a quick profit around the latest financial numbers, but good news for longs, is how a sharp price increase could of potentially affected the pending expiry of the the Jan 2014 warrants. As some of you know, I've posted about these before. The clock continues to tick.
As best I can determine this is the current information on the outstanding warrants:
As the clock continues to tick, the warrants continue to present 2 possibilities. One is the expiration of the dilution threat each issue represents. Such is the case with the issue coming up for expiry in Jan 2014.
The other possibility they represent is the potential in terms of a cash raise. For long term investors, perhaps the question becomes which they'd rather see. A deflated share price over the next couple years, or the influx of cash (and dilution) the exercising of the warrants potentially represent.
Tullow presentation slides for their interim report due next week are now up on their website.
Tullow Interim Presentation
Key points from the slides:
Slide 26
Tullow's 2014 West Atlantic Margin exploration focus shifts to Guinea & Cote d' Ivory
Slide 39
Diversity of plays offsets risk
Sylli and EOS "competing" clearly no matter which is pick, other seen as an excellent prospect as well
Drilling "by early 2014"
Slide 44
EOS may well be the 1st target
Potential for 3D seismic in 2014
Actually, although that idea is rampant in various discussions about how to prevent shorting, I've read in several different discussion that actually doesn't prevent your shares from being lent. And of course, if your shares are on margin you have no say at all.
"Many retail investors think by placing a Good Till Canceled order (GTC) they can prevent their shares from being lent. A quick survey of some brokers indicated this to be more of a myth than reality. While some brokers may act as such, most don't recognize an open order as prohibitive of lending shares.
The surest way to prevent lending of shares is to have shares in a "Cash" a.k.a. "Type 1" account."
http://beta.fool.com/beatlesforever/2012/06/04/shortlending/5274/
Nothing personal, but clearly the best way to prevent your shares being lent by your broker if they are not in a Type 1 account is to read your account agreement AND contact your broker and ask them directly, rather than rely on advice that may or may not be an internet myth.
Why do I say contact your broker directly? That particular article goes on to say
"Different brokers treat margin accounts differently as stated in their margin agreement. Some like Charles Schwab (NYSE: SCHW) only lend out shares up to the amount of the account's margin debit balance. This is a more favorable treatment than Wells Fargo's (NYSE: WFC) policy that regardless of carrying a debit balance or not if you have shares in a margin account they're lent out."
Oh and even if one of the above WAS my broker I would still read the agreement myself AND contact them directly if my shares were not in a Type 1 (cash) account
Each institution files at the end of each quarter - they have until Nov 15th to file their Sept 30th holdings.
Different websites collect those numbers and report the holdings company by company. Nasdaq is one such site.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/hdy/institutional-holdings
WhaleWisdom is another site, but they're notorious for errors.
Short interest hits 1,892,046
(surprised the number is out so soon)
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/peix/short-interest
Well, there's no shortage of shares available for loan. As of 3:58pm, 70,000.
HDY shares available to borrow
Gawd if that only were to be. I doubt the DOJ would move that quickly, but you never know.
Another possibility is an announcement that the Class Action is dropped. Nothing has happened on that front since the latest lead plantiff stepped down, I checked on Pacer a couple days ago. There is also the possibility of a settlement in the AGR suit, but personally I'm not overly optimistic on that one. Somehow I think they'll at least go to discovery before anything much happens there.
I'm not much of one for speculating, but this ASM date really has my curiosity peaked.
Following up on the news of the ASM along with the email received from Tullow by Killer over on the board that shall not be mentioned that states drilling is scheduled for early Q1 2014, the calendar is starting to look very interesting.
Nov 13th: Interim Management Statement (Tullow)
Dec 5th: Annual Meeting of Stockholders (HDY)
Jan 15th: Trading Statement and Operational Update (Tullow)
Feb 12th 2013 Full Year Results (Tullow)
Then add in commencement of drilling in early Q1 2014
There's been some speculation about the possibility that the reason for the early date for the ASM could be to allow shareholders to vote on a merger proposition. Not that it's anything more than speculation at this point, but it's certainly an intriguing thought.
1. Tullow announces multi-well campaign in November
2. HDY merges with partner that brings cash to match 1 sure well + 1 conditional appraisal well, meaning the new partnership now has cash in the bank for a minimum of 3 wells. In addition, they also add another highly prospective property to the mix.
3. Drilling commences in early 2014.
Things could get very interesting. Mind you I'm not one to speculate, but why hold the next ASM so soon after the last one if there isn't an issue to vote on that pertains to the immediate status of the company?
Different guys
Stanley M. Grossman
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/attorneys/stanley-m-grossman
Neil D. Grossman
http://bgandg.com/?page_id=54
Out of curiosity I went to the website of the two vulture law firms who announced they were investigating HDY following the DOJ news.
The first firm to announce an investigation, Pomerantz Law Firm (Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP) has nothing on their main page
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/
or their news page
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/firm/latest-news-accomplishments
or their active/investigating page
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/cases/active-investigating
The second one to announce an investigation, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC also doesn't have anything about the press release on their news page
http://bgandg.com/?page_id=111
I then searched their website for "Hyperdynamics" and the search page returned no results
http://bgandg.com/?s=hyperdynamics
Something smells very fishy in lawyerland
Should have net positive effect on the bottom line over the coming year. Too bad it won't affect the Q3 books.
"The Pacific Ethanol Plants purchased 167 million pounds of surplus raw beet sugar to be blended with corn at the Pacific Ethanol Plants over the next year"
http://www.pacificethanol.net/site/_documents/news/PEISugarPurchas100113.pdf
If they can avoid any more financing deals this might be the turning point that sees the situation continually improve from here on out. The potential dilution of the existing warrants are already somewhat priced in. If they can start showing operating profit, any warrants exercised will add to net revenues. There is more than sufficient value in warrants to more than erase the outstanding debt and make significant upgrades to facilities. The next year should prove very interesting.
Thanks for these KR. It's articles like those that help me make informed decisions.
Well, HDY already didn't have enough money to fund their share of a 2nd well and continue to meet operating expenses without either a favourable AGR settlement or raising additional funding. Today's developments did not change that.
Interesting discussion on when to disclose/not disclose information regarding an investigation.
"There is no statute, regulation, or rule that explicitly imposes a duty to disclose the existence of an investigation to investors and caselaw does not provide much guidance. Counsel and publicly reporting companies must, however, be mindful of the principles that can help guide the analysis of when, how, and where such disclosure should be made if the investigation is to be disclosed at all. Counsel should also be aware of and prepare for the practical consequences that disclosure may have on the market, business relationships, employees, and relationships with government regulators or prosecutors.
To be sure, the federal securities laws provide rules and regulations that impose a duty to disclose specifi c events that may arise during an investigation. For example, a company must disclose when an investigation has grown to the point where there is a “material pending legal proceeding,” or where such a proceeding is “known to be contemplated” by a governmental authority, or where a director of an issuer is a defendant in a pending criminal proceeding. And a company must alert investors if it determines that they cannot rely on previously issued financial statements. But absent such specific circumstances, the question of whether to disclose the existence of a government investigation most often begins with an assessment of whether, under all of the facts and circumstances, there is “a substantial likelihood that the . . . fact [of the investigation] would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having signifi cantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.” That is, is the investigation “material”? Whether the information is material depends on an assessment of the probability and magnitude of the outcome, which, in turn, requires analyzing the nature of the facts or alleged misconduct subject to investigation, the positions of company personnel involved or implicated, the likelihood of an enforcement proceeding or an indictment, and the probable impact of any legal proceeding likely to result. In instances where many issuers are subject to the same or a similar investigation, counsel should also consider what, if anything, those other issuers have disclosed about the investigation. This is because if one issuer’s disclosure differs from that of others subject to the investigation, investors may misinterpret the significance of the difference. As with any disclosure decisions, “[t]oo little information provides an inadequate basis for investment decisions; too much, particularly of a trivial or speculative nature, can muddle and diffuse disclosure and thereby lessen its usefulness.”
Counsel must also inform any disclosure decision with an awareness of the practical consequences of that decision. Disclosure of an investigation may elicit reactions (and overreactions) from analysts, shareholders, customers, suppliers, creditors, and employees. Depending on the content (or lack thereof) of the disclosure, it may also have the unintended consequence of antagonizing government regulators or prosecutors conducting the investigation."
You can find the rest of the article here
Disclosure Obligations Under the Federal Securities Laws in Government Investigations
I've been around too long. After the $10M fiasco, the massive sell-off before bad news broke about the Jasper Destroyer, and a few other little gems, this is nothing. I expect we'll get very little explanation. Something along the lines of "we don't discuss legal matters while they are ongoing."
At some point the DOJ henchmen will extract their blood money to call off their dogs and go away and the mafia will have done it's job.
That's because the other fish are too big to fry and do business inside US National boundaries. HDY fits nicely in a small skillet, not to mention does business outside the US. Gotta keep that focus on corruption outside national boundaries, even if it takes a false flag.
Don't forget, we're talking about the biggest mafia on the planet, the US Government. This reeks of a called in favour.
Their current drilling schedule lists one appraisal well in Q4 2013. There's a link to their current drilling schedule in my earlier post. The exploration well they drilled in Q1 (their 2nd exploration well in Côte d’Ivoire) only found water.
I think the West Leo is actually in Ghana right now, unless it just moved to Côte d’Ivoire. That's where Rigzone says it's currently located. Considering though that Rigzone doesn't even show the Stena Drillmax working for Tullow, I don't know how reliable their info is either when it comes to location. The locations given on Marine Traffic are 6 months old, so that's no help. Until we get an up to date ping, or an article talking about the current work it's engaged in, the actual location of the West Leo will likely remain one big mystery.
A new development on the Tullow deep water rig capacity. With full credit to Xenon (a regular poster on another board) for finding this info.
Tullow has booked the Stena Drillmax through to Q2 2016, and is now using the ship to drill the wells off the coast of Mauritania. Not only does this mean that Tullow has doubled it's deep water capacity off West Africa (not counting the Sedco Energy which is limited to 7500'), it restores my earlier discussion about the scheduling of the West Leo.
The booking schedule for the Stena Drillmax can be seen here (scroll to the bottom of the page)
http://www.stena-drilling.com/fleet-availability/stena-drillmax
The location of the Stena Drillmax can be seen here
http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?mmsi=235060864¢erx=-17.17767¢ery=19.0765&zoom=10&type_color=9