Maybe a miscalculation with assets in the past. The fixed assets reduced by about 50%. It strongly depends on however they "valued" their licences, maybe they had to reduce the assumed valuation.
I'm really wondering how this will be incorperated with last years figures...the audited financials must explain the decrease. It even could be that we'll not see a net profit of $5,563,336
but a net loss of $41,552,652 (to compensate missing assets and bring both audits in line). 41m$ sounds massive but it would be a one time thing. Please keep in mind it's still just speculation - audit will tell.

yeh, sure, assets have to be adjusted based on the crude price - still this has to be reflected as expenses!
for example if you think your house is only worth half the money you paid for it, you lost 50% of your money.
if you think its worth twice the money this goes as income.

only income/expenses, or the net profit loss, change assets

i'm glad you enjoy yourself - good luck mate

eik - as i said before - every change in assets must be reflected in income/expenses! for me the change in assets is unexplainable because we don't have any expenses explaining them.

guess we have to wait till 3y figures are out...there maybe never was a 100m$ assets.

based on the released figures we pumped:
avg 1850 barrels per day (360d) Q2 2006-Q1 2007

More or less what we expected - a little less on a yearly basis compared to what maria said in CC, but it sounds good if they now pump more than at begining of the period.

It was planed to pump oil in Lugovskoe from feb 2007. Might add some barrels per day as well.

Fair Share Price (reflecting assets): 0,079$
Earnings per Share: 0,009
yield: 10,07%

Total Assets are down to 53,97% compared to last report period.
Currently thats unexplainable as this should be reflected in the expenses but it's not!

Good thing is Total Liabilities are down to 48,82% compared to last period.

We need the new audited full 3y financials to get a better understanding why we are down 50% in assets.

I put together an excel sheet and i would share it with all figures (once we've audited financials).

unaudited?
those russians have a funny sense of humor (its 12:15 there)...thanks for posting...lets check the numbers guys

what's up with the spread today...those market makers play games on us! sorry to the guys on the selling side today - hope they wont be sad tomorrow. I'm feeling all like christmas! lets see what the present will be like. a 10m shares traded aftermarket...sounds like santa is already on the way! :)

why shouldnt it be possible to make +100%?
i know this was discussed before and nobody needs to answer my post but lets say i short 1000 stocks of nwog. to get those 1000 shares i have to pay a security of lets say 2,5$. now with paying 2.5$ i "own" 1000 stocks which I'm selling now. OK i get 0.05$*1000 now: 50$
after the prices drops subpenny i cover my short position 1000*0.009$: 9$

+50$ (from short selling)
-9$ to cover
= 41$
-2,5$ (margin - real expenses)
= 38,5$

Investment vs Output should be:
2.5$ vs 38.5$
I'm getting 1540% of initial investment.

If prices goes up tp 0.07$:
1000*0,07=70$
I have to pay difference between 50$ selling and 70$ covering:
20$+2,5$=22,5$
Investment vs Output should be:
2,5$ vs 22,5$:
I'm lossing 900% of initial investment.

It all depends on the marign i have to pay...

why don't you short nwog in this case?
short pos monday at 0.05$ cover friday at 0.009$
556% in one week...some thousands invested and you can buy yourself a nice german car...
but if audit is only half as good as last year's you'll be in trouble...
let us know if you're a real man or just talking BS

as long as we dont close below 0.049$ everything is fine for me (our last 2 weeks closing low) :)

cool - i'll join you in waiting for some opinions to show up
feels like watching the stars...maybe some shooting star turn up

brilliant - i bet you're a real professional...guess theres no need to ask for second class opinions like ours in this case...

maybe - but his comment wasn't that wrong - seems like he at least spent some time on DD before start asking lame questions...this board is packed with information and we've a couple of guys contributing usful stuff...
if you want to know about this stock go and read...i bet you'll understand most of it
just my 2c

sounds like today is judgment day...lol

time will tell :) i don't even care that much if its 2006Q4 or 2007Q1 - all we need is some figures to do some math. :)

but basically i agree with you - if financial's are close to what we've seen in the previous report we are "slightly" undervalued. where "slightly" easily can be replaced with absolutely or whatever you prefer. ;)

thanks for the summary Miles...most of the stuff was discussed already and a fair price of 0.17$ is what lots of people talk about around here.
still those figures are way to less information to do some proper calculations - half of the profit is unexplainable at present etc. etc.
Anyway - as 03th of april is just around the corner theres no big need to figure out all the details anymore. we'll know lot more by next week.

BTW - net profit 2005Q2 to 2006Q1 was 9,663,226$

Also reporting period will be 2006Q2 to 2007Q1 and extrapolated net profit (based on 2006Q1) in this case has to be 11.2m$...but as long as we don't know all the details it's just speculation.

something about licenses and categories - might be interesting to know.

Classification of Reserves:
http://www.novatek.ru/eng/news_center/clas/

it's so intransparent...so they created
with surgutsky:
-3m$ income by selling surgutsky
-increased cash assets by 15m$
-decreased license assets by 12m$



with lugovskoe:
-decrease cash assets by 3.6m$
-increase license assets by 3.6m$
thanks for that! it's all one big puzzle

Surgutsky-7 was sold for USD 15.5 million
NWOG bought Lugovskoe with 2,547,700 barrels of category C-1 after selling Surgutsky-7

problem with Surgutsky-7 was the rating - lots of barrels there but high risk etc (as amount barrels is just estimated) - there might be no oil at all. ;)

bascially nwog traded high risk against moderate risk and high amount of barrels against low amount of barrels. still asset wise they should be valued the same. (which implies nwog spend all the $15.5m on Lugovskoe - but i guess thats the case)

OT - agree - china still is ruled by comunism
let's not forget that comunism has a different concept when it comes to private property etc. there at least is a theoretical risk of nationalization.

theres of course a big liberation and chinas GDP is growing with very constant rates (6-10% year) which attracts money from everywhere and money is attractive to china and china's politics. its twisted...

the main problem about communism (and i don't say it's all wrong - as everything, it has it's good sides as well) is the lack of competition compared to other concepts like capitalism. in most western countries there's a strong sense of competition whenever it comes to business (kids at school already get drilled) - this results in high education (business wise) and ongoing efficiency increases on industrial output etc. communism isn't like that - the big competition paradigm is missing completely. communism not asks about efficiency at all. that's why communism can't create as much wealth as capitalism - nations running communism won't be world's most productive ones...but on the other hand if they are real communists they won't care.

judging nations by their wealth etc is a capitalits way to look at things - which makes it rather right or wrong (from a meta-perspective).

seems like greg made up his mind after talking about subpenny some days ago - anyway - let's just extrapolate gregs decision and make it the "global" mood - from red to green - nice one!

and macd! :)

anybody checked what happend last year this time? not sure what caused the massive boost on share price as I'm still pretty new to nwog but i guess last year the audit also was released somewhere at beginning of April.

got it ;)

all the websites give different results of market cap...

0.054$*154m=33m$?
for me the market cap is 8.3m$

how do you calculate a market cap of 33m$?

if those other sources create such an amazing revenue nwog should consider focusing on those other sources - whatever they are. ;)
however - as long as we don't know what those sources are and how close they are linked to the drilling business we can't tell what would be best to do. Maybe it's an effect of the value-added chain which makes the drilling business necessary...who knows...
hope nwog will let us know at some stage - after all i'm not too concerned about this yet unknown facts as obviously we're making some money with it. :)

Basically i agree with you - but to make it up to AIM and some 5$ per share price (which isn't the impossible on a +5 year perspective), nwog will have to become way more transparent! We need frequent reporting and some more explanations on plans, negotations, details on income etc.

As eik said some days ago - whenever you start to work with what is know and try to dig into all the information we have, there always arise new questions, which make it impossible to come to a final conlusion. Same for me after trying to do some research on the old audited financial...at some stage there are to many unknown variables and way to less constants to make some predictions.

Anyway - if management is able to provide this, investors will be happy to join nwog.

macd >= 0 - last time we've seen that was back in sept 2006
we should be pretty happy with current development! :)

this sounds weird - lets say we have 2500 barrels per day - this would explain half the income which is about 50m$.
means our license asset (100m$) creates a 50% yield (gross and without any expenses)

and the other 16m$ asset creates also 50m$ which is a 300% yield - i'm wondering why do we run the oil pump business in this case.

strange...

some more math

i'm doing some more stuff on the old audit (2005 Q2 - 2006 Q1). There's one thing I don't understand. Maybe somebody can help.

Periods income was $103,996,305 - this only should be income created by the operational business (selling oil). Income divided by avg oil price (360d avg) divided by 360 should roughly give us an idea about the oil getting pumped per day.

103,996,305/57.29=1815419.5 barrel per year
1815419.5/360=5042.8 barrel per day

compared to the last CC statement this is way too high! do we know anything about other sales activities like gas etc? it's somehow funny to see we have exactly twice the amount I expected.

even with separate Q1 2006 report i get about 5000+ barrels!

comments are welcome!

sure - thats what i tried to express ;)
its nice to watch - all relaxed - no panic - just the best to create a positive mood

monday feels like friday - no volume and all quite

actually I've to correct myself - as always i was a bit too fast on the submitting side ;)
again - if surgut was calculated with a value of 12m$, nwog has to reduce license assets by 12$ (no matter what the price was) and increase cash assets by the selling price. difference between calculated and real price still will be processed as income/expense. still it depends on the profit in total if assets will be changed in total.

anyway - i don't believe they dumped it - and transferring money from public to private on this level is impossible.
the only way would be to sell assets below value and create a loss on the income/expense side. but this would be clearly visible with the next report.

this shouldn't change the asset in total - they have to reduce licence position by the amount surgut was calculated to be part of the asset - whenever they calculated the value of Surgut-7 with 12m$ our cash has to be increased by 12mio and our licence has to be reduced by 12mio$ - even if the real selling price wasn't 12mio. the difference between the real price and the calculated value has to be processed on the income/expenses which means selling under value would create an expense and selling above would create an income.
only the net profit/loss can change the asset (in total)

I'm pretty sure they know how to calculate the value of reserves and with a positive net income theres no need to drop those reserves below calculated values (at least not too far away from what was calculated).
On the other hand cash isn't/wasn't such a big position in the past so there probably was some presure to transfer licence assets into cash assets.

thanks eik

btw - any idea why we have discrepancies in the assets in audited Q2 2005 - Q1 2006 report compared to Q1 2006 report (unaudited)?

assets in Q2 2005 - Q1 2006 report:
$102,353,802.00

assets in Q1 2006 report:
$116,064,671.00

this is a 14m$ difference!

It's also possible to do some math on both reports with income and expenses:

Net Income Q2 2005 - Q1 2006 report:
$9,704,824

Net Income Q1 2006 report:
$2,803,903

The avg Net Income per Q based on full year report was $2,426,206 - compared to the 06 Q1 results ($2,803,903 - +15.57%) it really looks like production was increased - this also could be a result of increasing oil price during the 2006 Q1 period. But on the expenses we also see a slightly higher Operating Expenses compared to Q avg. Avg Operating Expenses per Q based on yearly report was $20,955,684 compared to $23,353,997 for 2006 Q1 (+11.44%).
Same for the "Selling, general and administrative" expenses which was (avg Q based on full year) $1,601,543 compared to Q1 2006 $2,104,442 (+31.40%).

We even could do some more math and try to extrapolate income etc - which I'm willing to do (a little later today).
The only problem is - we don't know if those full year audited and Q1 2006 unaudited reports are comparable.

XET is XETRA (the major exchange in germany) - there never was any nwog trading activity on XETRA - apart from some 10k shares. no market makers are sending their quotes etc. we shouldn't consider XETRA as a place to trade nwog.

basically theres only pink sheets after Frankfurt delisting

nobody knows what happens with the price in the next 6 month, but if this years figuers are as good as last years, pps is definitely to low to reflect nwog's value.

we also should keep in mind that nwog's most important asset are the reserves - whenever the oil prices changes, we also have a dramatic change in companies assets. last year around this time (feb-march) the oil prices was at the same level as today.
we had a peak in aug 2006 (+20% compared to march 2006) and a bottom in jan 2007 (-17% compared to march 2006).

those are the numbers i used - eik was working with the unaudited 2006 Q1 figures. anyway - not a big difference. :)

it's interesting to compare the quarterly report 1st q 2006 (unaudited) and the full period 2005-2006 (audited) report.

there are some discrepancies...I'll have a closer look later. :)

the float of course isn't the best way to calculate a fair pps - but we still have to consider the float as the only way to determin the companies value (including future development).
Lets say one person owns all public shares and another person wants to buy the whole float at once. In this case a pps of assets/total amount of shares would be the one and only price. 0.17$
OK - now lets modify the scenario and say theres only one person who wants to buy the whole float from lots of different other persons (us - the current owners). Basically the "fair" price still would be 0.17$ - but do you really think everybody would sell his shares for this price? I wouldn't, because personally I believe 0.17$ is not the real "fair" price at which I'm willing to sell this share. Please also keep in mind that this scenario implies that there wont be any chance for anybody to buy nwog shares once the single person bought all shares.
A traded float always implies lots of future expectations which increase/decrease the price. Thats why dividing by float could be used as an indicator. Of course nobody would buy the whole float for 0.5-0.6$ - but in a day by day free float trading scenario i think those prices are possible. with nwog maybe in 6-9 month time.


BTW - I absolutely agree with your reserves pps - i guess ev is enterprise value - which is more or less the same as the reserves (nwog only consists of reserves). ;)
what about the others? P/E, P/S? details would be sweet.

thanks for reading :)

Based on those figures (which are completely new to me) we could do some calculations:

If Net Income 2005-2006 was 9,704,824$, the earnings per share (based on total amount of shares - restricted and float) was 0.016$.
Yield (net income/assets) = 9.48%

If nwog really introduces a dividend, 0.016$ would be the max possible dividend payed (only my expectation based on this calculation).
Still, I would expect something between 0.006$-0.003$ - just sounds more realistic. :)

2006 total assets 102,353,802$ results in a pps of 0.57$ (assets/float).
2006 income 103,996,305$ results in a pps of 0.66$ (income/float).
2006 income 103,966,305$ results in a pps of 0.17$
(income/total amount of shares)

There might be no "best" pricing model but i guess a fair price is somewhere inbetween those 3 prices.
And lets not forget, we are talking about last years figures!

Liabilities 13% of total assets and about 90% of liabilities are long term. This sounds really good to me.

Any ideas? I really appreciate anybodies thoughts on this one. I also might be completely wrong here. ;)