I am starting a new discussion thread on Aminex because, in my opinion, the company has transformed significantly since the appointment of Stuard Detmer (SD) as CEO in September 2011.
In particular, whilst previously the company had a global spread of assets (and we had separate threads covering each). SD has now decided to focus exclusively on Africa, and other assets will be progressively divested. With the East African margin now having been proven as a major gas province, and plans for major LNG facilities under development, offering a route to market, that casts a new light on the value of Aminex's East African assets.
NB, as moderator, I do not intend to permit discussion of hour by hour price moves or long debates about T.A. here. If anyone wishes to discuss those, I suggest that you start your own thread.
Readers can download a detailed article on Aminex's strategy, that I wrote after the May 2012 AGM. You will note that several of the "next events" mentioned then have now occurred or are well underway. I won't repeat the ground covered in that article here.
Let's begin with some maps from Aminex's latest presentation, published today. The first shows Aminex's acreage (the Nyuni and Ruvuma PSAs) in the context of recent discoveries:
Next we have some detail on the Ruvuma PSA:
Route to Market
Besides the likely future LNG developments, Aminex's Ruvuma PSA benefits from a major pipeline development that has just begun. This will run some 25km from the Ntorya disovery, thus providing an export route for domestic consumption.
Special Offer: Invest like Buffett, Slater and Greenblatt. Click here for details »
Valuation
Aminex's prospects look exciting: there are a lot of interesting and potentially transformative leads in the Nyuni and Ruvuma acreage, as can be seen from the recent resource report and presentation. That prospectivity, however, is underpinned by significant tangible assets:
US Assets
These are currently being sold. It is hard to judge what they might fetch, but US producing assets are often sold on the basis of existing production. A typical/conservative figure is US$50,000 per boepd (allowing for a significant gas element).
Aminex's 2011 production was 130,250 boe, i.e. 357 boepd. That gives an estimated value of ~$18m (£11m).
Tanzanian Gas
The resource report shows discovered GIIP of 178*75% for Ntorya plus 45*70% for KN-1 = 165bcf net to Aminex.
We can value that gas by comparison to Cove Energy (LON:COV) 's offshore Mozambique discoveries. Cove's latest presentation (slide 8) shows that they have discovered ~70*8.5% = 6tcf of GIIP. Cove's market cap. is currently £1,358m. So that yields a value of £0.23m per bcf - i.e. £38m
So, that gives a reasonable value for known assets of £49m. This allows nothing for cash (level unknown at present), the Amossco service company or, of course, upside prospectivity.
Let the debate begin...
Disclaimer:
The author may hold shares in this company, all opinions are his own and you should check any statements that appear factual and not rely on them before making an investment decision. The author is NOT a qualified analyst nor authorised to give investment advice. Whilst the author is a director of ShareSoc, all views expressed are entirely his own and not necessarily those of ShareSoc.
Aminex PLC is engaged in the exploration for, and the development and production of oil and gas reserves. Its principal area of activities includes the United States, East Africa, North Africa and North Korea. Its segments include Producing Oil and Gas Properties, Exploration Activities and Oilfield Services and Supplies. The Company's licenses in Tanzania include Nyuni PSA, Kiliwani North and Ruvuma PSA. During the year ended December 31, 2010, it drilled three wells, one in Tanzania and two in the United States. As of December 31, 2010, the Company held leases at Shoats Creek covering approximately 2,100 acres. Aminex Oilfield Services & Supply Company (AMOSSCO), its wholly owned subsidiary, provides logistics services to oil industry and sources oilfield equipment and consumables to international oil companies. In March 2012, it announced that Aminex USA, Inc. its subsidiary, completed agreements to sell leases and other assets consisting of the Somerset Field in Texas. more »
.JPG)
34 Posts on this Thread show/hide all
Mark,
The spreading risk by having say two wells on 35% licences rather than one on a 70% licence I have no dispute with, and if that were the main aspect of SD's strategy that would be IMO fine. It's the references to quintupling the mkt cap of Aminex via newly issued shares (at I assume near the current SP) and investing the cash recd into more E African explo that I have a problem with.
"my own preference is to have a smaller stake in a larger explorer with plenty of opportunities to add value, than to have a larger stake in a smaller, undercapitalised explorer, with more risk"
the plenty of opps to add value I have no problem with as above, and the undercapitalised I'd deal with by getting cash flow going. Its the issuing more shares at this low level I don't think is in current shareholders interest.
Is there any reason the Ntorya 3m gas zone cannot be piped to the Mnazi Bay power station now?
In reply to sirlurkalot, post #15
SirL,
If that were the case, I'd agree with you - but it's not. Yes,some new shares will be issued, but I'll be extremely disappointed if the number in issue is quintupled, simply to achieve the desired market. cap. As well as issuing shares, what I understand SD has in mind is:
There is no way of doing that in less than two years from now, given the timescales for the crucial pipeline infrastructure. BH has been trying for the last four. That approach simply doesn't cut the mustard for me nor, clearly, for SD.
As I said before, let's see what deals he actually does before making a judgement. If all he does is issue gazillions of shares @ 5p, I won't be a happy bunny either.
A disappointing announcement here: http://www.meagheroil.com/
I'd like some clarity on the planned field work and when this is likely to occur.
Cheers,
Mark
Hi Mark
Not sure what to make of it currently, especially after last weeks presentation - would have it been known then ?
However - if you look at this link it actually says 'MARKETING PROCESS DELAYED TO LATER IN 2012
SIGNIFICANT FIELD WORK IS IN PROGRESS' rather than 'PLANNED'
http://www.meagheroil.com/resources/project/AMINEX%20USA,%20INC.%20SHOATS%20CREEK%20FIELD/
Reo
In reply to REO100, post #18
Hmmm.... well, the sooner we can dump these US properties and focus on the much bigger prizes in Africa, the better. Obviously, the company's got to do whatever it reasonably can to achieve the best price.
Polo Resources (LON:POL) final results, released just now, contain a snippet of interest to Aminex investors:
Signet's licences adjoin Aminex's Ruvuma offshore portion (IIRC - their website seems to have gone away). Their 3D data may be relevant to Aminex's interests.
Signet is currently a private company:
Mark
Bit slow, but I've only just noticed another announcement from Polo this morning re Signet:
Activa latest report out today has this snippet on the USA assets
The Loma Field water disposal well has
been drilled (depth: 3,500 feet) and we
are now working on finishing the surface
facilities. This more efficient method of
water disposal will allow us to increase
production rates on this well from late
December 2012. With natural gas prices
now at higher levels this makes good
sense and is expected to have a
positive impact on our revenues in 2013.
sonlite update, production increase
RPT DATE 10/01/2012, but is this the production figures for Sept or Oct? bearing in mind that the OM-10 well was worked over in Sept.
http://sonlite.dnr.state.la.us/sundown/cart_prod/cart_con_wellinfo2?p_wsn=241566
this from their Nov IMS
"At Shoats Creek, the OM 10-1 was worked over in September and the two lowest zones, originally tested in 2010, were put on production. Oil and gas production from the well has been increasing as the well continues to unload a combination of formation water, the heavy brine used to workover the well and residuary frac water from the lower zones."
You might have to rename this thread Mark! :(
http://www.investegate.co.uk/aminex-plc-(aex)/rns/board-change/201301220700100460W/
yes, back to the old Aminex then !
In reply to kenobi, post #25
yes, back to the old Aminex then !
Well, is it?
It seems to me that SD had two main strands to his aims in Sept 2011. The fairly down to earth stuff about getting rid of peripheral assets and concentrating on Tanzania, while farming down to smaller levels on holdings there, and the more contentious stuff about growing by taking over other small African centered E&Ps, and "leveraging on the full listing", whatever that meant. I think a lot of people were pretty sceptical about the 2nd part, I certainly was.
But phase 1 looks well on the way, and may well be completed in the next couple of months, with farmouts in Tanzania and US sales. So perhaps he can see that he's done that part of the job and the more grandiose schemes were never going to happen, so time to move on? Or there have been tensions on the board about the more contentius part of the package? EIther way AEX is now in a more focussed and stronger position that in Sept 2011.
JT thinks it's "brilliant news". I'm not sure I go that far, sudden loss fo a CEO is never that, but I don't see AEX's prospects going forward as any less good than they were yesterday.
"JT thinks it's "brilliant news". I'm not sure I go that far, sudden loss fo a CEO is never that, but I don't see AEX's prospects going forward as any less good than they were yesterday."
Sooo now we have mioved along PG, what are your views now on the massive destruction of shareholder value going on at AEX?
In reply to bankerbasher, post #27
Not going as well as hoped, clearly, but the plan is still progressing. Prospects look reduced in that the terms of any sale or farmout are not going to be at the top end of expectations/hopes. But to me "massive destruction of shareholder value" implies something in the way of mismanagement. And I don't really see that, though that is clearly the view of the pack.
I think it would be possible to say the BoD were at fault for appointing SD, and for not getting rid of him quicker, but in reality he clearly would have seemed a plausible candidate, even if his plans looked rather over inflated, and getting rid of someone you've just appointed is never easy, so no great surprise it took a year to see what happened and act. Other than that, what have they done wrong in handling these deals over the past 6 months that you see as so massively destructive of shareholder value?
In reply to peterg, post #28
Erh...look at the share price Enstein!
Shareholders invest in companies to make a return not loose 90%+ of their cash whilst directors and non execs fill their pockets. Company hasn't made a profit for decades!
Investors want results we can watch soap operas any day of the week.
In reply to bankerbasher, post #29
I'll take that as meaning you don't have an answer to my question then.
Interesting that there were non-trivial votes against both of the non-execs up for re-election this time. One of them has been on the board for 22 years!
In reply to deucetoace, post #31
FYI there were even bigger votes against another of them last year:
Corporate governance issues are only rarely as "black and white" as proxy advisory firms encourage their clients to think.
For a couple of reasons it seems inappropriate to comment further on these issues relating to this specific company. However I would say that in general
1) Institutions still rarely vote against the board. This is changing which is all to the good but at present a vote against the board is unusual enough to be of interest.
2) Non-execs who have been on a board for a long period are often likely to be less independent than those that haven't and almost always will be seen as less independent as those that haven't. A period of over 20 years for a non-executive director is unusual enough to be of interest.
In reply to deucetoace, post #33
So...speaking generally then:
I would say that institutions generally do what their retained proxy advisors suggest they do. The proxy advisors will make their recommendations based on a view of what the ideal board should look like, without paying much regard to the actual practicalities that a board may face from time to time. So, for example, they may recommend voting against on grounds of long service (though not, it would seem, in this case - given the 2012/13 comparison) - but they may also vote against non-execs who have share options....regardless of whether those are of material value and ignoring why they are occasionally awarded in the first place (eg reducing spending on cash compensation).
Regarding your point 2) this is always a valid area of concern -and, as you say, it is unusual. But, again, context is always relevant - and shareholders can always ask about it at or before an AGM. None did in this case, AFAIAA. In other examples, such as this one, there is one non-exec who has been in post for 16 years and a further three for 14 years. The justification in that case is the project life-cycle and familiarity with the assets. It is always a matter of judgement between what is theoretically desirable and what is actually practical (and desirable, having regard to all the circumstances known to the company) - but such matters are always kept under review and can certainly be queried if a shareholder has particular concerns.