Seeking Alpha

Analytics Trader

View as an RSS Feed
View Analytics Trader's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • What Has To Happen For Torchlight Energy To Trade At $7 This Year [View article]
    The entire update call was focused on Kansas and Husky and that was just a couple weeks ago, so I doubt too much has changed since they just walked us through in more detail than any layman like myself could want. The texas acreage is completely speculative, but with an accomplished geologist and with no cash outlay and minimum obligations, why not take a shot at something that could be hugely valuable. I'm just anxious for them to announce the closing of the credit round so that I know they have the ability to drill their way into the targets they laid out.
    Aug 17 11:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Torchlight Crashes After Registering 59 Days Trading Volume And Equity Deal With Securities Fraudster [View article]
    The 45 is an aggregate number, meaning about half of what I was expecting so I hope that TRCH is able to present some operational insights to it, I realize it is less than 5% of what REI is doing so I didn't expect them to say much, but the numbers aren't great so I hope there is something behind that rather than just LOD running from site to site trying to harass drillers.
    Jul 16 11:20 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Torchlight Crashes After Registering 59 Days Trading Volume And Equity Deal With Securities Fraudster [View article]
    Ring just announced a production update and discussed the Kansas project with Torch....No delays, no disappointing tone, mediocre initial results, but a clear intention to execute the balance of the project. I cut out the comments below:

    On October 17, 2013, the Company announced a joint development agreement with Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. to develop all of Ring’s existing Kansas leasehold of approximately 17,000 acres with Ring being the operator. In late February 2014 drilling operations began on the first phase of the development program. Four wells have been drilled. Of the four wells drilled, three have production casing set with two currently producing and the third pending further evaluation. The fourth well was a dry hole and has been plugged. After the first two months of initial production, the current combined gross daily production of the two producing wells is approximately 45 BOEs. After evaluation of the first phase results, management is encouraged and preparations are being made to start the second phase in early to mid-August.
    Jul 15 09:58 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Torchlight Crashes After Registering 59 Days Trading Volume And Equity Deal With Securities Fraudster [View article]
    This response is amazing....Your lack of a track record and your wide ranging factual inaccuracies speak for themselves, which is why I should've ignored you, but the constant barrage of nonsense forces any thinking person to have to say something. So I see now how you are already positioning yourself for when the deal is announced, you had originally claimed that they could not raise money to fund their capex and that was going to be the death knell of the company, so now, when you are about to be proven wrong, you will let that accusation go I guess? You must be Josh-ing me, so now you claim Hunton downspacing is failing - Please explain how you have come to that conclusion? The only disappointing results I have seen out of the Hunton is from Gastar's operated wells, not from anything that Husky has done. What will your thesis be when cash flow catches up and surpasses capex later in this year? If the company conducts a mid-year update of reserves that would be out probably 30-45 days after the close of the quarter, so by early August there should be reserve updates, what will your thesis be if reserves have grown significantly, the company is operationally cash flow positive and fully financed to execute its drilling program? I realize that you are Young and clearly naive and that an objective discussion is not something you have any interest in, but the window is closing on your trade and your desperation to pump out article after article is transparent and weak. What has to change fundamentally for your opinion to change?
    Jul 15 09:46 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Torchlight Crashes After Registering 59 Days Trading Volume And Equity Deal With Securities Fraudster [View article]
    I can't wait to read the 7th installment, I hope in this one someone on the management team has horns and a tail, maybe they can spook the religious factions. This can all end very badly for the short sellers with one announcement.....I wouldn't make a binary bet in a thin stock, I guess that's why our favorite young fund manager/paid promoter/advisor would rather write these attacks with a nom de plume rather than using his own name like he did on his last short attack, that didn't end so well.....same analysis, same logic, likely to have the same outcome, probably didn't help his fund raising efforts to be publicly wrong, so it's better to shoot from the shadows.
    Jul 14 04:07 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Torchlight Crashes After Registering 59 Days Trading Volume And Equity Deal With Securities Fraudster [View article]
    You call yourself "no BS" and you "could care less about this" yet you created a new identity to "confirm" a promote that has not been previously publicly disclosed?

    I can tell you from having spoken with many of the parties involved that there is a promote but it is a far far cry from the "third for a quarter" that was presented by this author and as far as an interest revision after 400%, no kidding, isn't that how it pretty much always works for non-consenting parties working interest???? and be it, I don't mind if each well pays out 4x and then 10-12-15 years from now the interest is turned back to the non-consenting party who at best gets working interest in a very mature well after the money has been returned several times over and reinvested in new drilling or returned to investors.

    What is your point of writing here at all other than to give the appearance of someone that knows what you're talking about by dropping some lingo and a few acronyms and confirming something you could not possible? I call BS on No BS

    Jul 14 03:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Torchlight Crashes After Registering 59 Days Trading Volume And Equity Deal With Securities Fraudster [View article]
    Six attacks...amazing. I do have to say that I continue to be impressed by your ability to use inaccuracy to lean on the stock.

    1. According to the filing I attached the shares being registered are from the $4 PIPE that was done by National Securities earlier this year, meaning these shares have a $4 cost-basis not the $1.75-2 as you alluded to earlier. It is an overhang, no argument there, but an overhang with a cost-basis above, not below market.

    2. You have stated multiple times that TRCH has a "third for a quarter" deal with Husky, I've challenged you to prove that, you have not, nor has the company proven you wrong, but I assume that with the S1 completed there was probably additional disclosure required for approval, if the SEC thought those items were potentially as important as you did, and when we have clarity there I would like to see who is right and wrong...

    3. After taking some time to talk to people who know more about oil and gas than I do I have been told that your comparison to Sandridge's Kansas struggles is terribly inaccurate, neither Ring nor Torch have commented on it, so I guess we will wait to see what either thinks there but in most JV agreements one party can not speak without the other's approval, so I would expect something joint, hopefully sooner rather than later so we can all get a sense for how they feel the project is going despite your very strong opinions predicated on nothing but anecdotal information about horizontal wells being drilled in the same state by an entirely different company.

    4. How do the seeking alpha authors continue to allow you to publish such obviously factually incorrect information, yet when I wrote my article they were all over me to prove out the statements I made with public references... The release about the deal with Zenith was that the company was buying out an investors working interest and also receiving cash and the deal was valued at $4.38, meaning that there was considerable value being exchanged outside of just the following your logic you do not place any value on the working interest in the Hunton? Yet you liked GST's participation, but you neglected to talk about GST's operated wells in the Hunton...which have not been so hot. I can't comment on the guy's background, nor can you without absolute confirmation, at the risk of libelous, but that hasn't seemed to bother you in the past; but if he was good enough for Husky to allow to participate as an investor that is good enough for me, he isn't part of the company in any way, just an investor, like you and I and I'm sure he will still be around in 6 months, not so sure about you, but I guess that is what makes a market, buyers and sellers.

    I hope the company provides a production update, discusses Kansas with Ring and gives us an update on the financing, because if they announce a capital raise your entire short thesis goes out the window...they you had better pray that those shares being registered can help you cover, but not at these's thin down here, which usually signals a bottom and I doubt National guys will sell for a loss with so much coming this year, but maybe your 7th, 8th and 10th report can shake them lose.

    Jul 14 12:16 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Material Omission In Torchlight Resource's SEC Filings [View article]
    Holy Smokes LOD.....I respect your persistance, but I think that you are again playing a bit fast and loose with the facts. Now a disclosure issue is going to be the nail in the coffin? How do the editors let you post this stuff, they made me tone down all of the language I used to describe you previously enlightening piece.

    Let's take the disclose "nail in the coffin" out of the conversation because any thinking person knows that the details of an operator agreement are going to probably be made abundantly clear in the S1 that the company is in the process of filing.....I think the company will survive that nail.

    But....Let's go back to your "facts" now, just so I understand this clearly, you are saying that TRCH pays a 25% promote to the operator in the Hunton (Husky)? Have you verified that with anyone, spoken with Husky, TRCH management, contacted their IR, done any fact checking of any kind on that?

    Can we make a friendly bet between the two of us? If you are right about that "25%" promote and can prove it, I am willing to eat my hat, sell my shares in their entirety and post a pdf of my driver's license and home address and promise to never ever write about or look at TRCH again. What do you say, are you game to bet me assuming you have to go through the same process if you are wrong?

    Onto the next thing, management marking up the stock with their purchases? First you said that their purchases were immaterial dollars and now you are saying they were trying to manipulate the stock with those immaterial purchases....? I'm having a hard time following you.

    I guess what was most telling from this article is that you are likely in a pairs trade, short TRCH and long GST...which is fine, it takes two sides to make a market, but I'm curious now, are you in anyway affiliated with, employed directly, paid as a consultant or somehow derive some form of compensation from GST?

    Can you address another question, if the company announces a capital raise what would your opinion on the company and its outlook be then?

    This 4th attack in two weeks reads to me like you have run out of ammo.....a desperate short money, short player, praying to get somebody on board with them or hopeful that this nonsense, the 4th time around, can shake free more retail investors.....Boy I can not wait to revisit all of this nonsense in 6 months....We will see who is right and you likely would have covered or been forced out and run back to the shadows.

    Let me know if you are willing to honor the bet Looking forward to your 5th installment.
    Jun 25 01:58 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Has To Happen For Torchlight Energy To Trade At $7 This Year [View article]
    Husky is the operator and TRCH is partnered with Husky and shares working interest in the same AMI with Gastar. I know there are 5 or 6 different AMIs and I believe that Gastar is only in 2 of them with TRCH. I don't know of any other public players in those specific AMI. The company is also partnered with Ring in Kansas and has their own operated Kansas project that will come on line later this year where they are in the Dolomite. Hope this helps.
    Jun 24 09:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Has To Happen For Torchlight Energy To Trade At $7 This Year [View article]
    As I stated in the article, I don't have any relationship with the company and I am not paid by the company in any way. I am, however, an investor in TRCH.

    Regarding your comment about TRCH going bankrupt, they had operating cash losses of less than $4mm since inception, only approximately $2.3mm in 2013 and only $0.4mm in Q1 -- very reasonable amounts in my humble opinion. And that was when the company barely had any production. Now that they are expected to produce 500bpd net as of the end of Q2 and growing to 1,000bpd in Q3 and 2,000bpd in Q4 (according to their guidance), I would expect them to be operating cash flow profitable very soon and free cash flow profitable (meaning they will be able to finance capex out of cash flow) by year end or early next year.
    Jun 24 09:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Has To Happen For Torchlight Energy To Trade At $7 This Year [View article]
    LOD, you continue repeating the year-end 2013 PDP number as if the world is standing still. How about you look at where the company is now? Do you truly believe that drilling 30+ wells does noting to increase the company's reserves? I do not believe that you are that naive, that leads me to believe that all you are trying to do is to confuse and scare people. If you are going by outdated, 2013 numbers, at least quote the full PV10 valuation of $47.4mm ($25.9mm in Texas and $21.5mm in Oklahoma) which was done by Wright & Company and by Netherland Sewell.

    Also, care to walk us how did you get to $120mm EV? This is another absurdly incorrect number that you keep quoting. The company has only 19mm shares outstanding, which at $4 comes out to $76mm. If you are assuming that all warrants will be exercised, then why are you not subtracting out the cash that this exercise will bring to the company? If you are assuming that all notes will be converted, then the company will have 0 debt and can't possibly go bankrupt like your published articles warned the readers about.
    Jun 24 04:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Has To Happen For Torchlight Energy To Trade At $7 This Year [View article]
    LOD, now you went from exaggerating the info from the SEC filings to accusing the company of omitting material facts from its filings -- I hope you have proof of such a serious accusation.

    In regards to your other "concerns", I believe that every one of them was already addressed in the comment section under your articles, that is why I didn't waste my time rehashing how factually wrong and misleading every single one of them is.

    If you want to have an intellectual discussion here, I am all for that. How about you discuss my assumptions, my calculations and valuation (which is based on your valuation methodology by the way), near-term catalysts, etc... I would be more than happy to discuss any of these with you in an open forum. However, you seem to never want to do that even to support your own articles, you simply prefer to repeat your wild accusations over and over again as if that would make them true.
    Jun 24 04:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Has To Happen For Torchlight Energy To Trade At $7 This Year [View article]
    LoD, you keep repeating the exact same accusations, even when all of your accusations have already been addressed by me and other SA contributors in the comment section to your own articles.

    John Brda's "breach of fiduciary duty" which you taunt so much refers to a civil case that happened over 10 years ago and was about a break up of a partnership and a matter of only $60,000 which hardly indicates him of being a crook or implies that he can't lead a public company.

    G&A expense was over 80% non-cash -- stock based comp, accretion of note discounts and depreciation/accretion. All of these are perfectly normal for a growth company and I believe this specific point was addressed by many SA contributors before.

    The negative operating cash flow in Q1 was less than $0.5mm and with growing bpd production should turn positive in Q2 or Q3 the latest; again, perfectly normal occurrence for a growth company.

    Finally, it is ridiculous to compare money spent on capex to current cash flow -- capex leads to future CF generation, not current. The company used that money to grow drilling inventory from 20 locations to over a 1,000 and to increase the leasehold acreage from 1,080 acres to over 58,000 gross acres across all of its plays, while simultaneously increasing PV 10 through incremental development and should currently have 30+ wells either already producing or being drilled. I would say that the money was very well spent and will begin to show fruit in terms of growing revenue and cash flow very soon.
    Jun 24 04:09 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Torchlight Exceedingly Expensive Compared To Other Small Growing Oil Companies [View article]
    If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. First try: the stock is an imminent $0...that didn't work, second try: I'll repeat the previous argument...that didn't work, third try: I'll just go with valuation (but I'll use faulty and dated facts to support it)...Maybe that can prevent the company from completing a capital raise (which would completely destroy your short thesis).

    I can't believe I'm going to waste more time on this, but let's review your current thesis:

    1. High levels of Capex....really, a growth company is spending the capital it raises on growth? Seems to me like the wells that you indicated before, even the "bad" ones all had pretty high IRR, regardless of their ownership %, they get what they pay for....
    2. They own a high % of the "bad" wells and a low % of the "good" wells....I consider an economic well to be a "good" well and looking at the results they have disclosed on a per well basis I haven't seen anything uneconomic, regardless of how much of the well they owned, so where are the bad wells? I'm sure if they drill 90 wells this year there will be a mix of good, bad and otherwise, that's life in this sector and that's why you diversify production across the well head and the target formation.
    3. Your EV calculation is way off: EV is approximately$95mm not $120, if you are going to penalize a company by fully diluting you need to convert out the debt (all of which is convertible and currently callable) and add back the proceeds that would be generated from exercising the warrants, which would be an inflow of about $25mm based on the filings. This is 101 level stuff, but clearly your intention is not to be accurate, it's to paint a distored picture.
    4. Your production assumptions aren't even ballpark: Yes, the company reported 250bpd as their production rate at the end of Q1, they also guided to 500bpd as the runrate to exit Q2 - which ends in 2 weeks. Is your argument that current quarter guidance is faulty? (even though management reiterated 500bpd targets for Q2 after your first enlightening piece). I certainly hope you will be willing to revisit your valuation piece at the end of Q2 and possibly use the correct math to be a bit more objective.
    5. Your 1P assumpitons are hugely understated: The reserve values at year end were done with 10-11 wells on-line, the company will have tripled that by the end of this quarter, based on their own updates, meaning that reserves should certainly grow, doubling if not tripling. I hope they do a mid-year reserve update to prove this point....and they probably will since they are looking to raise money as you continue to beat us over the head with as the ultimate risk.

    So using proper math would actually get you most of the way to the fair value target that you yourself are predicting, albeit on unsuitable comps, but I'll leave that issue alone. So now starting with a stock that is fairly valued based on assumptions I am making based on Q2 guidance and simple math, the company is now projected a 4-fold growth in production from there by the end of the year, growing from 500bpd in Q2 to 2000bpd by the end of Q4. Now let's follow your logic down the rabbit hole, if you were to value the company on currrent year projections, using your own comps, you would actually recommend this as a screaming buy, since you are now so valuation focused.

    Here is the risk that you think everyone is ignoring and that you are so kindly continuing to remind us of: The company needs to raise additional capital to hit the 2000bpd target. There, a long has said it, it is formally acknowledged. We all get it, you are doing everything in your power to derail any efforts they have underway, but do your uninformed opinions really matter to investors? If they don't raise any additional money production probably peaks around 750bpd based on what they have announced that they are already drilling and have paid for with their announced working interest, even if you think it is too high or too low,and by the way with production doubling in Q2 they should be cash flow and even FREE cash flow positive, if they choose not to continue to drill more wells.

    What happens if they raise $5mm, or $10 or heaven forbid $15? What happens if 1P reserves have doubled since the last report, what happens if they hit the 500bpd target in two weeks, what happens if they are able to tap reserve based financing to continue to drill...wouldn't any or all of that negate your short argument, and if you were objective, make you do a 180 and be long?

    You criticize them for being a growth company yet you only use backward looking metrics while ignoring current quarter updates to form your valuation thesis.
    Jun 18 03:38 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Additional Risks May Challenge Torchlight's Ability To Raise Needed Capital [View article]
    Everything that you sighted is taken out of proportion, exaggerated and very misleading, just like your arguments about the company using a smaller auditor, it being an RTO, it burning a lot of cash on G&A, having a "going concern" risk disclosure, etc. You refuse to use your real name and you completely ignore it when people like Peter, Eric and Lisa rebut your "facts", instead of arguing with them or presenting new facts, you just repeat the same thing over and over again.
    Jun 17 09:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment