Hallo,
hier die Antwort von Robin Moriarty zum P/E 7 von VAN. Er schreibt, dass Öl-/Gasfirmen nicht mit dem P/E-Ratio bewertet werden können. Er stellt 3 andere Kriterien vor nach denen Ölfirmen bewertet werden, die aber nicht von ihm sind:
1. Net asset value
2. Cash flow
3. Management
Alles in allem hält er Vangold für unterbewertet.
Dann könnte es ja, wenn das Warrents-Programm Anfang Februar ausgelaufen ist, der Kurs nach oben gehen, vielleicht auch früher.
Gruß Heinz
Aber jetzt zu Antwort von Robin Moriarty:
You can not value an oil and gas company on a PE ratio. What I am able to
tell you is we are undervalued.
Here is a quote on valuations from a prominent Senior Partner at a Major Law
Firm in Calgary who does Oil and Gas Mergers, Acquisitions, Take Overs, etc
Rob, energy companies do not trade on the basis of PE. Rather, you usually
look at 1. X times nav* (using 10% discount on proved and 1/2 probable
engineering as per Multilateral Instrument NI 51-101) ; 2. Y times cash
flow; and 3. Z times each currently flowing boe. Depending on management,
the type of production (heavy oil trades lower) and market perception you
might see X anywhere from 0.8 to 2, Y anywhere from 3 to 12 and Z anywhere
from $30,000 to $100,000+. Vangold management are not in Calgary and do not
have a history in the oil patch so expect the valuations to be at the low
end of the above ranges for about a year after the production and cash flow
are first established
*nav=Net asset value
Net asset value, or "NAV," of an investment company is the company’s total assets minus its total liabilities. For example, if an investment company has securities and other assets worth $100 million and has liabilities of $10 million, the investment company’s NAV will be $90 million. Because an investment company’s assets and liabilities change daily, NAV will also change daily. NAV might be $90 million one day, $100 million the next, and $80 million the day after.
(Von mir zum Verständnis eingefügt)
My own estimate (I am a shareholder) and nothing to do with the aforesiad or
Vangolds input is as follows:.
Killam Oil Field will be completed at the end of Jan 2006. We are on the
5th Horizontal Well. We guesstimate 400 BOPD production from the first
phase of a 2 phase program. That equates to about $500,000 net income per
month. That equates to $6 M cash flow per annum for just the first phase at
Killam, and giving nothing else any value (nothing for Deep Gas Basin,
Sarcee, Mt Penck, Feni, or any of the gold mineral properties). In Alberta
you can see assets for 4 to 5 times cash flow. That would equate to about 6
x 4 or $24 M. The rule of thumb is you get $60,000 per barrel of flowing
oil equivalent. If I take $24 M in assets over our fully diluted position
of 85 M shares (please not there are about 5 M options that won't be
exercised any time soon (tax consequences) then that would equate to the
company having $.30 approx per share asset value. If we trade at $.39 Cdn,
then we trade 3% higher than our asset value.
Thats why I say we are undervalued.
Prior to commencing Mt Penck, we guess we have 140,000 ounces from a prior 7
hole program. If we drill over the next 5 months and find 5 M ounces like
at Round Mtn Nevada, then that would represent a value from $20 gold in the
ground to $540. Thats where the upside is when gold comes into flavour.
Robin