Member Info for Boyobach

Yes - fair comments steve. I was referring to time involved. compared to, say, a timing belt change plus other standard wear and tear on a conventional motor and transmission at around 70k miles. I've never kept a car for 150k miles - I think they're effectively scrap at that stage from a value pov (few cars are 'classics'). The cells /modules will individually be low voltage (I'm assuming a stacked series system) - so it should be much like replacing cells in a UPS - not actually hazardous unless you are bit silly and forget to totally break the circuit at each end. Do you know the weight/size and voltage of the individual modules? In the end the cost will come down to 1) reconditioning and 2)labour costs - with the latter not being particularly 'high skill', because it should be plug-in, although I guess they will claim otherwise at first. I do have some (plenty) of doubts about the mass manufacture of batteries and suspect it will be more ecologically challenging than the Musks of this world suggest. I do wonder if Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) technology might provide a better solution although I accept it is currently not best suited to small vehicles like cars.

A Tesla battery pack weighs half a ton and sits under the floor of the car. Replacing the battery can't be a simple or quick operation......
Comparable to a 70k service on a petrol/diesel maybe, because EVs Electric are mechanically simpler aren't they?
It's perhaps a pity that hybrids are not basically an electric car with a relatively modest capacity battery and a highly efficient petrol generator that kicks-in at speeds over 50mph to supply current and recharge between built-up areas with minimum emissions, although this would need to compete with projections for the grid's carbon intensity, which has improved by 66% over the last seven years (source: https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/record-breaking-2020-becomes-greenest-year-britains-electricity).

You could be right, Zahir . Here’s Ceres against ITM, PlugPower (US), Ballard (Canada) and the NASDAQ CELS index since the March fundraise nominally set the sp at 1060:
https://invst.ly/v9am1
There’s quite a strong correlation between Ceres and ITM over the period.

Whilst it may seem that I’m making excuses for the current KRG payment issue, there is a logical explanation for the recently extended delay in payment terms. Back in 2019 ‘normal’ payments for oil production took around 80 days. Then, following the Lebanese bank collapse, the KRG ultimately defaulted on four payments, for Nov 19 - Feb20 production inclusive. This coincided with a collapse in OP, so, in the scramble to resume payments as quickly as possible, payments re-started on shorter terms - one month - during historically low levels of OP. However, as OP increased rapidly the KRG cash flows would have been stretched to keep pace within the shorter payment period to IOCs because payments were falling due before the associated receipts at higher rates were coming in. If this is the case, then G may be fortunate that payments are currently taking 60 rather than 80 days. Indeed, if OP continues to rise too quickly it seems conceivable that the payment period might stretch further. G obviously benefits from a higher OP - but it occurs to me that sharp increases might well tend to increase payment delay .

There's also the Jackdaw gas project.

https://www.offshore-mag.com/field-development/article/14203256/shell-outlines-plans-for-uk-north-sea-jackdaw-gas-project

Well, apart from a promising but highly speculative company called Blackbird, G was the only one in my list that closed down today - despite Brent virtually reaching $76. I did try to be objective with my earlier post but, although I’m actually doing well overall and can’t complain, my oil-related investments in RDS and G are easily £30k shy of where they should be given the good O&G sector performance exemplified by Chevron since 2019. I’d even have done better sticking with BT through the Covid months. Never mind - here’s this week’s summary of the usual suspects:
https://invst.ly/v8wrc
G only managed to beat GKP because the latter went ex-div , of course. Still, the longer it stays down the more the potential upside - right?
Enjoy the weekend or, as they say a bit further west, mwynhewch y penwythnos , which is a bit of a mouthful for me.

Comparisons are highly subjective. I know, but this one is rebased to a point in 2019 prior to the unexplained rise in G which was followed immediately by the KRG default in November. It therefore begins at a reasonably well balanced starting point between G, GKP, RDS and Chevron:
https://invst.ly/v8tie

Chevron has maintained its dividend, whilst RDS cut theirs by 66% - so that largely - but not entirely - explains the gap that has emerged between RDS and the others. BP, which isn’t shown here, is not dissimilar to RDS over the period

What all four have in common is the lack of recovery in proportion to OP - which is apparent when Brent is added to the chart:
https://invst.ly/v8tkd

The odd thing about this last point is that whilst the major sp’s could be expected to reflect volume as well as OP, this would not be a factor for G and GKP - who shift all that they can produce irrespective of global demand.

Compared to Chevron, rebased here to exactly a year ago https://invst.ly/v8rfy , RDS is showing some signs of making up for its poor performance since the end of Feb - although it’s still about 70p behind CVX in addition to the £4 gap that opened up between them when RDS cut the dividend last year: https://invst.ly/v8rjw

but every time i say that , bang + down we go again…..
The downs are an inevitable part of the pattern, Char: https://invst.ly/v8qto and they are a reason that watching the sp every day can be depressing.
It’s perhaps more important that the base for RDS moves up, so that each down does not take us lower than the last one. Putting a 1400 floor under the price would be good, so it trades £2 to £3 above that. £15 isn’t much of a target if it still cycles back to £12.50.

No, Millie, I don't use VWAP myself but that's not a criticism of it - although I gather it becomes less useful as a trading day progresses and the weighted average gets less responsive.
I'm generally a long-term holder who trades the highs and lows in order to optimise the average value of my holdings and make a few quid.

Hi papucel.

I routinely use Chevron, Exxon and BP as majors to compare with RDS for obvious reasons. Chevron is a good benchmark - possibly the best performer of the group and one that has not cut its dividend. Why would you not compare RDS to a top performer? I assess my resistance levels from observation - they are fairly obvious off the charts. I don’t use calculations based on Fibonacci or other models: where an sp has encountered resistance or support previously then it is very likely to occur in the same price band again - with support occurring along the lower edge and resistance along the upper edge of a given band. RDS didn’t go higher than 1390 in May, so I guess you meant mid March, when the sp tested 1518 and did not advance further - similar to Chevron and BP etc at the same time: https://invst.ly/v85y7 . You’ll no doubt notice that RDS has weakened in comparison to the other two since then.
There’s never any certainty that a price will break through a given resistance - it’s simply a level where sellers increasingly come forward in anticipation of a reversal, which tests the volume of demand from buyers - the outcome simply depends on which group is larger. A support level is similar but, obviously, working in the opposite direction.

Well I hope you (and we) see some upside here fairly soon, Armani.
There’s some optimism around here today but, in reality, RDSb is still below the significant resistance level near 1440 (red here: https://invst.ly/v80jd ) which it needs to retake in order to make any credible attack on the main barrier at 1520, even though it managed similar levels in H1 2020 when OP was less than half the current price, as this comparison with Brent and Chevron demonstrates: https://invst.ly/v80lz . It’s ordinarily a slow plodder and historically priced as a dividend stock with limited growth potential

Just 185 would do me for starters- some kind of parity with pre-KRG ‘red letter’ day:
https://invst.ly/v7ye4
Glad Ammu is feeling so positive these days.
GLA

I agree with you Neversell.... this is hardly flying at about £2 below par given O&G prices.
£16 would be about average on that basis.
Will the results blow the doors off? I think you and I have seen that kind of anticipation here and elsewhere over the years and it often turns out to be a damp squib. I'm in profit here and the dividend level is ok for me. I'm just about content and find I'm happier when I don't have great expectations. Let's face it - RDS has been a dismal performer since the end of 2019 but there is good upside potential.

I think the doubt and uncertainty rightly expressed here can cause us to over-analyse the contents of each RNS. We’ve collectively made that mistake in the past - myself as much as anybody. I’ve found over the years that they are best/safest read at face value without too much interpretation. I also believe that G are obliged to correct any RNS that is, or proves to be, misleading but they are not obliged to confirm individual payments. Given the circumstances, I do expect an RNS when they receive payment for April’s production which must then provide clarity about the status of receivables recovery and override payments up to that point. It’s worth remembering that G was generally performing in step with the rest of the oil sector up until the KRG’s unilateral decision to slow the rate of recoveries which, unsettling as it was, fell well short of being a default. Providing they do not default on payment for production and overrides, the slower rate of receivables recovery for 2020 is highly irritating but is not a game changer in my view. I also think that there will be better exit opportunities in the next month or two for those who feel they’ve had enough - although that’s a purely subjective comment that takes no account of individual risks and exposure.

Ok - yes!

Unless I’ve misunderstood you, bunks, I think G did exactly as you want in terms of giving the expected arrears payment details. This is from the payment RNS:

Assuming the proposed revision to the terms of recovery stands, the recovery payment will be $3.1 million. The override payment will be $8.2 million.......

You are not the only one bunks - thanks for the candid post
My thoughts are similar. We often discuss the corruption evident in the region but the fundamental instability of the KRI economy is a constant risk. The latest payment issue was triggered in November 2019 by a Lebanese bank failure rather than any obvious corruption, nevertheless it doesn't inspire confidence in KRG competence/ risk management.
I have also contemplated exit, however there are obvious positives in progress currently - aren't there always? - and my approach is to set an appropriate stop loss level at which my exit will trigger if I'm not 'at the wheel'. It's not what I want to happen but it will at least protect my capital in the event that things suddenly drop below predicted poor performance levels. G have left an element of doubt about the receivables payment from last month but it won't be the first time that they have been shy about reporting payments. Having given guidance that the payment was expected shortly - within the expected time period - then it could be argued that a further RNS was only required if the guidance proved to be wrong. The next update should clarify a great deal of our current optimistic suppositions. With OP and production levels rising, there are strong arguments to suggest that the sp should head upwards and I will be moving my stop-loss accordingly. If it triggers a bit prematurely then so be it - I can always buy-back if I'm so inclined. The recent tragic cable-car accident near Stresa, Italy (a journey I've made myself) reminded me that taking risky trips with no emergency brake can be catastrophic. ATB

Yes indeed, the numbers will influence the market rather more than the somewhat over-hyped Hague ruling etc etc. RDS should achieve £16 with relative ease at current G&O prices, £18+ may prove trickier but not impossible.

How RDS’ sp moved yesterday against Brent, BP and Chevron:
https://invst.ly/v7h4b
Apparent reaction to ‘Payment Day’ outflow (anticipated by the market some weeks previously): zero