Member Info for Boyobach

The March low of 963 was an obvious target, given the rate of fall-back, even though there were other potential support levels on the way down. It looked possible that it would land on either the long term trend at around 1087 or recently tested support at 1060 but it didn't really blink until 1020: https://invst.ly/uphb4
Caution, though, because it did much the same on Tuesday at 1015: https://invst.ly/uphc2 (15 minute view)

It can. of course, go lower but it would be better if it didn't :
https://invst.ly/uoyn1

It’s interesting to compare RDS, Chevron and Exxon Mobil over the period since Brent fell from around $100 in the summer of ‘14. This includes Feb 2016 (the vertical marker in this chart) when RDS absorbed BG. Apparently this is part of the motivation for the share buybacks, as stated in the notice of Jan 2020:
'The purpose of the next tranche is to reduce the issued share capital of the company to offset the number of shares issued under the Scrip Dividend Programme and ....to significantly reduce the equity issued in connection with the company’s combination with BG Group'.
https://invst.ly/uox30
Did the BG acquisition make much difference in this sp comparison? I don’t think so, although Exxon did fall below RDS from the end of 2016 until very recently when Exxon has finally caught back up with RDS.
RDS also led the way during most of 2017-2019. But Chevron has since outpaced both of them in the last twelve months: is this purely down to retention of dividend level as some have suggested?
The vulnerability to OP of the three companies at critical times is also demonstrated here.
NB: RDSA data used due to a large gap in the RDSB data available from Investing.com over the period

I'm not sure about buybacks, Neversell, especially when it appears that the company is effectively borrowing money to buy its own stock. By my reckoning they are about $15.7billion into the $25billion buyback plan that was started back in July 2018 - when the shares must have been in the region of £26. I guess they might get more for their (our) money now? Ha!
Did you used to follow Genel? It's doing ok today. I have used RDS to steady my 'energy investment ship' in the choppy waters of the last fourteen months. The strategy has worked although the profits I've made with G have consistently outperformed RDS. However, I've found the overall balance of risk between the two has worked for me and it's much less stressful to manage. ATB.

No gap around 155 that I can see - I was obviously referring to today's at 167.2, which is a bit of a nuisance.
Since Friday G has moved strongly compared to others: https://invst.ly/uot6i

..but mind the gap.
https://invst.ly/uory4

Cheers Chr55: I agree that the issue of turnover v profitability could become a concern as the business matures. For now the quality of the product in its niche market is paramount and hence the focus on the Orsted experience. I note that ten windfarms have been affected but T only appear to be discussing one - Race Bank - this implies that T’s products were either not used at the others or were unaffected.
The company seems to have been broadly on course until 2020 but the sp has yet to recover from the impacts first signalled in the February update of that year, the subsequent management changes the following August, the 30th Oct RNS and the initial recovery following the ‘new’ HY results on Dec 1st . All of which understandably left their mark on the chart: https://invst.ly/uor0p which was steadily improving prior to this setback, which, in reality, does not appear to materially involve T.

Apologies Chri55 - crossed threads. Took your Friday comment relating to TGP.

Chri55 just now: 'CWR Have lost over 10 million every year, why would you invest in that?'
Chri55 on Friday: 'my target to buy would be closer low 40s now ...'
Consistent and logical (not). Has an agenda maybe?

FFS!!

I posted the following comment about this earlier this morning but, as LSE seem to have lost it, here it is again:

Since pre-Covid 2019, the US majors have outperformed their European cousins and are nearly back to their pre-pandemic levels. RDS and and BP sp's only performed better between October and December last year - simply because their low point was below either Exxon or Chevron: https://invst.ly/uofgc

In theory, BP and RDS still have a considerable amount of catching-up to do, so their sp's may have more upside potential by comparison. To put that in context, from the attached chart - RDS would need to be £19 today in order to have kept on an equal footing with the US companies since 2019.

Well there's been a gap to fill down to about 11.80 - so it's been a useful dip technically.
https://invst.ly/uohvo

Inrhubarb asks: Why tell us you're moving on chriss55?
Wasn't he targeting low 40s ? He'd be unlikely to be too positive in his comments.
He also pushed the Schroder's selling which began back in March as far as I can make out, at a pace that seems designed not to push the price down too much. Correct me if I'm wrong but they've reduced to about a 17.7% holding from 18.9% haven't they? Doesn't seem ominous to me. Still, now I'm back in I would say that.

I added today, partly out of boredom (always a dangerous motivation). However, as Pangloss says, the divi is upcoming. Also the trading chart looks ok, OP is up and payment for March production (when OP last peaked) is due by end of next week. Although we can anticipate an ex-div price in the 150's it's a crazy price with OP already at $69 and seasonally likely go higher. Even on a conservative rating G should be over 180 and more like 210.

Since pre-Covid 2019, the US majors have outperformed their European cousins and are nearly back to their pre-pandemic levels. RDS and and BP sp's only performed better between October and December last year - simply because their low point was below either Exxon or Chevron: https://invst.ly/uofgc

In theory, BP and RDS still have a considerable amount of catching-up to do, so their sp's may have more upside potential by comparison. To put that in context, from the attached chart - RDS would need to be £19 today in order to have kept on an equal footing with the US companies since 2019.

Agreed, Benbay.
On the comment by MKS: ‘If there was blame, the rns would have to say so’ , I'd have to say that that is, frankly, nonsense.
The matter is for Orsted to comment upon, especially as T is not directly involved. The RNS, which was factual and necessarily needed to comply with commercial and legal concerns rather more than the chattering of small PIs, clearly states that: ‘failure can be the result of many factors, including areas we are not involved in such as installation and scour protection.’ T is in no position to pass further comment, least of all to attribute blame - unless it wishes to attract legal action for doing so.

So it is clear: the manner of installation and the scour protection have been identified as the main factors and this RNS confirms that T are not involved in those areas of responsibility. That's all we really need to know at this stage.

Hi Rangor - I agree and decided to return to holding some TGP this morning.
The RNS is as explicit as you could expect given commercial considerations and addressed all of the points that have been raised here.

For week ending 30th April 2021....
So here are the usual runners and riders for last week:
https://invst.ly/unmmg
I find myself wondering if I really care, such is the state of the UK oil industry from an investor perspective: those who did not sell as the COVID pandemic hit markets will doubtless still be under water. For those that did then there have been profits to make. But the sector remains well behind the market. So let’s do a reality check:
https://invst.ly/untfg From this:
G is about 15% down on pre-covid (and pre-KRG payment) issues.
G has done about twice as well as BP since Feb 2020 - BP is 37% down, G 15%
G and BP have not matched the recovery in OP - which has, even at the most negative assessment, fully recovered - albeit based on supply control by OPEC+ rather than demand. The main factor here being that US shale hasn’t rushed in to undercut.
If you want to see my ‘gold standard’ for oil, Chevron. then it’s here - but save yourself the trouble, it’s currently matching the FTSE100 since Feb last year: https://invst.ly/untg1
Superficially, G has done well compared to these but we all know that G should track Brent more closely and Covid isn't what is stopping G from making 3x Brent today.

I hope I'm right too.
Given that offshore windfarms in the UK have existed for twenty years, experience of submerged cables dates back a couple centuries, there has been a lot of offshore experience accumulated in the O&G industry (where T’s capabilities are rooted) and computer modelling is now so advanced, the excuse that Windfarms are ‘new’ would not convince me. Especially as Orsted is, according to this recent article by Reuters, the world's biggest offshore wind farm developer, having installed nearly a quarter of all offshore wind capacity.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/orsted-bids-north-sea-renewable-energy-island-2021-04-22/

They presumably have some in-house expertise in relation to scouring etc. ?

And, whilst CHRI55 complains about T’s silence on the subject, I hardly think they’d want to wade-in to deny any blame when that might involve criticising a very important client, who possibly requires a large amount of replacement kit. Schtum is the word that comes to mind.

I agree with your point about taking advice from posts on social media, Benbay. I think it was a silly line to pursue in the first place.

It’s interesting that you think ‘industry-wide’ refers to Tekmar, although I can understand their potential influence.
The Orsted CFO, in her comments referred to the Cable Protection System (CPS) but, very specifically, did not blame that system - referring instead to the planned omission of a second rock layer, which, in previous installations, had stabilised movement. Assuming that Orsted were looking for cost efficiencies then it seems that they dispensed with the second layer based on ‘industry-wide’ concepts rather than the suggestions of a single supplier. Indeed, if Tekmar had suggested that it’s systems could withstand the movement that occurred then she would surely have blamed the CPS rather than the lack of a stabilising rock covering? To that extent, I remain in agreement with Petren.

(I'm not currently a holder of Tekmar)