Member Info for Boyobach

Yes indeed Tartine, you've rightly been less mesmerised by the gas prospects than most of us.

Meanwhile: A year ago Brent was on the brink of collapsing in price to below $20 and has only now returned to above $60 due to its rally from the end of October. It’s just the latest, of course, in the déjà vu OP cycle. Over the last six years, Brent has apparently averaged less than $55 and in only two of them, 2018 & 2019 did it average more, at $71 and $64 respectively *. In fact, I don’t think Brent has spent more than 25% of the last six years above $65, so it will be interesting to see what this year - still dominated by covid19 - will bring:
https://invst.ly/twccg (Brent from end 2014)
For the past few years, any upward trajectory has been capped and sent into reverse by a sharp increase in supply from US Shale. Will it be much different this time around? If any seasonal price pattern remains then Q2 could still be a period to watch, with obvious implications for G's sp.

* Brent averages obtained from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/262860/uk-brent-crude-oil-price-changes-since-1976/

Paul Bond was at SBM Offshore not Unaoil, according to reports of the case.

It's pretty underwhelming bunks. In the end it's the same old 'jam-tomorrow' story but, over the years, the pot of jam seems to have less in it and what jam there was hasn't been fully paid for. I'm betting that G's updates on payments will soon start to get more vague or even dry up completely with some excuse that the KRG has reliably completed 12 months of continuous payments under the latest 'fix-it' scheme, whilst actually remaining in arrears by significant $m. Is G the IMF? Only a matter of time before Rosneft get Miran and Bina Bawi for peanuts if you ask me. No clarity on the RSA is disturbing - just a year to run and a 14month hole in it. With OP above $60, the sp should have been back up to 2019 levels and the only reason it isn't is confidence.

During a week (since last Friday’s close) in which Brent rose 1.25% and briefly touched $65, G gained 7.25% - so made some progress against OP. Here are the usual runners over the period v Brent and the FTSE100:
https://invst.ly/tw3jd

The noisy neighbours were doing much the same until the last hour.
Most of G’s heavy lifting came on Monday - when G scrambled back onto the uptrend that has dominated since October, having dropped off it just seven days ago:
https://invst.ly/tw449

Rather like the majors, having peaked in January, G seems to have dropped back to a plateau centred on 160p +/- 10p, so January’s high of 180 now looks like an overshoot rather than a step along an upward path. Exxon has been making something of a comeback this month thanks to well-received FY numbers and statement but it is GKP that has seen the best progress this month - about 25% up compared to G’s 10%. GKP’s product and business model is very different to G but similar payment issues arise in terms of KRG as the main client. GKP's recent boost appears to be due to a reassuring reserves CPR indicating fifteen years of revenue (1P) and production of 44,405 bopd with a 55,000 bopd expansion project in prospect.

Smaller companies need less training resources than larger ones.
It certainly seems to reinforce messages.

This afternoon the EIA reported a draw in US crude oil inventories of 7.3 million barrels in the week to February 12 - over three times what analysts had expected.

The market was generally down today, of course, but If it turns out that CWR has reached a temporary plateau, then spotting where the baseline will fall might be useful…. https://invst.ly/tvkfu

Given the state of the market today, it wasn't hideously bad for PFC:
https://invst.ly/tvkmx
And the EIA reported a draw in US crude oil inventories of 7.3 million barrels in the week to February 12 this afternoon - over three times what analysts had expected.

The market was generally down today, of course, but If it turns out that CWR has reached a temporary plateau, then spotting where the baseline will fall is interesting…. https://invst.ly/tvkfu

Tom Martin may well have been pursuing enquiries that were detrimental to PFC investors but that was his job and his sacking by SFO at the instigation of the DoJ and the Ahsanis seemed bizarre and unfair at the time . The SFO have made so many mis-steps in their Unaoil enquiry with obvious gaps in the story, which have not served PFC well.

PFC disproportionately down today, unfortunately, compared to OP, RDS and Genel. 15’ view of the day:
https://invst.ly/tu-s-

Against Brent, G is starting to look very under-rated indeed. The recent high of 180 was achieved at an OP almost $10 below today's price.
https://invst.ly/tux1g
So even 180 now looks like a low target with 190 more realistic and 210 on the radar as feasible.
It'll be interesting to see what happens leading up to the FY results and divi statement in March.
At least there were no disappointments with the Reserves and Resources Update yesterday.

Dutch bank ING has raised its forecast 2021 average for Brent to $65.
Meanwhile PFC's price continues to move up v FTSE250 - here shown against FTSE 250 and RDS: https://invst.ly/tut98

ING has lifted its forecasts for Brent and WTI this year, now expecting Brent crude prices to average $65/barrel over 2021, compared to previous forecast of $60/barrel. The Dutch bank cites OPEC+ production cuts and global recovery hopes as nations continue rolling out vaccines.
https://uk.investing.com/news/commodities-news/ing-lifts-oil-price-forecasts-as-market-set-to-tighten-further-2304038

I don't think it's been too odd a day in fairness: share prices rarely go in straight lines.
One reassuring thing is that, since 27th Jan, PFC has closely tracked major oil companies and Brent, as you’d expect in the absence of anything company-specific. That even included today’s mid-morning drop back. So the activities of shorters and reaction to Lufkin etc. has, in reality, been pretty minimal for the last couple of weeks: https://invst.ly/tuldi , although PFC has, if anything, risen slightly against these benchmarks - perhaps due to shorts closing? The bulk of the initial SFO-related fall to 121 remains however - maybe 10p recovery so far?
On a 15’ view it can be seen that PFC has broken out of the ‘level’ trend yesterday and that has continued today: https://invst.ly/tuled Obviously, the higher it travels the better but falling below 130 would now be an amber warning and 125 would be red - each of them suggesting it could be levelling back down to 120.

I’ll be moving a graduated set of stop-losses up at each stage to lock-in profits whilst avoiding trading for the moment, in order to maximise the long-term potential if PFC recovers fully.

Correct Katsu - less than a ha’penny up on yesterday’s close. But at least it tested below 132, which was rejected - finally closing above the potential resistance. So maybe it’ll consolidate here for an attack on 145-153. https://invst.ly/tuik4

At this rate PFC will get to 160 by Friday’s close…. on the 19th March: https://invst.ly/tuim- although it did manage it in just a couple of days last time. It just needs a fair market wind, continuing strength of OP, good news and positive sentiment. No problem!

Just profit taking - 30% gain in a couple of weeks is jolly tempting, even to the anti-shorter PFC fans on this board! Ha!

In the end though, the trading gain in a rising sp has to be measured by the eventual re-entry price. So the maximum gain today for those who intend to stay with PFC has so far been about 5% - which is not a very big deal when set against the risk that it might not drop much further and could well continue upwards.

Encouraging trends developing, pity about the gap - hopefully a minor factor in the bigger scheme.
https://invst.ly/ttuy4

A bit over-simplistic Josh.
Because Akle was part of an organisation that appears to have been inherently corrupt, his case is substantially different from that of Lufin and the court’s sentencing of each will depend on details and circumstances that we do not know. To date, it appears that PFC itself was not knowingly a party to corrupt activities carried out by people that it legitimately employed. Unlike PFC, SBM Offshore, implicated in the Akle case, have reportedly paid hundreds of millions over the past decade to settle bribery cases because it may not have taken “all reasonable and necessary organizational measures to prevent the commission of offences of bribery of foreign public officials”. No such charges have yet been brought against PFC, which may have taken all necessary care in the matters involving Lufkin.

Hi tim.
I dabbled with CWR after looking into it following Hasiba's comments nearly a year ago. It did very well for me and I eventually exited too early. I've recently returned to it very cautiously on extreme lows - being suspicious that it could now be over priced (although it currently shows no sign of retreating back below 1300.
I have no knowledge or view about the others you mention today, but will check them out in light of your post - thanks.