Member Info for Boyobach

Some fair points Leem and I’m with you in terms of sentiment if not regarding criticism of the company - which has no direct influence over the market. The November ‘bubble’ was pricked by a combination of understandable and slightly preemptive profit taking and by the apparently flawed API data - not the first time that weekly inventory numbers have trashed OP only for it to recover quickly. Had G held on to 210 then there was a real prospect of solid advance in sp but Tuesday’s glitch in OP has obviously shaken more cautious investors off the tree and G is struggling to get back up off the canvas.
The problem for any G recovery to appropriate levels (in Mar Cap terms) will be profit taking because the sp has a reputation for falling back sharply after advancing. Obviously no share rises in a straight line and pull backs are part of the standard pattern but with G the pull backs tend to be very deep, especially if OP pulls the rug.
IMO G could have a heck of a struggle to get up to 250 - the next key level for it to conquer although 230 will be a battle on the way. Obviously some here feel that G is worth much more than that, and they may well be right, but the truth is that the market doesn’t yet have that level of confidence and there’ll be plenty of folks who’ll chuck their hand in on the way. We’ve seen a few here already.
In the meantime, today’s sp is a disappointment, with OP quite strong and an interim not far off. The picture could change, however, if G retakes and holds 210 in the next couple of weeks. https://invst.ly/or7kg

From the G website:
Interim dividend of 5¢ per share as part of the 2019 half-year results
Ex-dividend date: 12 December 2019
Record Date: 13 December 2019
Payment Date: 8 January 2020

Picking up Leem's comment...
I think the uptick in OP has surprised the market and they are dubious that it will last, hence the sluggish response in Oil Co sps, including G. G is down to about 3.14x which was good a couple of months back but decidedly poor against recent performance of 3.3x or more. G really should rise to 210-217 if the recent improvement in sp has any legs.

I agree Leem - https://invst.ly/oqxwo although I think your 27p number is a bit exaggerated because at $63 this should probably be nearer to 214p at best (3.4x) - as we now know that the visit to 225 was something of an overshoot which wasn't sustained this time around. Might be a different story in a few weeks though, especially if OP keeps on the current trend https://invst.ly/oqy1-
I also agree with some of your recent comments about this being a trading share - although I don't recommend an 'all in' 'all out' approach for reasons others have said.

Needs to be at least 210 at this OP ($63.5 at the close) 3.3x - So no cigar. Tomorrow maybe?

Don't beat yourself up Whitehat: with a rise like the one G recently experienced it is difficult to judge the top.
Although there was likely to be resistance from 220 onwards, 225 seemed a bit early for the top with 230 prime candidate. The reversal was very sharp - which says more about G's investors than the company itself.
My own view is that G has shifted in level - although this week's shenanigans have been a distraction. The dashed lines here are 'mid trend' and G has previously only been limited by them for one cycle before progressing upwards. Past performance is no guarantee of course! https://invst.ly/oqkf4

So OP is back to where it was before the API produced inventory numbers that were damaging to its members and contradicted by the EIA a day later. Yet oil co shares like our usual four remain down - G by about 10p. https://invst.ly/oqjyj
The API is a US trade association representing the natural gas and oil industry with over 600 member companies. It’s obviously doing a great job for them.

....it'll be interesting to see if G gets back to 207, which is where it was at this OP before the market reacted to the farcical data supplied by this notoriously unreliable outfit. Imagine the reaction if someone on this board posted ramping/deramping 'numbers' like that - just over 3x the EIA and, what, half the EIA last week?

Always Pretty Inaccurate

So, surprise surprise the massive API number was wrong/misleading and the EIA came closer to (slightly better than) expectations:
The EIA crude supply numbers “were basically in line with estimates,” with prices extending gains since they did not come in as high as the large build reported by the API Tuesday,
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-prices-bounce-higher-ahead-of-eia-crude-inventory-report-2019-11-20

Article: Oil Market To Flirt With $70/Bbl* In 2020 Amid Lower Than Expected U.S. Crude Production
(* Seems to be referring to WTI throughout this article - given the quoted average OP of $56.73 YTD etc. etc)

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4307759-oil-market-flirt-70-bbl-2020-amid-lower-expected-u-s-crude-production

‘..... strongly suggests that oil prices in the $55-$60 range are insufficient to balance the crude market. Accordingly, I now estimate that $65/bbl is fair value for crude prices that will ultimately balance the market over the next 6 years, compared to my forecast of $60/bbl in November 2018.’

‘.......I am not sure how the [IEA & EIA] get to their numbers given the pace at which US oil and gas companies have been laying down rigs and other equipment in 2019, but their forecasts largely contribute to the prevailing bearish narrative that we will have a supply glut in 2020.’

‘.......The current period has a bit of a déjà vu feel to it…...Like I mentioned in that article in July 2016, I would expect the IEA and EIA to begin a series of downward revisions of their 2020 US production forecast, albeit not to the same extreme.

‘...... The challenge in late 2019 is the oil rig count has fallen 211 rigs at a time when the market has moved into an undersupplied condition and oil prices have averaged $56.73/bbl year to date. This strongly suggest that oil prices in the $55 - $60/bbl range are insufficient to balance the global crude market and more importantly the undersupplied condition will accelerate the further we get into 2020 and beyond as shown in my global balance model (i.e., 4.2 MMBo/d undersupplied by 2025).’

Article: Oil Majors Go On $27 Billion Selling Spree
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Majors-Go-On-27-Billion-Selling-Spree.html
Global giants of the oil and gas industry – the so-called supermajors – are looking to sell assets that could fetch a total $27.5 billion, according to Rystad Energy’s latest assessment.

These companies are actively shedding mature assets on a massive scale in a bid to finance higher-yielding investments elsewhere, with the added benefit of pleasing shareholders who are calling for stricter capital discipline.

“The expected transactions mean some of the majors are poised to exit certain regions, giving regional players and independents a chance to buy into key fields and help keep them profitable through production-life extensions and new developments,” says Ranjan Saxena, an analyst on Rystad Energy’s upstream team.

As I mentioned to JL earlier, the problem with any comparison of performance over time is that it can easily deceive. Which is a good reason to fact check stuff for yourself. The next chart - from August - is an attempt to illustrate how the respective oil cos have performed against OP recently. If I had set the start date on 20th August, for example, it would have entirely misrepresented GKP for the simple reason that GKP peaked on that date - so everything GKP did after that would have appeared much worse than is the case. Inevitably the choice of date can unfairly represent one of the constituents.
https://invst.ly/op-fj

The main takeaways for me, however, are that whilst OP has only fallen slightly over the entire period, RDS and DNO have suffered additional losses whilst GKP had a moment in the sun but has since fallen back to match OP the closest over the period. As it stands, the jury remains out on G - it has also had a moment in the sun and the question now is whether this will leave it with a residual gain - essential if it is to be revalued - or whether it will simply revert to its previous level characterised by 3xOP. It is of keen interest to those who are looking for a buy-back point. As I type the ratio has fallen to 3.2x which is good but not exceptional.

Ah - Lemming still at LSE: Lemming99 as others have pointed out.

Hi JL - good to hear from you.
Lemming appears to have deserted LSE.
Yes- shares go up and down. GKP has performed better YTD but, to be fair, pick another date and you get a different answer.
G has done OK (and better than GKP) over the last two months even though it has given about half of it back in the last fortnight. C'est la vie.

Indeed bunks - it'll be interesting to see what happens when G gets down to around 192
https://invst.ly/opw9-
because it would previously have been nearer to 180 at that point (3x $60). Meanwhile it continues to be about 13p up on September's pricing.

Yes, NakedT - no relation to Naked Gun? - with API, EIA and IEA invariably producing conflicting data over the yea rs, it's no wonder OP is as volatile as it is. I find the EIA data is the one to watch - seems the market thinks so too. Last week there was a mere 2.7million barrel discrepancy between them (laughable really) - which would explain their big 'build' number this week as it would put them about half-way towards correcting last week's disparity.
At $60 Brent, though, I don't think G will drop to 185-190, although that would have been typical a month ago. However, things do look gloomy for WTI, which currently trades at around $5.5 less than Brent and supposedly needs $50 per barrel minimum to sustain the US Shale patch. If Brent remains at or above $55.5 then I think there's a fair chance G could stay above 180

Well I was expecting G to do one of two things -
either good: retain its recent ratio to OP and remain tight to the trend line it recently captured.
or bad: collapse away from the trend, increasingly lose strength v OP and fall disproportionately compared to others.
It did the latter. Not unexpected but, equally, not what I had hoped as it does signal further weakness is now likely.
I think I recently mentioned that I'd be looking out for a top-up opportunity in the low 190's if they were revisited? I also bought a few around 207 in case the first scenario came to pass. With Bilgin's purchase and the recent run to 225 we've got a pretty good idea of G's likely range over the next four months - provided OP doesn't go TU of course.

Yep - once G lost that foothold on the trend line it was almost certain to fall back. There's not much to support it above 192 now. Nice whilst it lasted. Will be interesting to see what happens as it approaches ex-div (3.75p) and with OP moves during the heating season. November's gains have been pretty much wiped out apart from around 12p on the 1st. Ratio to OP is back to 3.3x and falling. https://invst.ly/opizj

Disappointingly both OP and G are back to the same levels they held on Nov 4th:
https://invst.ly/opb6o
The sp:OP ratio has fallen back to 3.31x and G appears to have lost its foothold on the '210' trend here: https://invst.ly/opbcz
Something of an anticlimax for now.

Bilgin apparently crossed the reporting threshold on the 13th - that was on the fourth trading day after G hit 225 on the 7th, by which time the sp was trading between 217 (open/high) and 210 (low)
If they were the reason G hit 225 then maybe they should have engaged Canaccord to do the job as they seem to know how to accumulate without provoking spikes. I wouldn't be too sure that Bilgin caused the spike although they must surely have been part of the general strengthening of the price.