Member Info for InJamesweTrust

Clearly going to be a drop this morning as a result of the extension. Such financing structures (as it may exist) are challenging to deliver, in such a deal the publicly funded part would require certain structures to be adhered to, whereas in a buoyant market it may be preferable to increase the bond ask instead.
This presumes funding talks are underway which is the risk we take investing here.

Clearly going to be a drop this morning as a result of the extension. Such financing structures (as it may exist) are challenging to deliver, in such a deal the publicly funded part would require certain structures to be adhered to, whereas in a buoyant market it may be preferable to increase the bond ask instead.
This presumes funding talks are underway which is the risk we take investing here.

....out of this for the weekend - on the rise!!!

95 bagger in the report sounds good, my initial thoughts were less exponential on a successful bond raise.

Buckle
There dont need to be hundreds,never mind hundreds of thousands. It is a fairly elastic markets and merely 10 or 20 available vessels make a significant difference regarding charter rates.
The scare stories of 3 or 4 years are total nonsense, look at Liza destiny constructed in 2 years. A new build is not required, pads and xmas trees can be designed to fit with the 'plumbing' of an existing vessel so long as processing capacity and weather capability suit the field.
This is not to say the Bond is a slam dunk but on balance there appears to be an asset there that offers value for the likes of Schlumberge and Aker to use kit that is otherwise redundant. It provides returns on this kit well in excess of current market rates, so comes down to risk/reward.
Most investors understand the risk of the bond not getting away, so the likes of Shen and their Schadenfreude or sad individuals indeed.

Viking
That is *******s on the FPSO. Depending on the field and availability of vessels, subsea can be designed to match the vessel. Unless there are specific oil mix/gas ratio issues the vessel would need to resolve or the charter was an aged vessel in need of refurb and even in this case HUR got one ready in a little over 12 months.

It is pretty binary, they either get the bond away or dont. The bond may be contingent on environmental approval for drawdown but that will be forthcoming project too good to turn down and carbon capture should placate environmentalists. It is being proven up all the time by PRD who have an interest in Ireland too. Note they were hit by a similar level to PVR yesterday.

Strategically it was such a mistake not to drill multiple layers in the 2019 programme. Seeing the error of their ways is useful, albeit 2yrs later than necessary. Believe this was driven by Tullow coat cutting even back then.
With their work on the Apache block, TOTAL have alot to focus CapEx on already in the basin. I'm not sure they are rushing to Tullows aid as they are to all intents distressed sellers and need to be real on value.
Depending on timing of news, anything in Namibia maybe a small leg down or chunkier leg up.
Holding at reduced levels for me with intention to buy further as year progresses.

They're not based on Gil's comments today, haven't had sight of those.

Currently a hard road for Eco, Gil continues to be optimistic but ultimately reward will come from concrete news on farm out in Namibia or indeed by Tullow in Guyana. Either could happen any time but Tullow is more likely once drill prospects are graded and Namibia post Venus results.
We were for better or worse aligned to the travails of Tullow on the SP but seem to have devouple somewhat and been left as the laggard.
My biggest question is the source rock and is it different for Tertiary and Cretaceous in Guyana. For Exxon and partners it clearly seems to be and they could use the heavy oil through blending with Cretaceous light - would be heavily discounted though. They have kept their cards close to their chest.
Total for now are going great guns on the Apache block and have taken their chance to get in as operator as I imagine Tullow have previously asked too much to cede control. Tullow stance may change as bond payments draw near either to farm out more attractively to interested parties or to throw the dice and drill - it is a few months until their feet are to the fire though.
Solar wont blow the doors off in the meantime but it could be worse.

SpotOn are a conduit. They may have 50% but there will be pay away agreements on a per barrel basis to the consortium partners. This is better for them than owning SpotOn as they dont need to consolidate debt or contingent liabilities on their balance sheet.
It is a good model and at a time when a great deal of services/equipment is under utilised a deal involving pay and upside can be beneficial to all.
Bonds take a while to get all the ducks in a row then it is about getting a 1 or 2 week window to launch, market and close the funding. If they can do this it should make a big difference to the SP as we should then be on the road to a 10 yr initial production that funds the drilling and well pads for further production.
The NPV10 of 10k bopd is pretty handy for PVR not to.mention prospect of further exploration drilling on licence. Pareto have not come out to say stop using our.name nor have others and by now you might think they would have were this all fluff.

There is a contract mechanism which allows Eco and Total to proceed without Tulllow. Tullow cooperation probably has a not to be unreasonably withheld sort of clause around progressing licence. Dont think anyone could argue that 2 years is fair game to drill in.
If Tullow then wish to buy back in they have to pay significantly more to do so reflecting new commercial reality.
This would cost Eco more but Africa Oil would most likely be pleased to step in and take some of the burden

Ryan has been bought off with the announcement of no new licences I would imagine. With that in place he is hardly signing off Ireland to become the next North Sea more can argue taking the necessary steps to secure the country's energy future.
The bigger news this week is Pareto getting away a bond with Peruvian risk per PetroTal. EU rule of law (barring the lapse on Art.16 last week) represents much more attractive investment arena.
This successful $100m.bond surely bodes well for progress with PVR bind given the issuer is the same institution.

Phoebus
Wouldnt expect much, clearly drilling is 2022. Flipping some funding into solar to generate activity is not a bad thing for an energy company to do right now but good husbandry of available funds is important.
He clearly mentions two drills for which we should be funded, I'm pretty sure availability of rigs is not an issue currently! Explorers are hardly banging down the doors of the rig suppliers.
There are only so many times he can say we have alot of inbound interest in Namibia, it is about crystallising this. A good result for drilling nearby would make a big difference and spur the SP (a little, not a lot to quote someone once famous in UK) but the main deal is Guyana and what lies beneath the Tertiary when they get to the Cretaceous.
With project economics cash flow positive as little as 3.5-4yrs from FID it is one of the few areas investment still makes sense in the medium 10-15 year term for majors.

For the brick bats around Renewables - Larry Fink of BlackRock sent a letter to CEO of all companies they invest in asking for how they will meet net zero targets.
The BoD do need to get the message of why out there which probably hasnt been managed.
Tullow is up a creek and that probably is a big concern for mgmt and how to offset G&A draining cash.
There may also be funds from Namibia as well as any carry that cross pollinated the funding in Guyana.

Eco are funded for 2 drills in Guyana which should cost about $9.5-11m. Funding a 3rd drill would be tight, however if they dont hit in the first two then all bets maybe off anyway.
So they are likely still fully funded for 2 drills and a 13% return over next 18 months may take them that extra bit to fund a 3rd.

Part of what may be missing from analysis on this is the assumption this is a significant net drain on cash. If this investment is in to short cycle development to take solar farms to operational capacity and revenue generation then the equity has value. More than that, it will be easier to borrow against than RBL on exploration at this stage. If we get to the RBL stage then borrowing would still be difficult without a renewables strategy. So, probably 70-80% of the shareholder loan can be returned via borrowing. The remaining yield probably pays G&A for the group and there is a residual asset presumably with some value.
The term green washing springs to mind - makes us more presentable to lenders potentially at minimal cost. The likelihood of technological challenges in solar is much lower than Geological ones in O&G so perhaps not so negative as many fear.
Likelihood is drilling in 2022 for Guyana. Activity there may be a catalyst to action and results in Namibia may both have some SP impact from Q2 onwards for thisn year though.

Given the constraints of the Paris accord and banks requiring O&G to have credible net zero plans to secure borrowing this seems like a sensible straight forward approach. As fields are exploited carbon capture may be feasible a la work done by Predator but the footprint needs to be credibly offset in the meantime.
So long as yields on solar remain constant, the assets can likely be disposed of at little net costwhen the time comes.

Looks like PVR get $5m to continue working on EDP with SpotOn. The EDP itself requires the funding to be in place - if there is a sufficient mix of equity in way of services contributed by the partners that should help get the funding secured. Once secured it may be supported by export finance guarantee.
I'd have thought with the carbon capture element the EIB or EBRD may be potential sources of funding.
I've seen them invest in much worse.

The €0.17 is not an indication of expected SP on production. I dare say having got it to.production, SpotOn mgmt will expect a bonus for putting deal in place and be expecting an SP significantly higher than €0.17.
To me it comes down to funding, probably a few bits to straighten on that Banks reluctant but need to take a view on value of input from Schlum et al. This needs front loaded in part to give banks equity cushion to any funding provided.
The carbon capture gets around some of the Paris accord concerns for 2030 and may even greenwash some of their existing O&G lending on a blended carbon basis.
I wonder given the late day RNS how close matters are to completion,.or if indeed there is still quite a bit to be done. Would suggest SP reaction significantly overdone.

SpotOn has not yet confirmed funding is in place. This is a pre-condition to cryatallising the farm out so not yet all tied up. However, deciding to make an announcement with contingent requirements rather than extend again.