Member Info for InJamesweTrust

98p in March 2019.

Never reckoned an average in the 40s for Tullow would feel so underwater! Crazy!

Prior to drilling previously this broke through 100p - may not reach those levels again pre drill but you'd expect a significant uptick from here.
I expect the first drill will target 900m barrels plus as it may include DJ-3. So 135m barrels to Eco in success case.
That is £2.70 per share and adds nothing for the remaining 465m net barrels of Cretaceous prospects.

Phoebus
It would in fact be the beat time as they have something fundamental with which to beat the sector. That is after all managements job, to have a winning strategy.
Was reading an article on Total yesterday and it mentioned an old oil adage, the best cure for low prices is low prices. The absence of investment during downtime richly rewards those with foresight in the cyclical.upswing. I'd imagine this is where Total would like to be positioned with assets acquired at advantageous prices during difficult times.
Eco is a curate egg though. Mgmt control a blocking stake and enough cash to run ops for a couple of years as well as drill, so it isnt easy to screw them to the floor.

We are all aware of discussions being ongoing around drilling. It will.happen when it does and the results will decide the share price.
The Tullow.presentation and announcement of CEO may be a drag, of Total/Tullow are paying some lip service to the partnership. Beyond that, their patience may wear thin in terms of waiting.
With Corona and waiting the SP may indeed drag but a) one cannot always pick a bottom and b) it may be a very good further investment opportunity to increase holding in advance of drilling.

Noggers
Read the article, it talks about renegotiation not cancellation. This is primarily an exercise for new entrants and licenses and a small concession to market terms can be painted as a victory by any party achieving it.
However, any push beyond that would be a breach of the contracts which prohibit renegtiation/backsliding for just such a purpose. Easy to change ones view once success has occurred. Eco took licence prior to Exxon drilling success.
This is a non event as far as Eco is concerned.
Proselenses has a weird agenda of constantly knocking the share. He decried any potential that partners might have a say advising in late Jan Tullow can decide what to do the rest just have to wear it.
Well since Tullow IR has confirmed partners can proceed at own risk and Tullow buy back would require a risk premium to be paid to partners for taking the risk.
He indicated Repsol had dropped 8% because of Carapa when it went ex dividend
He indicated Apache drill was a duster.
He wants to bang a negative drum and will shout anything from the rooftops he can lay his hands on and repeat it ad nauseum.

Despite this being scaremongering from Proselenses, I.note it simply states renegotiate. The Orinduik block was negotiated prior to any discoveries on Stabroek.
The article does not suggest blocks would be re-auctioned
This is mainly bluster and is about making the process more robust in future.
Jimo

As mentioned yesterday, to do so would be economic suicide. Any impacted company can simply sue under terms of agreement and aim damages either through Guyanese assets internationally or by attaching to the payments Exxon are due to make to Guyana.
Until redress had been received, they could also seek an injunction from any party developing a disputed field which will.prevent any major getting involved.
This would be economic suicide across many fronts.

The cancellation of other licences is a red herring, any business impacted by that could seek redress in US/UK courts depending which jurisdiction covers the contract law (it will not be Guyana) and then attach to any payments Exxon are to make to the Guyana government to receive redress.
Just look at hedge fund treatment of Argentina default. Any decent lawyer could argue the redress is based on geological chance of success and the settlement to Eco would be in the billions. In a US court youd probably get some punitive damages too!

Maverick
In the absence of clear news I'd expect many holders to be selling on such a.spike. for a pump and dump it needs 1.8m people buying. Others who have bought in on lows may have set sell.prices at higher levels to be disciplined and take gains and those would have been taken out.
Looks more like an accumulation simply because I.dont see the.demand there for a pump and dump- this is 55x Fridays volume on TSX from memory.

Certainly seems to be something odd, not sure .pump and dump goes that way to create 1.8m volume in a couple of.hours. people normally have sell targets not buy targets.
Something similar happened in reverse last year on the way down.

An update from Tullow IR, if a partner(s) proceed at own risk with drilling at any time non participating partners can buy back in to the exploration but must pay a premium to reflect the risk taken by the other partner.
Tullow dont say anything regarding what the premium is - perhaps linked to average chance of success of a wildcat drill (15-20%) if this is a boilerplate for all such contracts.

EAS10
Absolutely not, if you look at the messages I was simply responding to someone else who'd mentioned their commerciality. This is from looming at market discount and transportation costs.
The extractability of the oil has been flagged as strong by the company and it seems Exxon have no problems making Hammerhead a producer. With 350m barrels found and a further 700m close by, it certainly has the scale.

Proselenses
We will see what is indicated, Joe and Jethro will not be prioritised for CapEx spend in current partnership framework. The oil can be transported. Number of wells is dependent on the viscosity and mobility of the oil which again we shall see.
I didn't say there would be news last week, I suggested the meeting was in February - I didn't say an announcement would be immediate.
It is apparent the partners can proceed without Tullow.
Time will tell as I say on this share.

The Jethro/Joe complex is quite commercial by my reckoning. Knocking $10 off per barrel.more than covers the extra cost if transport (for instance via Chemical tanker to Antwerp for arguments sake) and the extra cost of refining.
The company has been clear about the mobility of the oil, the gravity being decent. The heavy oil can be refined and sulfur removed at a facility like Antwerp (which is not unique). It was redeveloped specifically to remove sulfur from fuel in light of the IMO regs.
The fact any acquiring company would value it less per barrel should allow them to hit the IRR they need.
Given the other developments due in the area it is going to be a major global producing hub.
As for the rest of the field, it should be drilled some point - soon the timing will become apparent.
At $1.50/$2.00 for the Tertiary prospects that is 2.5-3.5x the current SP alone. It is also a discount of 60-80% on a cost per barrel acquisition and covers more than half the market discount per barrel (10-15% if I recall) just on acquisition cost difference. Making the economics stack up much more strongly on actual development.

The Guyana government has.appointed an international law firm from a panel of 5 applicants to advise on a variety of specialist matters as they build their new framework for licensing rounds.
This is funded by World Bank and withinnthe contract the advisors relating to EIA for the firm are expected to have experience working in a Major O&G player.
Have worked with one of the firms on the panel of 5 and they are top industry firm so this is just an inexperienced government bringing in outside advice.
There is simply no way an EIA for exploratory drilling will take a year. To conflate statements around how long public consultation can take generally versus something that may not need it at all (for exploration understandable to need consultation for production) is a bit of stretch.

Well I just managed to download the entire Liza Phase I EIA all 1,418 pages of it. I dare say much less will be needed for a drill and only a small amount of info relating to the area of seabed and any wildlife variation (of which there is likely none) would require to be changed.
Employ the same consultants as Exxon to complete and it is done in time for the rig being on site.
No need to be alarmist around this fairly simple requirement as impact of a 45 day drill is significantly less than a 15 year production solution with 20 wells drilled and all sorts of sub sea work.

Most of the budget is destined for Ghana/Kenya for upgrading/remediating problems. However, I wonder if the good news on gas disposal may alleviate some of that spend and allow for use elsewhere.

Think you'll find Tullow were on the hook for first $28.5m of drill costs which were then split by holding.

Exxon continue to drill and have just signed up for major deal with Noble. That is not seriously going to be moth balled from further activity for a year.
The article is not definitive and Guyana has a commercial imperative to facilitate drilling.
I know this serves your downside case better but realistically much of the info needed to complete will have been done prior to previous drilling activity.
Still interested to hear your thoughts on Total refinery.....