RE: Arthur & Timing24 Nov 2018 01:22
R-Dunc. Well the only revenue the project has is from oil sales, so the price of oil is clearly critical to the overall size of the revenue 'cake'. My assumption is that the SP & the back-end providers (Bank Mauritius et al) will contractually take the first slice of oil revenue from the project, what is left then goes to the operators/owners ie Essar Nigeria/Shorecan. At $80 oil there is a presumably a lot of 'surplus' above simple operating costs but at say $35-40 the whole thing becomes more marginal. What is the total revenue needed to make minimum payments back to the SP, the backend guys & the Nigerian Govt? If you say in Year 1 its $100m, then the project 'has' to produce that to pay the SP & others, IF the oil price fell to a level where revenue was below that then where do the SP & others go for the shortfall ? Surely its elementary that in 'project finance' the finance comes from the 'project' and there is no recourse to the operators (except to potentially take ownership of the field at some stage), & these guys are not BP, where would COPL or Essar get money from the fund a shortfall? My point is at some level the oil price determines the project viability, we are not there yet but there is an oil price where the sums do not work. It is less than 3 years ago that Brent fell into the mid 20's, I have no idea where the price of oil is going over the next 1-2 years, but neither in practice does anybody else.
On balance at either side of $60 I think/hope we are still OK, but lets face it a collapsing oil price is not good for a small oil explorer trying to become a producer with no capital, its not even neutral, its plain bad news.