Member Info for oiluser

Geo, I remember you writing that.

What I cant get my head around is that in 8 years shale orientated companies generated no profits but based on a simple calculation I did related to average shale production over 8 years of 4mbod, they have managed to accrue debt of approximately $25/barrel for every barrel produced.

I'm assuming that the accrued debt reported over 8 years is 300billion. Am I missing something. The business model seems to depend entirely on new money lending that at some point it must become unserviceable, sooner rather than later with interest rates rising.

Is this Ponzi, if yes whos money is being used as my guess is its pension funds.

don't disagree on the potential to sell Zama but taxes will be heavy on that too, the trouble I have with SL is its almost all PMO cost. Regardless of the fiscal regime.

The most recent presentation August 2018 points to $65 being the number moving forward to 2024 and that includes the vision of development for some major projects. It promises 100kboepd, covenant debt at 1x and FCF to sweeten it up at 2024. So based on $65 and all things being equal the business will be a success. That's how I see it. 1 x debt and 100Kboepd does seem ok.

Anyone here who thought that the race to $86/bbl was sustainable needs their head examined. I felt it in my water that it was too high and too fast.

I'm still not convinced in Sealion being the right way forward without some big partner, I would prefer to have PMO go all in on GOM Zama. Reading the releases by TALOS they want the have a FID by year end 2019 and first oil in late 2021/early 2022 which is sooner than Sealion.

that's classic, great tune too.

Agreed on trump, I think he's appealing to the voters the US has shafted with the sanctions and there must be a fair few of them. Give the impression of a victory and all that before Tuesday votes

if you were to ask me I would say that the sanctions on Iran are designed to create market share for the US oil producers, which is why they have allowed for the low incremental drop in Iran oil imports by no less than 8 countries. But somewhere along the line the Shale has to become profitable as producing more by drilling more is just not cutting the mustard. They need to have higher oil prices and more pipelines. The tactic is the same with the Chinese but rather than a nuclear discussion (that would be too late) they are using the trade deficit to create the market for what is much more expensive US LNG. Once the Chinese agree to 25 years of imports of US LNG then that will be sorted out for the gas side.

agreed about trump but NOPEC have set figures in mind also, and below 70 doesn't appear to be on the radar, currently that means $60 for WTI or thereabouts. What's wrong with that? All of them getting guaranteed prices with less production! What it does mean with WTI at 60 is that Shale is back in the crapper. At 70 they were for the most part in negative FCF, so 60 is no good in the long term. The shale industry is subsidized by who? interest rates rising and no/minimal debt being paid back, only the costs of the money. One would think in a real capitalist environment that many of these companies would go out of business. Yet they are still there with mounting losses and higher debt. It makes one wonder whether the US government has decided that its ok to pillage the pension pots to become somewhat energy independent for maybe 5 or 10 years.

the fact he talks about it so much should be a cause for concern

Think this is more to do with the massive reduction in long positions from a ratio of 21:1 to the recent 4:1 noted in Oilprice.com.

The fact that oil is still in 70,s is probably good indicator of the resolve of OPEC/NOPEC to keep Brent prices in the 70,s. I'm delighted as this is going to sort out the profitable from the unprofitable in the US in particular. If Permian oil is trading at a $20 discount to WTI then there is very little profit there. 70/75 is a good price for the longer term for the PMO holders. The business is modelled out to 2024 based on $65. The earlier runs up to 140p were based on sentiment for oil going to some ridiculous and unsustainable level. We need 70/75 and steady as she goes.

The reasons behind the long oil position reduction are many, the trump trade war is probably the main one. Followed by less fear of the Iran sanctions that had gripped the market for months. I really don't want to see $80 again soon, because I know in the short to medium term its bad for the economies, especially the more fragile ones that are driving the demand .

yep, proving up a 350 meter oil column in shallow water is going to be news to look forward to

and the drill bit turning any day now,

that's a great name bilgepump,

ROS, I hope PMO are producing much more than 80KBOED now. If they produced 76.2 KBOED in first half, that's 13.87mboe for the half year

Guidance

80 KBOED is 29.2MBOE/Y
85 KBOED is 31.025MBOE/Y

Math for the production limit required for 183 days in half 2. I have 83.7 to 93.7. So 80 in half 2 just doesn't cut the mustard.

can someone check if I'm right, to achieve the lower figure in second half would be very high production, the upper figure or somewhere in between would mean that next year will be guiding high 80,s.

by the time it hits 77 in the middle of the UK night there will be a spike down to 75.5, its hilarious.

that's some increase in revenue,

And they basically said that yesterday I.e. that OPEC and Allies will reconvene if needed. What does that mean? I think it means regardless of the all other factors 70,s is what they want for Brent.

all made possible by panicked PI,s, god bless them.

what ever is it about that number 104,

Plebeen,

That's classic

stairs up, elevator down.

I read that its Catcher 30%, Varadero 28% and Burgman 27% from a capital markets presentation. 2P listed at 92, with upside potential to 140. I think the presentation has an average RF 29%