Member Info for philjayjones

I think we are all aware that that is what you think/want to happen however I do worry that you have taken the lack of opposition to your theory on this board and used that to convince yourself that it's inevitable.

Personally I've not seen or heard anything other than circumstantial musings to make me think that a merger with Rockrose is any more or less likely than any other option at this point.

That of course is not to say that it won't, I hold both so would benefit either way but my preference would be for a merger between the two not to happen. I just feel there is more value in the Serica story playing out to its conclusion, 100% BKR, R3, Columbus, Eig plus the possibility of acquisition of other assets.

You may well be right newKOTB, I sincerely hope you are.

Firstly, I want BKR to start back up as soon as the next guy but at the risk of being negative I'd suggest caution in making assumptions based around the position of Supply and Standby Vessels.

The Vigilance is a regular contracted supply vessel used for supply of Fuel, Water, Equipment, Drilling Fluids, Food etc etc as well as for the removal and backload of waste and equipment to shore. That's not to say it has not been used for transit of equipment for the repair but this can't be presumed just because the vessel has been on location. Indeed the attendance of the other supply vessel some days ago is more interesting - can't remember it's name or when exactly it was there.

With regard the Standby Vessel, its position can not be used at all in deducing status of any repair, it is there all the time, it may have been close for close standby cover for over side or under deck work but there is simply no way of knowing via Marine Traffic. In respect of the smaller vessels noticed, these will more than likely be the standby vessel's daughter craft. Why they were launched again is purely guess work, training could be one reason or again close standby for the above reasons.

Everything could be fixed and production could be being restarted, who knows (other than the obvious people) but like I say just use caution in how you decide when this happens based on marine traffic, its akin to reading tea leaves for me.

Standard Friday night garbage

Mothballing and simply having a platform shutdown are two very different things.

The only people who could answer would be part of Serica/BKR so doubt you are going to get anything resembling an accurate figure.
Most of a platform's costs are fixed so you could have a stab using the most recent lifting costs for the corresponding production rate. Could be miles out of course as there are other things that go into calculating lifting costs but it will give you an idea how many 000's to use.

How likely is it do you think that BP will have allowed a possible situation whereby Serica sit with an operationaly available platform that they decide not to operate in order to avoid actually paying for it?

In addition to this I believe the details of the purchase are that if Serica are due to lose money BP actually end up paying Serica so that this doesn't happen.

Are you thinking that BP would not only let Serica NOT pay for BKR but pay them for the privilege too?

I seem to be the only one willing to play along but I've got a bit of spare time so let's see where this goes.

To what level are you wanting to mothball exactly, what are you are looking to achieve and why?

Im guessing it's to avoid paying for something that Serica have agreed to pay for from profits made, which doesn't sound very honourable (being an honourable company seems quite important to you) . Presumably you are looking to restart it when you can make more money? So you have to maintain it by law, or are you going to let it sit and rot and sort it out when the time comes (terrible option by the way)? Oh and are you going to get rid of the people with the knowledge, experience and by law, competency to run and maintain it when you do want to run it again? Between on and offshore this could well be hundreds of people across all the roles and departments that it takes to run a big platform. Or are you just sending them all home on full pay?

I might have this all wrong of course and you might be wanting to call it a day full stop because of one big old pipe hanging off the bottom of the platform. Have the relevant government departments given you permission? You aren't allowed to just walk away from large hydrocarbon reserves without a good reason, you need to justify why. But if you are allowed to completely shutdown for ever then go to the cash machine and draw out £500m but be ready for it not being enough.

"For the record I have had and still do have respect for the industry and being British b.p.After all I have invested a good proportion of my pension sip into it."

You can understand my confusion, please accept my humble apologies.

Well that's a more rational, measured post, slightly strange that you now say you are a BP shareholder and you respect them when you earlier stated that you would never hold them but that is pretty much par for the course with your posts, you certainly are very up and down and emotional.

With regards the issue being fixed earlier (presumably to your mind by BP), then without being part of BP or the Bruce Platform I can only think it has passed previous inspections. Without knowing the inspection interval which could be 5 or 10 years for all I know, then that would be the only explanation as far as I can see.
I can also only summise that it wasn't removed at the time of decommissioning due to expense and/or possible future utilisation. It is very expensive and logistically complicated to achieve anything like this offshore so why do it if you don't have to. I dare say there are many disused caissons across many platforms, it's existence will be far from unusual.

In terms of Shearwater/Andrew, I can't understand why you have such issue with it not being sold to Serica. To be blunt BP can sell their assets to whoever they bloody want to!
That being said I was surprised and disappointed that certainly Andrew was not bought by Serica, I very much thought it would have been at some point but that's life.

And finally your comment of "how BP are coming across", you've got me absolutely baffled. I aren't keeping a close eye on them but they are surely just going about their business? I haven't seen any big news or controvesy and they aren't making statements of any great note that I've seen, I just can't understand what you are seeing?

Well I really don't think I have to say anything in response to that.

You defineately have a downer on BP, I think mainly through ignorance and misunderstanding. Serica (we, as a shareholder) knew what was for sale and what they were buying. BKR as a package was available for 2 reasons;
1). Bruce was an ageing asset with its best days behind it and it no longer fit into BPs profit and risk profile, i.e it didn't make the money it once did and as it got older the chances of "something" happening increased. BP like any good oil company is risk averse, but even more so after Macondo.
2). The political issue around Rhum. BP operates word wide and some areas may well have been uncomfortable with the links to Iran. This was very much known and out in the open, Serica will have been more than aware as anybody with the remotest interest in the region were/are.

It is for these reasons, and BPs willingness to undertake an unconventional deal for BKR that a company like Serica could aquire them, it was in many ways unthinkable that they could have, given their previous status within the industry.

BP will I have no doubt honour their part of the deal and if the retails of the purchase and Serica's RNS are correct then there will not be significant financial impact to Serica.

Your constant cries of "BP owe us" and "Moral this and moral that" are ridiculous and show a distinct lack of understanding of both the oil industry and trade in general. If you have issue with your current holding of serica shares then you should reassess and move your money somewhere where you feel more comfortablely invested.

Hey, but thats all inmo of course.

My skin is too thick to get upset over anything like that don't worry.

I'm a LTH and well, well overweight to be honest but decided long ago that when reasons to hold dried up I'd sell, there are still too many to get out now no matter how frustrating things get.

Hahaha "people like me" that's what you took from my post?
I'm trying to explain that operating costs continue in the main unchanged whether you are producing or not, plus a little of how Oil and Gas companies think with regards production. You will not find any that under normal operating conditions will say "We will leave it in the ground and get it another day" that's just not how it works, afterall there is no way of ensuring you will, as nobody knows what the future will bring.

You do realise that if you shut a platform down, the cost of running it continues? These are big expensive places to run. Though I understand why some investors think the way they do and the idea of "leaving it in the ground until our share increases" is regularly thrown around, this is not how oil (and gas) producing companies think. As far as production is concerned, these 2 months will be recorded as days of lost production, the basis of this is that if you don't produce what you can on any one day, then you can never produce it on that day again so you've "lost it". This will sound strange as you haven't lost it, it's still in the ground but it's the way it is.

Care to explain why you think this?