Member Info for pijoe1212

Morning. Interesting numbers - 85,000 bls.... one has to wonder if ukla or aim regulation has had a word about drilling bb as operator while being an investment co....

Fwiw my tea leaves are neutral.... Ww- good post

I went to Uk investor show and listened to mark slater. Very impressive. One thing he said about unexpected news was to always do something. Either buy or sell if the price moves sharply on the news but don�t do nothing. I looked back over my last three years of trades and found he was right most of the time.

To 88e missies the point- vision are the operator Panr invest money with. 88e did not loose the operator ceo. Some of the comments against George here tonight are frankly disturbing and totally unwarranted- what sort of warped mind could wish someone to get cancer? Unbelievable self centred financial greed displayed by such posting.

not deramping as out yesterday and not looking to get back in. i understood vision is a small co with c. 8 people and are the operator. if this is the case (and i believe it to be) i can not see how the loss of the ceo (very experienced oil man) will have no impact.

dont forget end of june is accounting date and "clean" sign-off required (hence need for a cash buffer for cap ex and costs). you may be correct about lasting impact but my discussions with the bod had always indicated vision were very much the operator with jay and the new bod man (phil globe) acting as active investor.

i did not foresee it! i sold as yesterdays rns was a precursor to a placing in my view. i think he was well into his 60's. as the operator it has to cause some dislocation. maybe he has been ill for a while - hence the ops issues over recent months?

panr not going to have a good day tomorrow. glad i sold remaining holding yesterday.

The balance sheet has a current asset (pre paid development costs) as Lek are the funding partner. In effect it is a loan to the partner. It is repaid via extra production revenue. The additional cash appears in the cash flow statement and in the balance sheet as reduced asset value. Normal accounting for such arrangements. Lek remain carrying partner debt on the balance sheet so the same will happen this year also and likely most years as cap ex will be ongoing.

Don�t forget the impact of fund raising dilution when you consider sp. the mcap of Hur is now well above that when the sp was at its peak! It is this mcap (add debt / Cash To get to ev) one can compare to other producers...then risk the 17k ev and see what�s left- that is the 2c value.

You slightly miss quoted me on that $1.5 / bl 2c comment. I corrected cebo that that was a 2c type of value not the value of 2c! Historically ($100 oil) the market did place that sort of value on 2c. Over the last few years 2c has been valued at cents/ bl in general. As the oil price moves 2c is (in some cases) being increasingly valued. This all makes economic sense- higher oil price means the risk of not moving to 2p ( which perhaps has a value of $5+) is reduced. see my post yesterday morning!

bogroll off on one again!!!

ijwt - mine as well! cebo - $1.5/bl would be 2C type value..the oil has to be found first!

i agree ralph the debt is there and if/ buts have little value (but i am sure we will hear much from pmo about SL being like catcher - by implication not solan!) the cost for the zama drill was c.$35M to pmo ($37.6M spend and pmo stated "the majority of exploration spend was related to the drilling programme on the Zama prospect in Mexico." expo guidance for 2018 is c.$50M which is largely zama from what i can see and apr drills late 2018 / 2019. sl & tolmount guidance for current year is c. $20M. so zama is not cheap. i can seriously see pmo trading zama post apr drills or post feed.

quick comment about debt - when the oil price is high most investors want oilers to gear up the debt (not issue equity even though they can) there are plenty of examples of this happening . but when the price craters the last thing you what is debt (unless it is within the hedged production window). pmo's problem was not debt per say - it was solan soaking up some $1.7bn for sub 10k bpd and hence magnifying the impact of reduced cashflow from reduced prices on debt cost coverage ratios. without solan pmo would have been in a very different place. i also think TD has made some brave and good moves over the last 3 years.

zama is too far off i think and it need the appraisal drill(s) prior to starting FEED. they also have a large wedge of SL costs on the balance sheet - there is over $1bn intangible E&E assets on the bs currently of which a goodly % will be SL (i would guesstimate 50% +), leaving it sat there does them no good at all! the equity investment on SL looks to me (based on the guided figures) to be similar over the next 2 years to the zama costs. as i posted before i think the bulk of the equity investment into SL will come 12 to 18 months after fid. it will be very interesting to see the full detail but SL sanction and debt reduction may go hand in hand rather than an either or choice. without question in the absence of pmo large debt it would be much easier to see route to FID as it would if a farmdown happens.

i dont think PMO do want to kick it down the road as they will need the production in 2022 forward (catcher off plateau i think by then). tolmount will help. at the moment thay appear to me to be giving mixed messages - perhaps influenced by the fig tax review and commercial negotiations with the supply chain. combined with declines of other fields (and into some abandonment i think?) SL on stream 2022 ish is important. without question a farm out would make the situation very different. i remain hopeful of this happening (the change to the KPI's in the directors annual bonus jamboree is worth noting). as always only my opinion - we will see.

not in currently. the oil price movement has provided a number of interesting opportunities, several of which have proved very worthwhile over recent months and i think have further to run. it think hur remains with a discount to fair value (as a 17K producer), but that discount is now moderate. so i can see it moving up to reflect market value against comparative producers as foil approaches. then its all about the value of the 2C. FWIW my "experimental valuation model" has major indigestion with the wti to brent differential currently, so i am back using my old valuation models of EV to flowing bls etc. i would also note the sector (for smaller oilers) remains largely (from what i can see) PI driven rather than II driven - oilers remain "out of fashion", so if the oil price holds up (and with the Aramco float SA has very good reason to ensure it does not crash) i remain hopeful the II money will start to flow more into the smaller co's. i am expecting a number of the smaller co's to release 2017 results and 2018 forecasts that make the EV / profit valuations a bit bonkers on a forward oil price deck of $65... (ops - long response ..therapy required!)

ralph . correct me if i an wrong, but i think pmo and rkh have guided that sanction is planned by 2018 year end and fid mid 2019. i assume the time between is need to finalise and execute the multitude of interrelated contracts and agreements to a single execution date.

just a minor point. "Does anyone here have experience of fractured basements ...I dont think so. " as i have pointed out before - Ziet bay Egypt. i worked on this scheme a long time ago (almost exactly 30 years ago to be precise) as part of the team sorting some of the post foil issues. but i would not claim that gives me any insight into hur matters other than to know there are risks in FB, but that is no different to any oil scheme (which is why i react to "nailed on or risk free" type claims!). will go again now before it is suggested i need "old man point scoring therapy"!)