Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
First Calgary Petroleums Ltd LSE:FPL London Ordinary Share CA3193843016 COM SHS NPV
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 175.00p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0 05:00:10
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers - - - - 444.05

First Calgary Petroleums (FPL) Latest News

Real-Time news about First Calgary (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
More First Calgary Petroleums News
First Calgary Petroleums Takeover Rumours

First Calgary Petroleums (FPL) Share Charts

1 Year First Calgary Petroleums Chart

1 Year First Calgary Petroleums Chart

1 Month First Calgary Petroleums Chart

1 Month First Calgary Petroleums Chart

Intraday First Calgary Petroleums Chart

Intraday First Calgary Petroleums Chart

First Calgary Petroleums (FPL) Discussions and Chat

First Calgary Petroleums Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
14/8/201402:55Fantasy Premier League - Join NOW !-
03/3/200922:14FPL - This time the rise is for real!1,007
06/6/200710:24First Calgary - recovery time soon5
23/10/200613:44FPL Charts4,797
27/7/200508:20Sensible comments longs/shorts excl TS/broker13

Add a New Thread

First Calgary Petroleums (FPL) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all First Calgary Petroleums trades in real-time

First Calgary Petroleums (FPL) Top Chat Posts

First Calgary Petroleums Daily Update: First Calgary Petroleums Ltd is listed in the Oil & Gas Producers sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker FPL. The last closing price for First Calgary Petroleums was 175p.
First Calgary Petroleums Ltd has a 4 week average price of - and a 12 week average price of -.
The 1 year high share price is - while the 1 year low share price is currently -.
There are currently 253,744,493 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 0 shares. The market capitalisation of First Calgary Petroleums Ltd is £444,052,862.75.
dorset64: First Calgary Petroleums Ltd. - Re Share Price Increase TSX: FCP AIM: FPL CALGARY, Sept. 3 /CNW/ - First Calgary Petroleums Ltd. (FCP or the Company) advises that the Company has received proposals from third parties relating to the sale of the Company or a significant asset disposal. The Company is in discussions with these parties. FCP is issuing this press release at the request of IIROC on behalf of the TSX in response to recent volatility in its share price and speculation regarding a potential sale of the Company or a significant asset disposal. No agreement has been entered into and accordingly no assurance can be given that these discussions will lead to a binding agreement relating to the sale of the Company or a significant asset disposal. FCP will make no further announcements or communications regarding these proposals until either an agreement has been reached or discussions are terminated without such an agreement being reached. Company Profile First Calgary Petroleums Ltd is an oil and gas company actively engaged in international exploration and development activities in Algeria. The Company's common shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange in Canada (FCP) and on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange in the United Kingdom (FPL). Further information is available on the FCP website:
mister x: UBS Investment Research analyst Memet Kont viewed Monday'sdevelopmentas a positive for First Calgary, rating the company a "buy"and settinga share price target of $7.
captainfatcat: Article found on the PELE bb posted by PP Tapping the well Published date:Monday, March 31, 2008 It's no small feat exploring for oil but striking the black stuff can turn a company into a real cash cow. With such high drilling costs though it takes a smart investor to know when to get out on a high. Tom Sieber refines the business of striking the right oil plays Exploration is perhaps the most romantic and fundamental concept in the history of human experience. It conjures up images of frostbitten, desperate men in the desolate white of the Arctic, Columbus on the deck of ancient ship bound for new worlds, 'one small step for man' as Neil Armstrong descended from Apollo 11 to the surface of our moon. It is unsurprising that the explorers in the oil industry attract a similar mystique. The idea of heading to far flung, frontier and often dangerous parts of the world, and drilling wells which, if successful, can create millions of pounds of value at a stroke, is intoxicating to outside investors and industry professionals alike. What happens though when the necessary cash has been raised, when a rig slot has been secured and the well has been drilled and tested to reveal a significant discovery? Really, it is then that the hard work begins. And when a decision needs to be made about whether now is the right time to sell up and move on. Developing and sustaining a producing oil field is far from a simple business. The long-term costs of drilling, maintenance and ultimately decommissioning are enormous. As an illustration, Tom Hickey, the finance director of Tullow Oil (TLW) estimates that bringing the massive Jubilee field in Ghana on stream will require $4 billion in capital expenditure. In Tullow's case there does seem to be a determination to continue its involvement in the development of the field. As KBC Peel Hunt energy analyst Tony Alves observes: 'They have spent money and time putting a good development team in place so I think they will want to hold on to what they've got.' That's not to say they wouldn't attract or couldn't be tempted by a bid – the sheer scale of the discovery means it would be on the radar for any of the majors or the national oil companies, particularly in China. As it is, not every E&P company on the market has a £4.5 billion market valuation and cash flow of nearly £500 million. In fact very few E&P companies have the means to develop something of even a fraction of that scale on their own. The key to any oil company's success is obviously intrinsically linked to the quality of its assets but an oil and gas project will not necessarily remain in the same hands throughout the course of its life. Often companies will work on an asset at different stages of the value creation chain and understanding where the next asset trade might happen, whether through the acquisition of an entire company, a farm-out agreement or a simple sale of specific assets can be lucrative to an investor. The rising costs and lack of cash, particularly among explorers on the junior market, have led many to predict large scale consolidation in the sector. For at least the last two years most observers have anticipated it, but as yet it hasn't happened and any activity has been relatively isolated. Of course there would be no point in simply putting two struggling companies together and perhaps this is why the sector has failed to ignite. Nigel Burton, finance director of Granby Oil & Gas (GOIL:AIM), which last week accepted an offer from the Canadian firm Silverstone Energy, says: 'There is no value in putting two small, underfunded dogs together and there aren't that many bidders around that would consider what some of these guys have to be material.' Burton says that Granby's decision to do the deal with Silverstone, for a cash offer of 63.45p per share (a premium of approximately 30.8%) was in part informed by spiralling costs on its Tristan NW development in the North Sea: 'We didn't just rush into someone's arms because of the overspend on Tristam, we have been actively engaged in the process of finding a partner since November, but I would be lying if I said it wasn't in our thoughts.' Burton also explains that management had felt for some time that they needed to do a deal in order to increase in size – so they could reach the level needed to cope in the current working environment. 'What has changed since 2004-2005 is the costs. A well that cost a few million to drill in 2005 could now cost closer to ten million. This has made it very difficult for smaller companies.' A few barrels more For the moment the costs of development, and exploration, show no signs of abating. In fact with the price of oil topping $110 a barrel the opposite is true. Something that caused the CEO of Hardy Oil & Gas (HDY), Sastry Karra to observe recently that his margins were better at $60 than at $100. 'It is not good news for anybody', was his assessment of the current oil price. In that context it should come as no surprise that companies frequently seek to exit their assets or farm-out their interests when development becomes the focus. Tony Alves says: 'The better quality class of explorer understands how challenging it is to develop an oil field – it is no walk in the park. 'When they have managed to create sufficient value through successful exploration, they can start to think about leaving something there for the next person – who will take on a different stage of value creation. It is all about finding the right stage at which to exit.' There is an oil industry adage that exploration for hydrocarbons always loses money, while production of hydrocarbons always makes money. But the way companies explore has progressed significantly in recent years and the development of 3D seismic technology has helped companies to gain a better understanding of the sub-surface and thus reduce the technical risks attached to projects. This means that for many companies there are better ways of creating value than remaining a silent partner to a much bigger operator on a major development project. Selling these assets can provide the cash needed to fund exploration in a new province. Also, when investors buy a stake in an exploration-focused company they do so with prospect of a game changing discovery in mind – management may feel it has a responsibility to stay true to the story it has been selling. Another important reason that an exploration-focused oil and gas firm might head for the exit door when it comes to fully developing an asset simply comes down to expertise. In a restaurant you would not expect your cook to serve the food, so why expect the company that has found the hydrocarbons to then necessarily go on and produce them. The type of financing needed for development differs greatly from that required in exploration and the profile of workforce is different as well. Tim Bushell, CEO of Falkland Oil & Gas (FOGL:AIM), says: 'You would have to change the way the company is financed and the people involved. Would it make sense to move into the development stage when shareholders are looking for exploration success? It could be an obvious point to return value by exiting and then using the team to do the whole thing again somewhere else.' Beyond the relative merits of exploration versus long-term development there is a wider truth in the oil industry that, just as you or I used to collect and swap football stickers in the playground, the oil and gas E&Ps will trade their assets. Sometimes this means clearing out the dead wood to focus on the jewel in the crown. This is relevant when talking about SOCO International (SIA) for example – which recently disposed of its assets in the Yemen in order to concentrate on its exploration portfolio in Vietnam. Further up the scale, the North Sea saw many of the majors exit because the rewards on offer in such a mature basin are marginal to them. A number of smaller companies for whom this is not the case have since taken its place and found that the scale of the discoveries on offer are very much material. If one company doesn't want to develop an asset it is fair to ask why another would. There is no sense in which larger oil companies act out of benevolence, willing to dip into deep pockets to help out the smaller firms on the market. However, there is a good reason why they would be interested in bringing a viable discovery into production. First because development work fits their profile much more closely. They have the manpower, the experience and the resources to do it effectively. And secondly because, particularly among the majors, reserves replenishment has become such an important issue. No reservations In a world where conventional reserves of oil and gas are becoming ever harder to come by and where the national oil companies are very much in the ascendancy – companies will pay a high price in order to secure access to substantial reserves. As Craig Howie, analyst at Blue Oar Securities, says: 'The big oil companies have deep pockets and face reserve replenishment issues. Some of the big US oil companies have been building war chests in order to address this.' This is not a new development, witness Royal Dutch Shell's (RDSB) acquisition of Enterprise Oil in 2002 or ENI's takeover of Lasmo two years earlier. Both were motivated by a need to add to a rapidly dwindling reserve base. Shell's current position is now even more desperate. The company faces an increasing struggle to ensure that the amount of new reserves being booked keep pace with the amount of oil and gas being pumped. Even lower down the food-chain there is concern about this issue. Talking following the release of full-year results recently JKX Oil & Gas (JKX) CEO Dr Paul Davies explained that the company was looking to add to is reserve base through acquisitions. If a firm attracts, or encourages a bid on the basis of an asset the benefits to an investor are obvious – assuming any resulting bid is at a premium to the company's share price. Similarly if an asset is sold its value is crystalised. However, even attracting a farm-in partner can provide a boost to a share price. Falkland Oil & Gas rocketed after it announced it was in talks about a farm-in agreement with 'major resources company' (eventually revealed as BHP Billiton (BLT)) last July – up more than 50% in the course of a single day. Although, interestingly, when the details were confirmed that old adage about buying on the rumour selling on the fact came to mind, as the stock retreated. When fellow Falklands explorer Desire Petroleum (DES:AIM) announced earlier this month that it too was in talks with an 'unnamed partner' it also saw its shares take off. Of course the Falkland Islands are something of a special case. For quite some time the companies looking for oil there were dismissed, not unfairly, on the basis that they would never be able to get a rig to the region. The mobilisation costs alone were potentially astronomic, perhaps as much as £30 million and that supposed that a rig contractor could be persuaded to make the journey to the south Atlantic in a tight rig market and with plenty of work available in less remote regions. The arrival of BHP Billiton has made drilling far more likely – in fact the company has entered into a commitment to drill two wells by 2010 and Falkland Oil hopes that some drilling will take place next year. There is another reason why a farm-in attracts buyers. Effectively it serves as a seal of approval on the company's assets – particularly if the partner is someone of the profile of BHP Billiton. If a firm with that level of credibility is prepared to invest it inevitably boosts confidence in the prospects of eventual success. Ultimately, as discussed above, if you can judge the quality of a company's assets you can judge the quality of the company. Obviously having a good management team helps, as does a good track record and strong financial backing. But at the end of the day what really matters is the oil or gas in the ground – for a number of firms a farm-out, at one end of the scale, or a takeover, at the other, can be a good way of realising value. And in order to tap into the potential excitement generated by asset trading we have sought to identify companies which have large equity positions in projects attractive enough to snare a bidder or attract farm-in interest. THE COST OF DEVELOPING AN OILFIELD Oil field costs have doubled in the last three years according to a report from Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) in Massachusetts. According to James Burkhad, head of the global oil group at CERA: 'Shortages of equipment and personnel are dramatically raising the cost of developing an oil field.' These shortages are largely as a result of the under investment in the industry in the late 1990s when the current preoccupation with peak oil seemed a long way away. An interesting example of the effect of rising capital costs can be seen at the massive Kashagan oil field in Kazakhstan. Despite the project being driven by ENI along with a number of other western oil majors, the Kazakh suspended operations last year after becoming frustrated over cost overruns and start up delays. The overall cost estimate for the development has increased from $57 billion to $135 billion and while first output had been projected for 2005 it is not now expected until 2011 at the earliest. The companies involved were eventually forced to agree to a settlement and sell some of their interest to the Kazakh state oil company, KazMunaiGaz (KMG).
chestnuts: Captain So it looks like AB and co ie the 3 muskateers are pawns of Waterford, and have been a big contribute to FPL so why is the share price so low i can't believe its just the fault of the CEO Andersons, some thing else is cooking, i bet some body is shorting this just like what happened to EEN down to 33p.
chestnuts: capt I agree, why should it go their, what will cause this, but who would have thought it would drop to $2, but if you look a bit deeper ok they say they have these reserves and yes they have had an independent specialist confirm this, They have no debt They say they won,t devalue the share holding they have $250m ish in the bank They need $1billion to do the pipework and build the fascilities So they need $750m. Also their is 30 months of wait, with out 1 drop of production i think this will not help the share price people can put their money else where for a better return for the time being. Also this fall out with major share holders and the board, this is not good, i don't know why or what the reason is for this but, even if they do get rid of the board will the new board get production any quicker,? All this i believe could push the share price down, i do have some dates i have worked out that the share price could fall.
captainfatcat: In 2005 when the share price was above £10 and FPL was the darling of the AIM market it was one of only four companies listed on AIM with a market Cap of over 1 Million pounds! The effect of the dilutions is clearly seen at £2 the MC is 500M an share price of £4 would see the market cap once again above that magic 1 Billion mark.
omellete: Sat - The JV in the background is likely to be driving the share price here IMHO.
w r: thanks so much, could you tell me if this IC article is still valid: Ord price: 488p Market value: £1.08bn Touch: 470-510p 23 June 2006 FIRST CALGARY PETROLEUMS (FPL) First Calgary has drilled 13 oil and gas wells so far on its Algerian Menzel Ledjmet (MLE) block 405B, and struck gas and/or condensate every time - an unprecedented rate of success. So, last year, the company put itself up for sale as a quick way for shareholders to benefit from its good fortune. Unfortunately, despite rising energy prices, there were no buyers - partly because there was little work done on commercialising the drilling successes, and partly because the share price shot ahead to over £10. Negotiations with Repsol over a joint venture soon followed, but they also came to nothing. So, this year, First Calgary has started again, with additional senior management and a three-rig drilling programme. It has also moved from the MLE south-east portion of the block to drill exploration wells in the top left-hand side of the block and in the south. In April, the company announced a successful appraisal well at LES-3 in the south and, interestingly, in a new oil zone. This year, 14 wells could be drilled on 405b (from three in 2005). The rush to drill is because a five-year exploration permit ends this December, after which First Calgary has to agree which portions of the block to keep and which to hand back. Its other Algerian interest is block 406a, to the north. It can be termed a sideshow as most of the acreage has been relinquished. Drilling was completed on well ZCH-2 this April, but the reservoir discovered was small and separate from a more successful well drilled nearby. The MLE field produces both dry gas and condensate, so its development will necessitate building a 150km pipeline for the dry gas, and a shorter one for the condensate to link in with other existing pipelines. The total construction cost of developing the oil and gas field could be $860m (£467m), of which the Algerian state oil company, Sonatrach, will contribute a quarter for a 25 per cent stake. MLE looks good, so falling oil prices may present a buying opportunity.
horsepower: Posted by 'Chicago' On Stockhouse BB... At today's price of US$55 (barrels of oil equivalent), FCP is now at least 42% undervalued and thus grossly oversold. This posting sets forth how this figure is calculated from independent DeGolyer & MacNaughton analysis. Except where stated, all figures below are in C$. If you want to convert any of these C$ figures to US$, multiply by 0.839. [For D&M data see ] Friday's share price: C$6.30 Actual share value: C$10.94 (assumes current US$55/boe) Actual share value: C$8.06 (assumes US$40.47/boe in Dec 31 2004 D&M report) CONCLUSION: At today's level of US$55/boe, FCP's share price as of Friday is 42% undervalued. Even if the price of oil/gas dropped back to the $40.47 figure used by D&M at the end of 2004 (highly unlikely), FCP's current share price is still 22% undervalued. If the 2006 scheduled and fully funded appraisal drilling manages to double the 2P figure (as Anderson projects it will), then the net after-tax and discounted (8%) value per share goes to C$21.90 or 3.48 times Friday's stock price. Even if FCP's drilling falls short and only increases 2P by 50%, the share value would still rise to C$16.41 or 2.6 times Friday's level. METHODOLOGY: Here's the straightforward method used to arrive at these figures. You will recall that the March 31 2005 D&M report was an update of the Dec 31 2004 report and involved a minor downward adjustment in reserves estimates (all other parameters were constant). The calculations in the March 2005 update still used the US$40.47/boe used in the Dec 2004 report. The March 2005 updated D&M report states that based on 2P figures (which are not in dispute and have not changed), the "Future Net Revenue and Present Value (after tax) Using Constant Prices and discounted at 8%" is: US$1.507 billion (remember, that's using US$40.47/boe), which we divide by .839 to get a Canadian equivalent of C$1.796 billion. Assuming no Sonatrach extensions and thus a loss of Yacoub, we must reduce that figure by 10% because the latest NR pointed out that Yacoub accounted for about 10% of the values calculated by D&M. So, C$1.796 billion minus 10% = C$1.617 billion. Onc again, remember that this figure was arrived at using D&M's composite oil-gas price of US$40.47/boe. To get a better idea of FCP's 2P valuation today, we must factor in the 35.9% increase in oil-gas prices to US$55/boe today. So, C$1.617 plus 35.9% equals C$2.198, which when divided by total shares outstanding (200.7 million), equals C$10.94 per share. Friday's share price of C$6.30 is 58% of that value, and thus FCP's share price on Friday, based on identical parameters used by D&M at 2P levels as of March 2005, is 42% undervalued according to the best and most objective calculations available. If we do the exact same calculation using the US$40.47/boe figure (which no one does, but heck, let's be ultra-conservative), FCP is still 22% undervalued. Keep in mind that D&M did these calculations based on all the parameters and costs built into the contracts FCP has with Sonatrach, including development costs, how those are borne, and how those are recouped out of the profit splits, etc.. By the way, if you want to be really comprehensive about it, FCP has cash in the bank of about C$143 million, which is an additional C$.70 per share, which if added to C$10.94 equals C$11.64 per share, which means FCP is actually 46% undervalued instead of 42%. But that's just being nitpicky. The bottomline fact is this -- FCP is grossly oversold, and if someone buys FCP shares at Friday's closing price, they stand to see a value increase by mid- to late-summer 2006 of between 2.6 and 3.5 times the capital they invested, depending on how much the drilling campaign adds to the current 2P figures. Why is FCP undervalued to the tune of 42%? I believe it is a "sentiment" penalty, NOT a result of valuation calculations of FCP's worth based on independently estimated 2P data as of the last D&M report announced on March 31 2005 (which is what I just provided above). In short, being oversold by 42% represents an expression of no-confidence in FCP's management. The company has done nothing but stumble and fumble since the auction meltdown, then they had to do a new PP and dilute shares, then they couldn't get rigs, then they hit a duster as soon as they started drilling again, then they said they were soon announcing the hiring of a development and production team but are having trouble, and finally they got in time trouble on Yacoub because they stopped drilling and have probably lost a block (on which they drilled several wells and did quite a lot of 2D and 3D seismic, all down the drain). Let's face it, this is D- performance. That said, here's why an investor who can see past the sentiment issue would be smart to BUY and/or HOLD: because concrete results are about to replace an accumulation of negative sentiment. FCP has the rigs and is fully funded to mount an aggressive appraisal drilling campaign on Ledjmet (where they hit every single exploratory and step-out well they drilled). They're going back to fill in some of the broad areas inbetween their existing wells, which will move 3P numbers into the 2P column. This drilling is going to result in an accelerated output of news releases announcing gushers (high pressure gas, the lightest sweet crude, and condensate -- remember those days back when we were drilling Ledjmet?). Ledjmet is legit and has the goods -- no one disputes that. One final point regarding the development plan. This is a tough one for FCP. On the one hand, they need to have a good development team in place so they cannot be pushed around by a potential buyer (who will bid lower if they sense FCP has no plan or capacity to go it alone). On the other hand, everyone knows that once FCP firms up its 2P numbers, it is going to be bought out. How can you credibly hire good development and production people if they think they've only got 8-12 months to work before a buyer comes in and gobbles up the company? And yet not hiring a good development team leaves FCP vulnerable to a cut-throat suitor, and makes Sonatrach think that maybe the block should be in the hands of someone else. FCP is in absolutely ZERO contract danger on Ledjmet. But still, one wants to put forward the most credible posture one can to the Algerians -- particularly in light of the grossly incompetent performance FCP's management has delivered during the past 12 months.
aerotus: I have no worries about FPL share price. It is already below the NAV of the 2P reserves. It really cannot get any lower. This latest fall has just been the result of the general trend down in oil stocks. november will bring drilling results at we will be back above $10 before we know it.
First Calgary Petroleums share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:35 V: D:20160930 06:43:52