Serica Energy Share Discussion Threads

[dunderheed] 27/3/2018 15:23

Oh dear Nigel how can you compare the three?
They are completely out of league with regard to comparable mgt. Lol.

[nigelpm] 27/3/2018 15:19

Loaded up some more.

Like SIA and OPHR this is right in bargain territory.

[oilretire] 27/3/2018 15:17

Nowt to do with Columbus really, but on the subject of Chrysaor, they've done a couple of deals over the last few days.

[fardels bear] 27/3/2018 15:11

Oh well, there's nowt in the share price for Columbus so whichever way it happens and with whatever percentage of equity it'll be a nice bonus when it does eventually get developed.

[dunderheed] 27/3/2018 15:00

Sorry or from 'my' (lol) perspective this is the most obvious route assuming the high condensate content of Columbus could 'help' with the waxing issues?
I've taken a very simplistic viewpoint on that though of course and you're right if this cant be solved then other routes do need to be looked at more 'seriously'. Best of luck all!

[fanshaw] 27/3/2018 14:58

chrysaor have done nothing of note since becoming owners of Shells North Sea
operations except having to deal with bursting pipe delays and stuck Pigs.
This would be good PR for them and Govts oil and Gas body plus profitable
and ensuring longer life for Lomond.

[oilretire] 27/3/2018 14:54

lol?? Didn't think it was that ludicrous? :-)

We'll see.......

Very happy if it went elsewhere. OK it's mega delayed, but if it had been tied back to Lomond as originally planned in 2014 or whenever it was supposed to be, it would be suffering the same fate as Erskine.....

[dunderheed] 27/3/2018 14:37

6274 lol obviously but that is probably best route (on what we know now?)

[oilretire] 27/3/2018 14:32

Chrysaor won't be a logical partner if it's tied back elsewhere.....

[dunderheed] 27/3/2018 14:30

FB you're not talking about eog the 'Irish pioneers' r u, as opposed to eog resources?

[dunderheed] 27/3/2018 14:29

I personally think Eog resources would not be interested in continuing Columbus investment and likely to want out, rather than in?
I'd prefer sqz got the partner stuff then could approach Chrys about a (whatever) 50 50 deal rather than 'double think' what Chrys are up to ie sqz be in change of their own destiny.

[fardels bear] 27/3/2018 14:14

I can't see that happening.. EOG isn't for sale..

[fanshaw] 27/3/2018 13:54

Possible Scenario Crysaor takes out Endeavour and Eog
and developes Columbus 50/50 solves a lot problems.

[flyinghorse1] 27/3/2018 11:52

In general I think its positive overall re columbus-Its been unitised, the OGA (i like to think) will have more teeth when it comes to ICOP. Crysaor being EV/Lomond operators ought to be good.

The main issues would appear to be partners-one with no cash and other with the asset not on their public radar despite owning 25%.

There may be sole risking provisions in the licence agreement/contracts that allow Serica to forge ahead regardless. I believe EOG resources are pretty robust, but the project would have to compete for capital over their whole portfolio.

Taking out EOG resources 25% and sole risking Endeavour would be a possibility.

[dunderheed] 27/3/2018 11:40

Or simply bg not interested in the marginal returns this project would give them - more likely?

[fardels bear] 27/3/2018 11:18

Those of use who lived through it remember it as BG International dragging its feet as it had overspent OPEX elsewhere.. rather than infrastructure per se..

[flyinghorse1] 27/3/2018 11:15

FB -Your link again suggests its infrastructure access (which is what I was suggesting)and they specifically mention using ICOP via OGA.

[dunderheed] 27/3/2018 11:14

It's not that easy guys the sea bed around there us bloody littered with all sorts. I think there was cabkingvfrom a wind farm that had 'access rights' etc as well which probably further complicated issues? Best of luck all.

[flyinghorse1] 27/3/2018 11:08

FB--It was EOG resources that I looked at in the states(shale player). They also have interests in Trinidad and East Irish sea. I should have said resources.
I did by chance come across the BG link you sent when hunting to see if EOG Resources was the same as EOG resources United Kingdon LTD (it seems to be a sub company of EOG)

EOG resources website shows just the East Irish sea and annual report (2017) I did not find anything.
hxxp://www.eogresources.com/operations/division_operations.html

This is what caught my attention re the long time span for Columbus development and the obstinate majors making tiebacks difficult (from personal experience).
hxxps://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/67812/serica_submits_columbus_field_development_plan/

[fardels bear] 27/3/2018 10:22

@flyinghorse

The Columbus problems were largely caused by BG International. This has taken some years to sort:



Since you can't find anything about Columbus on EOG website can I draw your attention to the fact that this partner is EOG Resources and NOT Europa Oil and Gas as I suspect you may have assumed.

[sawney] 27/3/2018 07:28

Interesting they are doing a results conference call (first time...??)...must have quite a bit to talk about...

[flyinghorse1] 27/3/2018 03:33

Re Columbus, I was surprised how long Serica have been trying to develop this asset (FDP 2007!), and at times when oil/gas prices were robust. It suggests 3rd party infrastructure issues as being the main problem. I suspect with Chrysaor at Lomond they may fare better.
I also saw on the Serica website that as well as Endeavor as partners they say EOG has 25%. I looked at the EOG Annual report and they dont even mention it so perhaps 2 disinterested partners. (or a mistake on website)

I suspect if Endeavor bail the equity split(of the 25%) will be pro-rata Serica's and EOG's current holding.

[fardels bear] 26/3/2018 23:23

I wasn't talking about the share price we all know that values all the assets at nada. I meant what is the true discounted NAV of Columbus to SQZ?