We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Soco International Plc | LSE:SIA | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B572ZV91 | ORD 5P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 61.80 | 61.90 | 62.40 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
01/3/2017 10:06 | redartbmudd, I think history has shown that the partners in the joc, don't see spending to maximise production quiet the same way as soco and it's shareholders. An army only marches at the speed of the slowest soldier, to imagine that they are daft or wrong, is just foolish. Things will happen at the speed that the Vietnamese agree to, they have no rush to get the oil out of the ground before a licence runs out. you'll recall that when tgt started up, oil prices were high, and they decided we'd produce at 25k, rather than the 55k which the fpso could handle, (before talisman started production). They comprendee just fine, and at the end of the licence they keep what's left, so there's less rush on their part. K | kenobi | |
01/3/2017 00:50 | kenobi,Whatever is provided for in the FFDP will be a commitment. I would be amazed if it didn't address the option. | emptyend | |
28/2/2017 22:12 | Noee spendee, noee oilee? Doee theyee comprendee? | redartbmud | |
28/2/2017 14:46 | I understand that the break in the fpso contract is at the end of 2018, so that sounds like there's time to make alternative arrangements, though with the way planning is at the joc, it may be difficult to get approval for spend outside the usual once a year budget cycle. K | kenobi | |
28/2/2017 14:28 | Big meeting of the Khánh Hòa Provincial Committee tonight. Top man has a room overlooking Block 125. Would be nice to get that signed at last..... | emptyend | |
28/2/2017 13:45 | Thanks, Mrwaite. :-) I wish you well with Soco. Hopefully they drill Blocks 125/6 and you hit the jackpot. Never say 'no'; it's not impossible for me to buy Soco again - though I won't consider buying without more clarity - too risky atm, as I see it. Me elsewhere? Yes, my latest buying has been taking up rights in RPC and bought some more RPC ex-rights this morning ~ 907p. Fwiw, I think it will reach 1300p-ish within two years and I expect it to enter the FTSE100 in that timescale too. No advice intended. Good luck. | ed 123 | |
28/2/2017 13:31 | Thanks Ed, My view right now is that the risk/reward makes sense for me at the present share price. I have added a few more sub 140p. I've been in here for 17 years and Soco has served me very well, so I do look at the Company differently to most. My major recent investment has been in another oil explo company, but I have a feeling its existence will be somewhat shorter than Soco's. I'm already pretty sure that by the time that co's end comes it will have served me well. You don't sound like a buyer here irrespective of the price, so I wish you well elsewhere. | mrwaite | |
28/2/2017 13:17 | Hi Mrwaite. Yes, I am aware of that but, even with that work, the company estimates only 8,000 to 9,000 boepd for 2017. What a shame that the Company did not give any further guidance with the FFDP rns! Are they aiming for, say, a 50% increase in oil production once all the new work is completed? Or, will all the new work only keep output at its present level? Surely they know? Why not tell their shareholders? I think we can all see how Soco got into this position. Cashflow from steady production in Vietnam was to have funded the exploration programmes in various parts of Africa. If even one had been successful then that could have become the new main income source and the Vietnam assets might even have been sold off. However, all the African stuff failed (for various reasons). Even the Lidongo discovery appears to be not commercially viable (as things stand). Easy with hindsight of course, but as the African ventures were going wrong, that was the time to sell Soco shares. The mistake some made was to see 'good' in some way even though news was obviously bad. That led those people to hold onto the shares - a mistake. And going forward? Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Production uncertainty beyond 2017, expenditure on new exploration offshore Vietnam - chance of success 10%? I don't see a reason to buy Soco shares at this point in time. | ed 123 | |
28/2/2017 12:39 | Ed, are you taking account of this work, which was started before the workplan agreed but is now well underway: "The TGT 2016 development drilling programme commenced in late 2016, the first on TGT since early 2015. The infill wells, the TGT-27PST1 and TGT-28P, were "batch drilled". The first well was spudded on 6 November 2016 by the PetroVietnam Drilling PVD-6 jack-up rig on the H4-Well Head Platform (“WHP”) in the central area of the TGT Field. Both wells encountered hydrocarbons throughout both the Miocene and Oligocene reservoir horizons, and are currently being analysed following the execution of the initial perforation programme. The TGT partners have agreed to add a further two infill wells on the southern H5-WHP following the completion of these wells, and delivery of long lead items. The TGT-14X well into the H5 South fault block will also be drilled as part of the programme." | mrwaite | |
28/2/2017 12:09 | Hi K, Talisman are entitled to 15k, I'm not sure if they use it all, they weren't at one time, and I can find no statements about current HST/HSD output. My understanding is much the same as yours. The new liquid processing on the platform will handle of a lot of the water, so the FPSO will receive a higher proportion of HCs, and whatever else. There is no immediate change to total oil processing capacity, though clearly avoiding being constrained by water is a step forward and would allow production above current. I also understand that discussions about the FPSO continue. There may be possible changes there in due course, though clearly nothing planned. Peter | greyingsurfer | |
28/2/2017 11:46 | Thanks for your thoughts Ed and Kenobi. These are precisely why I sold my shares last month before the drop in value. Why management cannot provide a straight forward update that gives us the facts is beyond me. I can only worry that they have lost control of the situation altogether. We need a statement from management to clarify the situation. Just to clarify my position, I have been a long term investor in Soco since 2004. I have sold out at a substantial loss, but as I am preparing to draw my pension, I could not risk the chance of the worst thing happening! | richalert | |
28/2/2017 11:27 | Does anyone recall what the initial capacity of the fpso ? I recall the oil capacity was 55k, and I think total capaity of 120k, hxxps://www.socointe despite talk like the above of getting oil capacity upto 70k this didn't happen, perhaps because we were overtaken by events and for the last few years the bottle neck has been water not oil. The new equipment of which we're told. "and the addition of new processing equipment to be installed on the H1-WHP. The processing equipment will be designed to handle 90,000 barrels of liquid per day with specific water handling capacity of up to 65,000 barrels of water per day." Now this is potentially very interesting depending what exactly this means. obviously if the fpso, is waterbound, this means that a lot less water gets to the fpso, but presumably the oil has to go to the fpso too ? the fpso removes gases from the oil too, there's no mention of that in the brief announcement, but even if all it means is that the oil capacity can get back to 55k, which in of itself would be great, but I wonder if that then puts back on the table the option to increase fpso oil capacity to around 70k ? for whatever reason, they haven't been able to agree this in the past, perhaps the reason was that the partners have different ideas about how to run the system, including not doing shutoffs and running the wells to virtual exhaustion. If that's the case then converting more liquids capacity to oil, would have been folly, as it would have reduced oil production. Another thought is I wonder what is happening with the talisman production, because I've just remembered that of the 55k, I think 10k, was reserved for them was it not ? For years we thought this would end soon, I wonder how much of this they are now using ? It's a shame we haven't been able to buy that production at a good price and unify the production/fpso, and optimise for the whole field. K | kenobi | |
28/2/2017 11:08 | Hi PhatProfit and Mr Angry. I hope it goes well for you - no predictions from me, though. On that subject some might recall I had predicted that the shareprice might follow previous patterns and bottom at about 135p. Ed 123 View Profile View Posts View Threads 18 Jan '17 - 15:36 - 19070 of 19224 1 0 Edit While things are quiet, any guesses as to how low this wave of Soco's share price will go? It's dipped from about 162p to about 150p so far. I'll call the bottom of this wave at 135p. Bets are off of course, if that Full Field Development Plan gets approved.... I wrote that last quoted sentence thinking that a good FFDP announcement would result in a bounce. What we got in the 16 February rns was almost useless in terms of helping (would be) investors to value Soco. From the 16 Feb rns, Up to 18 additional wells ... That could be any number from zero to 18. How does that help? Then there's uncertainty in what the total fluid handling capacity will be after the new equipment is installed, and when that might happen. Some were going to contact Soco and find out more. And the answer is .......? I don't recall anyone coming back here with the answer, so am I to assume they were either given no clarification or didn't like the clarification they did get? Would those who contacted Soco after the FFDP rns care to come back here and let the rest know what was said? In terms of guidance, there was no further update on 16 February. Therefore the guidance of 2 February 2017 remains the latest. Production guidance for full year 2017 is 8,000 to 9,000 boepd. Despite the fall to the 135p area Soco's prospects are not good enough/not clear enough to persuade me to invest. | ed 123 | |
28/2/2017 10:21 | I've been thinking much the same so now I'm in SMALL ! | mr angry | |
28/2/2017 10:06 | Finally after much contemplation, I've decided the time has come to start snapping up these pebbles.I'm in, BIGP | phatprofit | |
20/2/2017 03:24 | I notice that a key APEC meeting is being held in Nha Trang over the next 10 days:https://www.ape | emptyend | |
17/2/2017 10:38 | Does this some of the reserves can be written back or does something else need to happen first? | stupidboy | |
17/2/2017 00:00 | To confirm the kenobi/greyingsurfer exchange above there was certainly some sort of extension option on the FPSO (in 2017 I think) but the exact nature of it is unclear to me. Perhaps someone would like to enquire? You'll get a quicker answer than if I do it at present.It does indeed say NEW, and it's going to be on the platform, not the FPSO, where the existing equipment is (which currently has higher capacity). So it must be intended in some way to work in addition to. It they were replacing it with a lower capacity then they wouldn't also be planning to drill 18 new wells!I would certainly expect it to be incremental. Plus the possibility that a shut-down on one wouldn't shut down everything. Add that to the enquiry? | emptyend | |
16/2/2017 18:40 | It certainly wouldn't be good business practice to leave things until production became jeopardized or they were held over a barrel by the supplier. On that basis, we should expect that the matter is in hand within the business plan. | redartbmud | |
16/2/2017 17:35 | Yes I recall the discussions about pipelines, I think it's unlikely that a pipeline could be agreed with the partners. If they couldn't be persuaded when the oil price was, 120 and the fpso maxed out, seems unlikely they'll go for it now, however the expiry or option not to renew the lease (whichever it is), is this year, the company will have known about it, and perhaps moves have been going on to resolve this issue ? Although, things seem to have been on ice at the joc for the last year or two. K | kenobi | |
16/2/2017 16:52 | Kenobi,Yes all of those are possible. As I'm sure you remember an option discussed a few years ago was to get rid of the FPSO when the lease expired and pipe to Bach Ho, where there's spare capacity. I think it's been suggested since that is unlikely, but who knows- certainly not you or me!However, while I think your 1a and 1b might well be part of the answer, if we know the FPSO lease is up for renewal, and the owners have not been helpful in terms of liquid handling capacity, then not renewing the existing FPSO lease might be something that would at least be considered. Though if it expires this year the timescales are probably such that it's not an option.Peter | greyingsurfer | |
16/2/2017 15:28 | Peter, Last year we had SOCO telling us that the partners did not want to do shutoffs and that the fpso was not a bottle neck due to the amount of water rather than oil. Could it be that, 1) adding water removing capacity on the platform, is better than on the fpso, because a) it's cheaper, b) it doesn't interupt fpso operation, c) there are other plans for the fpso and they don't want to spend money on it (or can't get agreement?) Isn't it correct that it's just an option that comes up in 2017 for the fpso ? we have discussed here the possibility of replacing the fpso at that point with a higher capacity one. Whether moves are under way remains to be seen, I guess at this point it would be commercially sensitive ? Disappointing not to see a reaction from the market today, K | kenobi | |
16/2/2017 13:57 | That might go a long way to explaining why they are putting the extra capacity on the platform, not the FPSO! Peter | greyingsurfer | |
16/2/2017 13:44 | Peter,IIRC the lease expiry was 2017. I have the impression they haven't been very helpful.rgds | emptyend | |
16/2/2017 11:43 | Hi StepOne - is it possible to over cynical where these things are concerned? (Probably) It does indeed say NEW, and it's going to be on the platform, not the FPSO, where the existing equipment is (which currently has higher capacity). So it must be intended in some way to work in addition to. It they were replacing it with a lower capacity then they wouldn't also be planning to drill 18 new wells! It's an interesting question as to why it's being put on the platform not the FPSO. As old lags will know they've spent years looking at ways of getting agreement about upgrading the FPSO equipment. One of the issues was always getting agreement from the FPSO owners. Does this mean they've failed to get agreement there? Or perhaps more interestingly that they couldn't get enough additional capacity on the FPSO? An even more interesting idea would be that they can see the end of the existing FPSO lease approaching (can anyone remember when - I don't have time to look it up), and they have something else in mind than just renewing when that happens - so don't want to spend a lot of capex on the FPSO. As K says - it's a bit vague at present - hopefully we'll get some details filled in before too long. And there's more news due in the pipeline too, of course. Great to see the market standing in open jawed amazement at how good today's announcement is! Peter | greyingsurfer |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions