Jadestone Energy Share Discussion Threads

[mount teide] 20/1/2020 14:27

Black carbon is the sooty black material emitted from gas and diesel engines, coal-fired power plants, and other sources that burn fossil fuel. It comprises a significant portion of particulate matter or PM, which is an air pollutant.

A recent submission by Finland and Germany to the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) sub-committee includes the findings of a recent report which are said to ‘clearly indicate’ that new IMO 2020-compliant 0.50% sulphur fuel contain high aromatic compound levels, which can directly impact on black carbon (BC) emissions.

A comparison was made between the BC emissions of 0.50% LSFO (sample mixtures were from refinery streams most likely to be used in 2020), HSFO and MGO using varying engine ratings on a test bed.

The various 0.50% refinery produced fuel Oils showed no reduction in BC emissions compared to HSFO - the highest BC emissions of the testing were produced at 75% and 25% engine loads by the refinery produced LSFO.

Source: BunkerSpot

LSFO produced by blending heavy sweet crude and light sweet crude would be expected to generate a BC result almost identical to HSFO.

[mount teide] 20/1/2020 10:46

The benefits of owning and operating natural resource assets in business friendly, lowly taxed and low political risk jurisdictions strongly reinforced in risk consultancy Verisk Maplecroft’s latest quarterly civil unrest index.

Global Civil Unrest Index Soars in 2019:

'According to risk consultancy Verisk Maplecroft’s quarterly civil unrest index, released last week the Natural resource industry will have to get ready to deal with the increasing threat from civil unrest, following last year’s succession of dramatic — and in several cases unforeseen — social explosions in almost 50 countries, including highly popular mining jurisdictions such as Chile, Mali, Guinea, Congo and Zimbabwe.

The experts foresee as many as 75 countries having to deal with soaring public rage over a variety of topics, including economic inequality and political roguery during the next six months.

The turmoil is expected to linger beyond 2020, as most nations experiencing ongoing bursts of public discontent lack the basic tools and ability to handle them.

Other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Chile, which saw the greatest increases in risk over the last year, are unlikely to improve over the next two years, Verisk Maplecroft’s predicts.

As a result, the number of extremely risky countries in the Civil Unrest Index jumped by 66.7%; from 12 in 2019 to 20 by early 2020.

An ‘extreme risk’ rating in the index, which measures the risks to business, reflects the highest possible threat of transport disruption, damage to company assets and physical risks to employees from violent unrest. Most sectors, ranging across mining, energy, tourism, retail and financial services, have felt the impacts over the past year.

The resulting disruption to business, national economies and investment worldwide has totalled in the billions of US dollars, the consultancy says, citing Chile as an example. The first month of unrest in the copper-rich country caused an estimated $4.6 billion worth of infrastructure damage, and cost the Chilean economy around $3 billion, or 1.1% of its GDP, Verisk Maplecroft notes.

With protests continuing to rage across the globe, the consultancy expects both the intensity of civil unrest, as well as the total number of countries experiencing disruption, to rise over the coming year.'

[fardels bear] 19/1/2020 18:26

It certainly is coming together splendidly.

[mount teide] 19/1/2020 18:16

FB - depends where you think the value of the business will be in 2 years time!

I've averaged up on each of the pullbacks following the Aug 2018 London IPO, on the strength of the rapid improvement in the investment case:

And what an 18 months of shareholder value improvement its been:

Production up 525% from 3.2k bopd to circa 20.0k bopd

Operating cash flow up 1,400% from circa $20m to estimated $300m (Inc Maari)

Net Debt down from circa $120m to negative net debt

OPEX reduced from circa $40/bbl to circa $20/bbl and remains on a declining trend

Increased 2P NAV 825% from $80m to $740m(£1.25/share inc Maari)

Increased 2P Reserves 241% from 16.6 to 56.7 mmbbls /(to 86.9 mmbbls on sanction of Vietnam)

Bought 40.5 mmbbls of Montara & Maari P2 for $82m Net($2.02/bbl - $4,100/ flowing barrel) - Assumes Maari will have a net zero cost on completion in H2/2020.

Reduced corporate charges and overheads by greater than 50%

[fardels bear] 19/1/2020 17:23

Sounds like a plan anyway. Should I buy some more? ;)

[mount teide] 19/1/2020 16:10

FB - Inpex would know that should a future development of the huge Shell owned Crux nat gas discovery just 20km from Montara proceed, it would offer the most likely route for any future development of the Montara gas cap.

However, for Impex to achieve the 39 years of further lifespan at its new Ichthys Project they will need to secure substantial additional gas reserves over the decades ahead - for which other than PTTPT's Cash Maple, Crux/nearby Montara they do not exactly look spoilt for choice, within a reasonable distance.

A future Cash Maple / Montara tie-in would generate circa 3Tcf.

Who knows? If its commercially feasible and you don't ask you'll never know.

[fardels bear] 19/1/2020 15:42

I dunno MT. what do you think?

[mount teide] 19/1/2020 15:33

Further to a previous post, industry reports suggest the Japanese oil company Inpex Corp is believed to be selling its West Australian assets in a deal that could fetch up to $200m.

On offer are its Coniston, Van Gogh and Ravensworth heavy sweet crude oil producing assets off the coast of Western Australia near Exmouth in the Carnarvon Basin.

In addition, Inpex is looking to expand its natural gas business in Australia and is in the market for nat gas assets to feed its $45 billion Ichthys liquefied natural gas project off northwest Australia, which is just one year into its expected 40-year lifespan.

With Montara having a large 0.5Tcf gas cap, could there be a low cost deal to be done for Inpex's heavy sweet assets using Montara's future gas cap development (2030-35) as part of the deal?

[mount teide] 19/1/2020 12:44

Interesting point to draw from the preliminary December 2019 bunker fuel sales at Singapore is that LSFO was over 85% of the total sales of low sulphur fuel.

LSFO outsold MGO by factor of nearly six to one - strongly suggesting a clear reluctance by shipowners to run their fleets on the lighter, low viscosity fuel. Although only one months figures, the level of demand for LSFO relative to MGO at Singapore is materially higher than the industry and analysts consensus forecasts.

[mount teide] 19/1/2020 12:17

Preliminary estimates from the Port Authority of Singapore indicate that 4,465,000 tonnes of bunker fuel(29m barrels) were sold in December 2019, a 4% increase compared to December 2018. This is circa 20% of the global consumption of ships bunker fuel - highlighting well the importance of Singapore to the global marine fuel industry.

Sales of low-sulphur fuels at Singapore - LSFO and MGO - rose by 51% month-on-month in December to 3,127,000 tonnes(circa 20m barrels), compared to the 1,271,000 tonnes of HSFO sold in the same month.

2,630,000 tonnes of LSFO were sold(circa 17m barrels), accounting for 59% of total sales compared to 1% of total sales in the last couple of years. HSFO still accounts for 28% of total sales, driven by bunkers purchased for scrubber-fitted ships, which are generally larger and consume more fuel, and will likely facilitate a relatively stable future demand for HSFO.

IMO 2020 - a clearer picture of the actual level of demand for LSFO and MGO under the new regulations is unlikely to fully emerge until 1 March 2020, when the IMO 2020 HSFO carriage ban takes effect, prohibiting ships without an exhaust gas cleaning system (scrubber) to even carry bunker fuels with sulphur content above 0.50%.

Currently, it would not be beyond the bounds of probability that some less scrupulous owners will still be burning off onboard stocks of HSFO during deep sea passages until close to the carriage ban date, before reverting to LSFO and MGO bunkers already stored on board in other tanks.


BIMCO’s (Baltic and International Maritime Council) Chief Shipping Analyst Peter Sand reports that the spread between high and low sulphur fuel, which widened towards record-breaking territory around the implementation deadline of IMO2020, has now ‘started to narrow slightly’.

Sand said that this narrowing ‘could indicate that the global fleet has bunkered sufficiently for the first wave of the transition’.

Other commentators have advanced similar arguments - speculating that many operators will have locked into contracts to ride the first wave of IMO 2020 implementation, but when they come back to the market for further bunker supplies a clearer picture of the true differentials between high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO), very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) and marine gasoil (MGO) will emerge.

“The shipping industry has been riddled with market uncertainty in recent months, but the bunker sales in the port of Singapore provide one of the first readings as to how the industry has transitioned into compliance with the IMO 2020 regulation. We have now surpassed the first wave of IMO 2020 and hopefully the accompanying market uncertainty will diminish as we proceed into 2020,” Sands said.

He notes that at even at the current slightly narrowed spread, fuel oil costs have still effectively doubled, putting heavy financial pressure on companies that must bear the cost burden themselves.

“Almost from one day to another, IMO2020 has resulted in a massive increase in bunkering costs for shipowners and operators, costs which for many companies cannot be sustained for a prolonged period. Shipowners are trying to pass on the additional costs of bunkering to customers, but if the underlying supply and demand fundamentals are not balanced, their efforts may prove futile,”

For the overwhelming majority of the global shipping fleet, the increased operating cost in practice is likely to be shared by the shipowners/charterers and their customers, through a combination of higher freight rates/bunker fuel surcharge and a small reduction in ship operating speed(between 0 to 3 knots) - determined by how much of the 100% increase in fuel cost the shipping industry's clients collectively pay.

[mount teide] 18/1/2020 20:39

Sp93 - thanks for the clarification and your thoughts.

[spangle93] 18/1/2020 19:03

Hi MT - ref 2976

Thanks for the pull up on that. My comments were specifically taken from the section on Nam Du - I assumed the fields were similar, however I went back to check, and they say "The gas in the H-100 reservoir of U Minh is fairly lean, but richer in condensate that the Nam Du reservoir, with a condensate yield at initial conditions expected to be in the range of 22 to 32 stb/MMscf"

So that would be why condensate storage and offtake is needed on the vessel.

Making a rash and unsupported assumption that because Nam Du has twice the reserves as U Minh, it will deliver proportionately more gas than U Minh, and taking the low end of the CGR range, the minimum rate would be around 620 bbl/day

Another unsupported approach is to say the development plan in the CPR has 2 wells on each, so each field delivers 40 MMscf/day. Picking the high end of the U Minh CGR range this time, the condensate into the vessel would be 1280 bbl/day.

CGR always declines with time, so the highest condensate rates are at field start up. But even if Nam Du does produce some liquids (the test leaves some room for doubt that it's totally dry), the overall prodiuction is still barely more than 1000 bcpd. so any condensate storage required is not going be anything like the scale of Maari or Montara

[thomas11] 18/1/2020 16:55

Just checked out Horizon Oil, they own 26% of Maari. They are a small Oz o&g company, they are profitable, soon debt free, and strategically want to optimise Maari production. In 2018 they increased ownership from 10% to 26% of Maari. They look an ideal junior partner for Maari. The other 5% of Maari is owned by Cue which is 50% owned by New Zealand oil and gas (NZOG).

[mount teide] 18/1/2020 14:20

Sp93 'I also checked the condensate/gas ration (CGR) because liquids yield in a gas reservoir makes it more valuable (decreases the BOE ratio). However, the gas is lean, and ERCE did not include any condensate in their reserves calculations.

That's interesting of ERCE - considering the Vietnam Project FPSO specification that Jadestone went out to the shipping market with contained a condensate storage facility with off-take to tanker.

[fardels bear] 18/1/2020 14:12

Remoaners united will never be defeated.

[mount teide] 18/1/2020 13:30

Put the last post on 3 other Advfn threads - it appears the poster who gave it the thumbs down went to the trouble to visit the other three threads to do likewise!

Surely, even in this social media obsessed world, life is too short to waste time on such inane behaviour?

[mount teide] 18/1/2020 12:26

Like most things in the EU reality is often quite different from the rhetoric - "The European Union is determined to lead the way in the global response to climate change."

So, how is the EU - the great 'champions' of renewable energy to address the "catastrophic" impact of climate change - doing to reduce fossil fuel consumption:

EU Fossil fuel consumption 2017

31.8% - Oil
24.6% - Gas
15.4% - Coal (In Germany its 40% and Poland 80%)
13.9% - Nuclear
13.9% - Renewable

Fossil fuels have continued to dominate primary energy consumption in the EU since 2005, falling a minuscule and frankly laughable(considering the lead the world rhetoric to reduce consumption) 6% from 78% in 2005 to 72% by 2017.

Never has so little(-6% over 12 years) been done for so many(500 million) by so few(The EU)!

Source: European Environment Agency

[mount teide] 18/1/2020 09:34

With Brent falling back to $64.5 from over $70.0 last week marine fuel oil pricing (MGO and LSFO) has followed this move down, while HSFO has largely moved sideways.

MGO
$113 - Fujairah
$107 - Global Average
$102 - Singapore

LSFO
$100 - Global Average
$100 - Singapore
$103 - Fujairah

HSFO
$61 - Global Average
$56 - Singapore
$47 - Fujairah

Singapore: current LSFO/HSFO spread has eased to $44 from $51

At $64.5 Brent - Stag's $11.5 premium to Brent achieved at the last publicly notified lift in November 2019, would currently be at a circa $24 discount to the present $100 Singapore LSFO price.

[mount teide] 18/1/2020 08:55

be13 - thanks - Livermore's +137.52% portfolio performance in 2019 is incredible.

'The returns generated come from deep methodical research, excellent timing, and of course, a little bit of luck. I never said we are the smartest or largest, just striving to be the best. Yet, our value-based approach is proving itself.' CEO David Nauhauser

Livermore Fund Performance 2016 - 2019
2016 + 85%
2017 - 7%
2018 + 14%
2019 + 138%

The fund has turned $100 into $467 in 4 years - a CAGR of 47%

For comparison, since 1/1/2016 the FTSE 100 has returned +23% (CAGR: 5.4%) and the S&P 500 +62%(CAGR: 12.8%)

Jadestone Energy is the fund's largest energy holding.

[blueeyes13] 18/1/2020 02:41

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4317649-2019-fourth-quarter-livermore-partners-report?source=tweetAlways good to read the Livermore quarterly report. They smashed it in 2019. JSE core holding for them.

[mount teide] 17/1/2020 19:46

A total of circa 1.8 million printed after the final bell - that's 7 million shares that's changed hands in the last 3 days and over 14 million during the last 7 days.

[fardels bear] 17/1/2020 17:26

No pretend reason either.

[russiaguru] 17/1/2020 17:12

70p looks a good target although no real reason for it to fall that far

[gymratt] 17/1/2020 16:26

Took another 5k ,showing as a sell.

[gymratt] 17/1/2020 16:21

Thank you, bamboo.