Harbour Energy Share Discussion Threads

[gordo58] 11/3/2019 10:44

maybe only 15 million then ;), shouldn't be too difficult for them to shift, if the Saudi production cut back gets to work on lifting the price of crude

[gordo58] 11/3/2019 09:23

Norwegian sovereign wealth fund owns about 16 million shares ??? is that about right ? anybody know ?

[johnwise] 11/3/2019 08:36

Oil price rises as Opec's output cuts set to continue


SINGAPORE: Oil prices edged up on Monday after Saudi oil minister Khalid al-Falih said an end to OPEC-led supply cuts was unlikely before June, while a report showed U.S. drilling activity fell for a third straight week.

[andypop1] 10/3/2019 21:05

RB,
You are correct in theory but in practice it doesn't work that way, especially with a company owned mainly by PIs.
Look at resolution 2 from last year's AGM, from memory 30% + of the votes cast were against the resolution but the board continue to draw their salaries with none declining any rises or bonuses. The telling figure though is the total number of votes cast, a little over 50% of those entitled to vote actually bothered.
Anyway, it wasn't me who said the BoDs could potentially do something stupid.
Good luck.

[rbonnier] 10/3/2019 08:18

Huge Question mark over the BOD ability to deliver shareholder value ?
That should not be a question so there lies the gamble ??
Why would that be a gamble Andypop1 when its the shareholders who decide who get the jobs on the Board .
If the shareholders are not happy with the BOD they simply vote against them being re elected at the AGM

[whiskeyinthejar] 09/3/2019 21:48

Majors have more resources, but Chevron is losing money in Permian too, just like most other shale companies :

-

"Chevron maintains that it will be cash flow positive in the Permian by 2020 and that the company would allocate much of additional cash flow to shareholder distributions. The company appears confident about the path that it is on in West Texas.

But the health of the industry is in the eye of the beholder, in many ways. In response to Chevron’s financial results, some market analysts were not as impressed. “THE REAL STORY IS THAT THE FRACKING SECTOR HAS BEEN, AND CONTINUES TO BE, A FINANCIAL BUST,” Kathy Hipple, Tom Sanzillo and Clark Williams-Derry wrote in a joint commentary for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and the Sightline Institute."



-----------------------------------------------
Anyway, this year shale has pledged to cut capex by 5%, but still increase production by 1m barrels.




-----------------------------------------------
In theory market could absorb this 1m barrels per year increase through increasing demand. Unfortunately its all really light oil and you can convert heavy oil to light oil relatively easily, but not vice versa.


But it's doubtful if shale can deliver any increase on reducing capex because they've a history of hype and production problems are emerging.





It seems chickens are coming home to roost:

"When facing shareholder scrutiny, shale drillers have countlessly hyped the litany of technological breakthroughs, efficiency gains and innovative drilling techniques. Indeed, production from U.S. E&Ps has skyrocketed over the past decade, save for interruption during the 2014-2016 bust. But even then, shale executives argued that the downturn made them lean and mean, and that they would use their newfound frugality to ramp up production and profits.

But the hype has slammed into reality on a few fronts. First, after years of bankrolling the shale industry in hopes of juicy profits, Wall Street is starting to lose patience. Some companies turn a profit, but the industry on the whole has been losing money since its inception in the mid-2000s. Executives are once again promising that enormous profits are just around the corner, but you could forgive the skeptics for questioning whether that will turn out to be the case.

A second – and no less damning – development is starting to occur on the operational side of things. Shale companies are finding that the returns on pushing their drilling practices to evermore intense frontiers are beginning to fizzle. For years, drillers increased the length of their laterals, injected more and more sand and water underground, and packed wells closer and closer together. These techniques of intensification promised to produce more oil and gas for less money.


Suddenly, there is evidence that the industry is running into a wall. The Wall Street Journal reported that shale wells placed too close together are starting to report unexpectedly disappointing results. The thinking is that the wells are interfering with each other. Adding more wells seems to be reducing the productivity of all the wells situated in close proximity. This so-called “parent-child” well problem, in which additional wells (the “child” wells) undercut the performance of the original well (the “parent”), may be the beginning of a larger problem with the shale industry.

The WSJ says that some of the newer wells are producing as much as 50 percent less than the parent wells. Ultimately, when all is said and done, adding more wells may actually result in less oil and gas recovered since the pressure drops and the reservoir suffers damage. Not only are child wells less productive than the parent, but they actually cannibalize production from the parent wells by sapping reservoir pressure and in some cases flooding the parent well with fracking fluids from the child well."

[seangwhite] 09/3/2019 21:44

Add good Zama sidetrack news to the recent guided priduction numbers and we could see a serious rerating for the share price Short holders also take a gamble and let's hope they are .it doing it with inside info.

[andypop1] 09/3/2019 21:20

Adg,
I fully agree with the caveat about the oil price as that is completely out of the control of the company but you also, rightly so, put a huge question mark over the BoD's ability to deliver shareholder value.
That should not be in question, so there is the gamble.

Signing off now, good luck.

[adg] 09/3/2019 20:55

No not Really it’s just a caveat/qualification - if you take your stance it could be argued that any purchase of any stock is gambling as there is always risk in every company / sector one way or another... no matter what way you look at it that’s true.
So no I can’t agree with your stance as you seem unable to agree with mine or onedb’s
Perhaps you should get into US shalers - looks like you think that’s the future. Good luck with that and you too please enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[andypop1] 09/3/2019 20:40

Adg,
I must be a halfwit, good luck.
Are your assumptions not a gamble?

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

[adg] 09/3/2019 20:19

This isn’t a gamblers stock - it was a few years ago for sure but not now. Even a halfwit can see the future is good (assuming oil price behaves and bod don’t do anything stupid)
It’s just a matter of time, it’s patience and foresight not gambling my man.

[andypop1] 09/3/2019 20:05

Jelly,
How am I scaremongering?

Adg,
I want to make a few quid when the time is right.
It's always good to keep an eye on a couple of gamblers stocks.

The special one (dB),
Have a read of this that I previously posted elsewhere, I know you take offence to those who post about daily or weekly adjustments, when it suits.

"For years the BBs have been full of chatter about shale grinding to a halt, the truth is US production just goes from strength to strength.
It has increased by nearly 2m barrels a day compared to the same period 12 months ago and the general consensus is it will hit 13m barrels this year, so an additional 900k to go.
OPEC tried to break the shale producers and failed, if anything it had the reverse effect making them more efficient with forced advances in technology.
In 2015 there were up to 1,930 rigs in use, that year they hit just over 9m barrels, last week there were 853 rigs with production 12.1m barrels.
If the majors are moving in with their high overheads then there still must be some money to be made out of it."

[stansmith3] 09/3/2019 16:34

oh ohthis is where a board bull asks said poster if he is short and has an agendaor if he doesnt hold any, why is he heretypical group think in action

[stansmith3] 09/3/2019 14:37

stevegreat summarythis situation has existed for a long time, which really is the pointwhy does no one else see it that way, everyone is looking to get in early, its a no brainer, right?but the people here and the lse asylum think they have found an overlooked gem that is being harshly evaluated, nay, manipulated, instos taken inside, mgmt in cahoots to range the price etc etc etcall nonsensepmo will rise, barring other zama type events, when people believe a firm trajectory for paying the debt off exists

[steve73] 09/3/2019 14:19

PMO 2018 performance compared to Tullow.

Production:
PMO 48kbopd of Oil, plus 33kboepd of Gas. TLW 88.2kbopd of oil, 1.2kboepd of gas.

Sales Revenue:
PMO $1,438 MM. TLW $1,859 MM (plus $188 MM insurance)

Oil Price Realised:
PMO $48.9/boe (Oil alone was $63.5/bbl). TLW $57.7/bbl of oil (excl ins. $63.6/bbl incl).

Debt (end 2018)
PMO $2,331 MM. TLW $3,060 MM

Debt repayment.
PMO $393MM (14%) (incl. sales & CB's). TLW $411 (12%) (also $67 MM of dividend to be paid)

EV (mcap+Debt)
PMO $2,954 MM. TLW $6,122 MM

M-cap (as of today).
PMO $622 MM. TLW $3062 MM

Summary:
TLW produced only 10% more overall than PMO, although TLW was mostly oil, compared to PMO with just 59% oil, although the Indonesian gas (39% of total gas) sells for close to oil price.
TLW earned 42% more than PMO (incl. TLW Insurance return)
TLW realized a 30% higher oil price than PMO's Oil & Gas

TLW Opex is generally less than PMO's, although higher Capex.

PMO reduced its debt by a slightly greater proportion (14%) than TLW (12%) but this was achieved with asset sales and Bond debt conversion.

The EV (M-cap + Debt) for TLW is slightly more than double PMO, although the m-cap alone is almost 5x.

This suggest to me that providing the realised oil price stays well above breakeven for PMO ($45/boe) it should be able to continue to reduce it debts, and the difference in M-cap should narrow.

My conclusion is that PMO has the potential for better gains, although it is more at risk in a lower oil price environment.

This is by no means a thorough comparison... NAI, DYOR, etc.

[jelenko] 09/3/2019 13:12

Of course it's better value than "smoke & mirrors" Tullow. When Brexit is finally sorted this will re-rate.

[markymar] 09/3/2019 09:47

Premier Oil's (PMOIF) CEO Anthony R. C. Durrant on Full Year 2018 Results - Earnings Call Transcript https://seekingalpha.com/article/4247230?source=ansh $PMOIF

[stansmith3] 09/3/2019 09:41

yes, thats it, he should be saying, pmo is undervalued, we are being held back, pmo is better value than tlw...

[stansmith3] 09/3/2019 09:38

and lets not forget US output expected to grow at 2mmbpd for the next 4 yearsbut thats ok, last weeks action confirmed onedeuchebags bullish view..have you ever heard such up yourself garbage?everyone here has a bullish view, non-positive views are just not welcome to retail mugs who think they know better than the marketfeb/march have been great for crude and another 10 dollar rise is nailed on, short of an unexpected event, so why is pmo still down here?now people are starting to believe the ST article dismissed by the usual suspects here in december and later, why?because they believe it, no, because they search for excuses for the low share price as pmo should be over 100p right nowlast week, low volume had posts and recs as people decided instos had been taken inside, you cant make this up, but they are quick to jump on anything non positive