Harbour Energy Share Discussion Threads

[fireplace22] 31/3/2019 16:21

They both begin with a P.

[jelenko] 31/3/2019 15:46

And what's that got to do with PMO?

[michaelsadvfn] 31/3/2019 15:33

Pettigrew 28 Mar '19 - 07:37 - 44284 of 44316 0 0 1

Another $66m in the pot - debt going down nicely, oil steady around $68 per barrel.

£1 hoves into view.

david,

you aren’t qualified, unlike myself, to offer advice on any oil company.

I did tell you at the start of the year to watch Pantheon Resources(PANR)...

+74% to date.

[chinahere] 30/3/2019 15:33

From Rockhoppers September 2018 presentation:

..........
Sea Lion Phase 1 development fully funded.
$337 million Development Carry (from Premier) and $750 million Standby Loan from Premier.

Additional $337 million Development Carry for Sea Lion Phase 2 from Premier.
..........

I read that as Rockhopper having to bear their 40% share of the Phase 1 $1.5 billion cost minus the Carry. So that would be $600 million minus the $337 million Development Carry equals $263 million which they will be in effect borrowing from one or other of the funders.

Premier is planning on borrowing all of it for Phase 1 as far as I can see.

[adg] 30/3/2019 14:08

My understanding would be that the carry for RKH for 1st phase would be in its entirety so PMO would ultimately be responsible for repayment for 1st phase funding

[rationaleee] 30/3/2019 14:03

A question regarding Sea Lion, possibly a naive one; so our 25% equity Upstream funding for SL is supposed to carry RKH as well, through to first oil, while remaining 75% is EC/bank funding and Vendor notes...

So when SL first oil arrives, that 75% would needed to be paid back to the vendors/EC... But that 75% or c.$1.2bn owed to EC/Vendors, would it need to be paid back from PMOs cash flow or RKHs cash flow as well? I mean, under whose name would that debt sit, even if its off balance sheet.

Would we have to pay back the full 75% of project costs to the EC/vendor notes, while we only own 60% of the project? Or RKH would have to take on the 40% equivalent of the 75% project costs? Any thoughts...? Cheers

[jelenko] 30/3/2019 12:18

Steve,

I agree regarding oil supplies being tight but I doubt they are "very tight" yet, if they were oil would be closer to $80 and Trump would be blowing a gasket. The drop and immediate rebound after Trump's latest tweet suggests that they are tight but the price is controlled too much by trading houses rather than the end user for my liking.

[steve73] 30/3/2019 11:00

FTSE100 is similar... I think RDS & BP together represent just over 15% of the total valuation. Difficult to how they cannot also be normally well correlated.

[onedb1] 30/3/2019 10:20

S&P and oil are positively correlated so it's hard to have low oil and high S&P . There are occasions but usually the correlation is high .

[onedb1] 30/3/2019 10:18

Good point Steve

[steve73] 30/3/2019 03:04

Brent oil chart in the header rolled to Jun contract.

Worth pointing out that the outgoing month ended at $68.4, almost a whole $ ahead of the new front month at $67.6. This is the widest backwardation we've seen for a long while suggesting that immediate supplies are very tight... Further strengthening is highly likely, especially on Monday when the new front month plays "catch-up" to the outgoing old.

WTI remains much more balanced, with an insignificant contango of around just 10-15cts. Not a particularly useful indication of future direction of prices IMO as it's based on landlocked supplies, with severely limited global export opportunities which is responsible for the $8 discount to Brent.... and LOL at Trump complaining it's too expensive.

[onedb1] 29/3/2019 16:46

Great uncrossed there are the end at 93.95 ! In good size . Onwards and upwards

[onedb1] 29/3/2019 15:25

TLW's performance in terms of being above the 200sma by a bit is a precise example of where I think PMo is . I was looking at that spread and trading exactly that . Hence my longs at 70p here . I own both obviously in different amounts single NAv % vs portfolio

[marvinridesagain] 29/3/2019 15:11

As usual, TLW doing great and PMO still being manipulated down by Jabbas insider sewer rats.

[onedb1] 29/3/2019 15:07

No . GS has the hedge (long CFD) . AHL one of the shorts . They locked profits and lost zip . That simple Roll on 100p as I felt that was always the place we should have seen PMO at the very least . It has been underperforming some in the sector and still sub 200sma . Which I have felt for a while is wrong and only happening due to articles/fear etc . Average Brent price year to day marching toward $64 ! That is important to note

[seangwhite] 29/3/2019 12:51

Roll on to 100p and AHL can leave with dignity and GS the money.

[privileged] 29/3/2019 12:16

Goldman holding reduced considerablyGuess they bought the shares, loaned them to AHL who have now closed so they have now sold themAHL big losers....!

[seangwhite] 29/3/2019 10:27

Another day closer to Zama news and hopefully back to triple digits for the share price

[jelenko] 29/3/2019 08:13

It beats me where they find the shares to buy, unless that's where Goldman step in.

[nav_mike] 29/3/2019 06:08

AHL accelerating their exit....another 1.1m shares reduced from their short position in 2 days

[onedb1] 28/3/2019 16:05

On a technical side oil and S&P are usually very positively correlated . If one goes up so does the other . Given his love for seeing the index go up its inevitable that with such a scenario oil goes up too .Am no Democrat by the way . Just pointing out a known correlation . Politicians say things for effect rather than accuracy after all

[gregpeck7] 28/3/2019 15:45

At least Donald is confirming it. Supply is tight. Thanks Donald!

[stansmith3] 28/3/2019 15:34

or i should say ksa will want to do it that way..