Xcite Energy Share Discussion Threads

[pensioner2] 06/11/2014 11:58

You're always worrying Netley. Stop it. It will take you to an early grave. Relax man, things are going well and that handle to the cup is looking very good.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 11:56

Chin up mac, we're approaching what matters... everything else is noise.

[mclellan] 06/11/2014 11:46

Watch out for posters who are rather economical with the truth and will invent their own versions of spin.
XEL will no doubt deign to tell their long-suffering shareholders when the MOU is signed.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 11:42

By 'nice balance' I mean roughly 50/50 debt v partnership. Similar to the farm-out v RBL plan. Of course the legacy debt needs paying-off too, no point paying a huge coupon when a new RBL should be no more than 5% + LIBOR.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 11:17

Well sparks reckons there's a £100m gap after partnership 'funding'. I would actually be slightly worried if that were the case.

Why? Well they'll want their pound of flesh, and the bulk of revenues are loaded quite early in the field life. We don't want an extreme form of risk/reward that takes too much of those early years.

Best to have a nice balance of funding.

[mclellan] 06/11/2014 10:43

sparks- a very interesting post.
So you reckon the Bentley Alliance will shoulder most of the upfront costs?
Is that from a reasonable source?
Obviously time will tell if that is what happens.

If the USOL article is correct then we should expect the rig MOU quite soon...please note...IF.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 10:41

Yes, all contracts subject to FDP approval will need to be sorted for sure. I'm not too sure we've gone this far just to sell-up pre-production Ianio? And I very much doubt anyone will pay a fiver for a good few years.

If a fiver is the BOD's exit price?

[ianio5691] 06/11/2014 10:35

My opinion - for what it's worth, is that we need all these MOU's in place for the FDP submission. DECC want to know who and how.

Finance will not be an issue, as it won't be XEL that take the field into production, it will be the new owner. For them finance won't be a problem.

They need to see the FDP agreed and in place before they commit.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 10:25

There's one thing in the article I think they've got wrong, the farm-out.

From what we've been told that is not a main focus atm. It's a development partnership model, not a conventional farm-out.

They have said that a future farm-out maybe possible, but atm that's not the priority.

[sparks11] 06/11/2014 10:24

I see that act & co are at it again do not know what they are spouting but I will forecast that after this note from me that they will go berserk.
My info is that funding is notgoing to be an issue since the Bentley alliance are going to shoulder the up front costs with only a small amount required to over costs out with the alliance partners initial expenditure circa 100 M up to first oil. This they will easily get from conventional loan providers.
Why the partners are doing this is simply that they will have secure work for the next 10 to 40 yrs , which is something that no other North Sea field development, or for that matter can any other region, provide.
What the likes of act and his cronies are incapable of understanding is that this project is not being implemented or managed like any other in the past. I t is unique and will prove to be an absolute winner for all concerned. However the principles being applied in this case have been done on some smaller fields in the UK albeit not on this grand scale of things.This I know since I have been involved in such activities in the past and I can assure everyone that it works .It is a powerful incentive to have work secured for a defined period and more so for the time line for the Bentley development. And as for heavy oil this is not a problem thick heavy and very viscous fluids are handled every day in many manufacturing and process industries within and out with the petroleum industry.
I really smile inwardly at the ignorance displayed by those who think they are wise and wonderfull, however it is a true statement that they really do not know what they do not know.
So to all long term holders I would suggest that if your finances permit then hold on in time your patience will be rewarded.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 10:07

Well, they won't give you a definitive answer. An XEL spokesperson has given the stock response in the article.

[mclellan] 06/11/2014 09:59

I am only interested in the Upstream article since it is in English. (ie plain English)
Have sent it to PR to see if it is accurate...not that I am likely to get a reply!

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 09:54

The Upstream article sounds correct mac, it's the Chinese re-interpretation that's misleading... as you well know.

[mclellan] 06/11/2014 09:50

Out come all the negative posters in protest at the very idea that Upstream might be correct,

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 09:48

MAT's right mac, you should remove the re-translated Chinese one, it's misleading.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 09:46

So are we saying that the Upstream article, that is actually by Xu Yihe and Rob Watts Singapore and London 31 October 2014 01:00 GMT - is the original? And the Chinese one is simply a delayed copy?

So the Chinese have translated it, then posters have translated it back? lol

That right?

[mclellan] 06/11/2014 09:42

The USOL article was the 31st October.
The Chinese article is dated a few days later.

It is not likely that Upstream have got their facts wrong but let's see what Henry says...lol

[bleepy] 06/11/2014 09:40

Chinese translation...

"but the development costs have not yet implemented. The company are looking for investors to buy shares in order to achieve first oil in 2018."


Upstream English version...

Excite holds a 100% operating stake in Bentley, but is yet to secure funding and is on the hunt for farm-in partners, with the aim of bringing it online in mid-2018.

[steve73] 06/11/2014 09:40

Ian - I agree with puzzler...

The chinese comment probably comes from the "...but is yet to secure funding and is on the hunt for farm-in partners..." in the original USOL peice.

edit - unfortunately, farm-in, is of course another form of dilution...but it should be on better terms than raising equity at this pityful price.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/11/2014 09:34

Q3 results should be towards the month end Steve.

[puzzler2] 06/11/2014 09:32

...doubt there'd be a placing or open offer to raise all that is needed, as the BOD would be significantly diluted.

[mclellan] 06/11/2014 09:32

Ianio- the Google translations are always a bit weird.
Just have to wait for news, as usual.

[steve73] 06/11/2014 09:28

mcl - as I said earlier, I couldn't access the full USOL article...so was glad of Ian's copy.

net - I'd forgotten that comment in the last interims... should be due an update in the H1 results soon....

[ianio5691] 06/11/2014 09:26

The funding is still the elephant in the room.

Interesting snippet from the Chinese article is the line....
"but the development costs have not yet implemented. The company are looking for investors to buy shares in order to achieve first oil in 2018."

Hoping this is just a translation issue. Would funding options be part of the discussion for the rig. If I were looking to provide a rig to someone, I would certainly want to know how they were proposing to pay for it.

Is this the biggest clue yet , as to what the BoD are proposing.
Another share Placement, or open offer?

[mclellan] 06/11/2014 09:23

Steve73- how snide:-)
You already provided the Upstream article yourself.
I've sent it to XEL PR to ask if the USOL article is accurate.
I imagine they would have to have some funding in prospect to call tenders