Incidental stuff

I see that Talisman have just thrown their CEO overboard. Wonder what the reasons are for that.....

Interesting news out of Vietnam about PetroVeitnam being split up:

HANOI--Vietnam's state-run PetroVietnam Oil & Gas Group and PetroVietnam Finance Joint Stock Corp. (PVF.VH) will be spilt up this month, the government said Wednesday.
The government wants PetroVietnam Oil & Gas, better known as PetroVietnam Group, to shed non-energy activities like civil construction, property development and stock investment, the government said in a statement posted on its website Wednesday.
"Right now PetroVietnam Group is experiencing a major restructuring and we can't say for sure how or what will happen, but one of the possibilities is PetroVietnam Finance will be converted into a bank in the near future," an executive at PetroVietnam Group headquarters told Dow Jones Newswires Wednesday. He declined to be named because he isn't allowed to speak to the news media.
PetroVietnam Oil & Gas currently owns 78% of PetroVietnam Finance. Morgan Stanley owns 10%, according to PetroVietnam Finance.
The government will list the PetroVietnam Group-controlled PetroVietnam Ca Mau Fertilizer Co. Ltd. "at an appropriate time," according to the statement. However, PetroVietnam Fertilizer & Chemicals Corp. (DPM.VH) will remain an affiliate of PetroVietnam Group, the statement added without defining PetroVietnam Group's stake in either company.
The government has asked PetroVietnam Group to submit proposals for divesting itself of PetroVietnam Finance, the statement said without giving details.

In reply to djpreston, post #1043

Must make sense for them to strip PV right back to the core. IIRC there was some property/construction-related scandal in the fairly recent past, so I guess this move is a follow-on from that.

ee

Soco is too low especially if the Oil price continues to hoover at around current levels as the cash generation is huge.............I personally think we are ready for the next leg up. Perhaps target £4 by year end.

The markets want to go higher IMO.

I doubt a deal will get done anytime soon, I think the directors like their salaries and are not ready to give that up just yet IMO.

Issac, I agree, but I think the year end prospects depend largely on the reserves review, £4 by year end is by no means out of the question, could be more if there is a significant reserves update. I too am surprised, that this share price isn't rising, especially with relatively high oil prices, qe3,  and some positive signs in the eurozone.   

Of course what I think means nothing,  the market is clearly skeptical about a takeover in the near future,  mind you the market thought the same about DANA too not long ago,  to mention only one !

Still we'll see, 

cheers K

In reply to kenobi, post #1046

Of course what I think means nothing,  the market is clearly skeptical about a takeover in the near future,  mind you the market thought the same about DANA too not long ago,  to mention only one !

What I think means nothing either.

However, in relation to Dana the market had no expectations whatsoever regarding a takeover, as it wasn't even thought to be a likely target (except by a few like me who thought it was too cheap). The curiosity here is that analysts would all dispassionately recognise that VN is capable of being sold - but none of them seem to be trying at all to make any estimates of value in an M&A situation (not since the JPM note in the spring that considered the read-across from Perenco, anyway....).

ee

Yes I'm staggered that the takeover potential isn't mentioned.

we can but hope that at some point there will be some analyst reviews of the sector, then potential takeovers or asset sales might be bought into it. In the meantime, lets wait until November and hope that the reserves review/upgrade is eyecatching enough to warrant a re rating,

K

In reply to kenobi, post #1048

Yes I'm staggered that the takeover potential isn't mentioned.

That isn't my point. Takeover potential has been mentioned quite frequently in the past - though less (rather than more!) attention seems to be paid to it recently - BUT there is no attempt at all to quantify what the potential value might be under such a scenario!

They don't even say "we can't make a proper assessment of value until there is a reserves update" ...which at least would indicate that they have considered the situation and provides a not-unreasonable defence for analysts who are constrained to deal in published facts rather than speculation.

Two 300,000 bbl cargoes to be sold from TGT over 8 days in early November. That is over and above the 40,000 bopd that they have been selling on the medium term contracts (at Brent +$6.60 or so)  in H2....so I guess that suggests production is going to plan.

In reply to emptyend, post #1050

Good morning ee, Barbara and I are in the Cap d' Agde after a good party last night. The naturists are asking why I am on my laptop so much, when there is so much to see and do here.

Does that mean that daily production from TGT is 77,500 BOPD? i.e. 300,000 every 8 days = 37,500, Plus the original 40,000 BOPD.

That seems a bit high but we can hope

In reply to MadDutch, post #1051

No it doesn't. You can't infer much about the daily production rates in fact, save that they are well above 40k......not unless you are certain there have been no unreported cargoes.

The only relevant deduction I would make is that the sale of two cargoes in short order is associated with an attempt to properly test the production limits of the FPSO in the days before or after the sale.

Re Cap d'Agde incidentally - you can spare us the running commentaries this year.........  ;-)

Off Topic - naturists? They are the ones without clothes. Can't imagine what there is to see and do!

ee - how do you get the 40K+/bpd figure from the fact that 2 x 300,000 bbls have been sold for early November? You'd presumbally need a denominator to divide the 600K bbls by to work out the daily rate. At 40K/bpd that would be 15 days of production but there is more than 15 days since the last cargo sold and early November?

I'm not saying you are wrong just wondered how you infer the 40K number I don't think there is enough information here to know that. The Brent+$6.60 is very good news though.

Log

In reply to loglorry, post #1054

Hi Log

how do you get the 40K+/bpd figure from the fact that 2 x 300,000 bbls have been sold for early November? 

From the ints:

In May, the HLJOC entered into a term contract for the second half of 2012 to sell a total of 40,000 BOPD to three purchasers at a price equal to a $6.60 premium to Dated Brent.

I would agree  that any detailed picture of production levels from these sorts of figures is never going to be highly accurate, but the point is that the 2 300kbbl cargoes are on top of the existing contract for 40kbopd, so clearly production is running significantly above that.

Peter

Hi PeterG

Ahhh now I understand so the 300K is extra over and above 40K/bpd promised to the three purchasers. That is very good news then thanks.

Sorry for the blonde moment!

Log

In reply to loglorry, post #1056

Ahhh now I understand so the 300K is extra over and above 40K/bpd promised to the three purchasers

ie...exactly as stated originally!

I always find it helps to read RNSs....... ;-)

The RNS you linked to didn't say that this was over and above the 40K/bpd but glad to see you are your usual grumpy self.

Log

In reply to loglorry, post #1058

No it didn't. I stated it as a fact plainly in my post above, immediately after the RNS link:

Two 300,000 bbl cargoes to be sold from TGT over 8 days in early November. That is over and above the 40,000 bopd that they have been selling on the medium term contracts (at Brent +$6.60 or so)  in H2....so I guess that suggests production is going to plan.

I obviously assume that some people actually bother to read stuff before they shoot from the hip. My bad in your case - plainly you couldn't give a toss (and neither did you notice the emoticon before complaining of grumpiness). Really really tiresome.....

Ah OK its just I misunderstood what you wrote that's all. I thought when you wrote "That is over and above the 40K bopd that the..." meant that 300,000 equated to more than the 40K bopd e.g. when you said "That is" I thought you meant "300,000 is".

Just a misunderstanding that's all. Don't worry when I call you grumpy I don't mean it either :-)

Log

Come on folks - really no need for the winding up on both sides.