Incidental stuff

In reply to Fangorn, post #673

You said it much more politely than I could Fangorn. My reply would be *****'d out.

In reply to Gopher, post #672

Does anyone have any view on the IC sell tip this week

I hope you aren't seeking to imply that the IC promoted that load of error-strewn garbage to being the sell tip of the week.

I'd be extremely interested to know which credulous trainee journo has the by-line on that piece (not you, Gopher, by any chance?) and which mendacious source fed it to him.

ee

Here you go ee, seems that IC's 'sell' tip is based on what 'might' happen...

http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2011/10/20/tips-and-ideas/share-tips/tips-of-the-week/soco-vulnerable-to-tgt-delays-KSVIw9pXdX48npFjwEhlZI/index.html

Thanks Art but.....

subscriber-only content

...you may be mistaking me for someone who subscribes to that stuff  ;-)

Still - it answered the question of who wrote it....and at least his part of the site appears to have got their title right:

http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/comment/chronic-investor-blog/blogger?name=Mark+A+Robinson

;-)

The IC just doesn't (like most media market reporters) "get" oil. Like they really understand reservoirs and recoveries etc.

Sheesh.

Do people really subscribe to that nonsense? Hell, uite a few analysts don't get it either!!

Not that I'm surprised by the IC recommendation but surely the market is already effectively factoring in problems at TGT with forward consensus P/E's around 5 .

http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/fundamentals/?section=broker&epic=SIA

Really cockeyed thinking.

Seems to me that the abbreviation "IC" - when said phonetically - represents a Freudian slip of gigantic dimensions.

They don't see at all.

They have been wrong on oil (supply, demand, price, exploration, development, production, integrated oil companies, independents, majors.....) for at least 15 years. Almost everything they have written in that time has been ill informed, ill-judged and/or ill considered - or all three. I do not think they have made a single useful contribution to investor understanding or to investment decision making. They have sinned by commission - making statements that were laughably inept and by omission, failing to discuss important subjects and to consider clear investment opportunities.

By all means read them as a comic. Just don't take it seriously on any aspect connected with oil.

T

Who cares what the IC think, I think people tend to give them too much attention.

Anyway we should hopefully get a drill result from Africa this week. I REALLY hope we find something big, it will put some excitement back in the share and hopefully give the manangement a reason to start shifting the focus away from Vietnam and may bring forward a sale.

I have to admit it was a pleasure watching the TGT Production ceremony earlier this week, I just think it is brilliant that the management have gone into what is a relatively poor country, hired local people, drilled wells and added significant value to a poor country which the local people can benefit from. As well as Soco shareholders, there are many stakeholders and for their achievements with TGT I think they should be proud.

I REALLY hope they can repeat the success in Africa - It is hard not to like these people for what they have achieved to date despite my past critcisms re TGD no ones perfect.

Weekly update from Reuters:
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3E7LP29L20111025

- PV Oil has sold Te Giac Trang crude for November-December loading at lower premiums than the previous tender.
It sold four 300,000-barrel cargoes, one more than originally planned, at premiums below $4.00 a barrel to the Minas formula, a trader said. Some traders said the cargoes for earlier loading dates may have been sold at premiums between $1.50 and $2.00 a barrel.
Unsold Te Giac Trang crude cargoes with traders may have depressed sentiment, traders said. Te Giac Trang has a higher nitrogen content than Chim Sao which may deter some buyers, a trader with a North Asian refiner said.

Not exactly terrible news. Despite the above, still trading at a premium to Minas, and four cargoes instead of the earlier-reported three. Quantity more important than quality at this stage? (and clearly the quality is pretty good anyway.)

Spurticus

In reply to Spurticus, post #683

Despite the above, still trading at a premium to Minas, and four cargoes instead of the earlier-reported three. Quantity more important than quality at this stage? (and clearly the quality is pretty good anyway.)

Interesting comment re nitrogen ...funny that the IC missed that...  ;-)

I see that the full quote re Chim Sao says:

PV Oil sold a 250,000-300,000 barrel cargo of Chim Sao for Nov. 25-29 loading to an oil major at more than $6 a barrel above dated Brent, traders said.

A cargo to be loaded on Nov. 18-22 was sold to an end user at a lower premium, likely $4.50-$5.00 a barrel, they said.

....which suggests that lower premia currently apply all round for shorter dates.  But the relevant point is that there were 4 TGT cargoes to shift - and, as with any new product, there is some hesitation amongst buyers and the number of buyers around will be lower than for more established grades. No doubt that will change over time....

Meanwhile I find it an interesting symptom of the tone of the stock market that there is ZERO speculation on bulletin boards about the MIM-1 well results - despite the fact that we know the results could be out at any moment, given that the last RNS said "on or around the 27th". And I would guess that the IMS can also be expected to be out tomorrow...

ee

I see that ExxonMobil have found gas off Vietnam...further up the coast in the area apparently disputed by China.

It is interesting to speculate what the full range of companies attracted by Vietnam now consists of......

There is a big Africa Oil Week conference in Cape Town next week being attended by a wide range of E&P companies active in Africa, including Tullow, Total, Shell, Chevron, Murphy, Statoil, ExxonMobil, Hess, Anadarko, Petrobras, Ophir, Afren, Petroceltic, Aminex, Dominion, Cove, Chariot, Orca and Sonangol....amongst a variety of others.

...but (AFAICS) it isn't being attended by SOCO, or by ENI for that matter.

.....which is something I find a little curious, in view of there being a double session entitled "DRC: Bid Round: Tanganyika Graben & Cuvette Centrale" with presentations from the DRC Oil Ministry.

Perhaps they have other things to do?  ;-)

ee

But surely Soco would want to be there if there were more licences in the offing?

ArtN

(unless if course you're insinuating ENI are going to buy Soco? ;))

In reply to ArtNouveau, post #687

(unless if course you're insinuating ENI are going to buy Soco? ;))

Not really.....just noted the absence of both (more surprising for ENI, given their recent Mamba find of 22.5TCF). But I've said on several occasions that I think ENI is a credible suitor (good fit in several respects). I haven't the slightest idea of what is really going on re M&A at SIA.

Just spent the last few mins checking the operations update on Soco's site, Congo news any day now...

ArtN

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL4E7LV1N620111031?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

HANOI Oct 31 (Reuters) - State oil and gas group Petrovietnam has bid for $1.5 billion of ConocoPhillips oil assets in the South China sea, a senior Petrovietnam official said, its first formal move for the stakes in the disputed waters.

The Hanoi-based group plans to do its utmost to acquire the assets, Nguyen Tien Dung, Petrovietnam's Deputy Chief Executive Officer, told Reuters on Monday.

"The investment is in our country, so we are determined, with our largest possible efforts, to buy," Dung said.

Possibly buyer for SOCO assets? Can't imagine they'd be paying top-dollar though.

Spurticus

In reply to Spurticus, post #690

Interesting that they describe the assets as being in disputed waters. 15-1 is about 25-30 miles further east than 16-1 and hence closer to the disputed area, but it is only around 40-50 miles from shore and doesn't appear to me to be within China's most optimistic claimed territory. Would they also describe 16-1 as disputed and is that going to limit the market for the assets?

ET

Of course the flip side is that if Soco don't sell there's huge cash inflows so it's mainly win/win. ArtN

In reply to ExTownie, post #691

Interesting that they describe the assets as being in disputed waters. 15-1 is about 25-30 miles further east than 16-1 and hence closer to the disputed area, but it is only around 40-50 miles from shore and doesn't appear to me to be within China's most optimistic claimed territory. Would they also describe 16-1 as disputed and is that going to limit the market for the assets?

That is a clear editorial error, as the maps of the claims clearly show - especially this one which shows the claim with a dashed line and also marks on Bach Ho. Compare that with SOCO's maps and you'll see that SOCO's acreage is all 90-110km off the Vietnam coast...as compared to the nearest extent of the Chinese claim which finishes around 200km from the coast in that area.  15-1 is even nearer the Vietnam coast than SOCO's CNV.

And, quite apart from anything else, 16-1 is nearer the Vietnam coast than Vietnam's Bach Ho field, which has been producing oil for Vietnam for a couple of decades.

Of course it is in the Vietnamese' interest to keep racheting up their claims on the area, so it isn't surprising to see local press sources resorting to pro-Vietnam propaganda.

Possibly buyer for SOCO assets? Can't imagine they'd be paying top-dollar though.

Note the comments in the article from KNOC. The way these things work is that existing partners (broadly) have the right to pre-empt a third party buyer. So the price is set by the third-party. If they set it high enough, then they won't get pre-empted. Obviously both KNOC and PV may well be interested in bidding anyway. KNOC have reserved their position until a deal is done whereas PV appear to have put $1.5bn on the table.....but there is no suggestion that others won't outbid them. Obviously PV want to pay as little as possible, so that approach may well make sense.

However, there is another crucial difference between that situation and SOCO's: SOCO would be selling their stake in SOCO Vietnam - NOT their stake in the individual assets.....and therefore there would be no pre-emption rights, because the assets themselves would remain owned by SOCO Vietnam. The ownership of the assets would be unaffected by the change of corporate control.

ee

Thanks for the clarification ee