Jump to content

ian_whitchurch

Member
  • Posts

    943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ian_whitchurch

  1. In reply to: Brierley on Sunday 28/05/06 12:47pm I underdstand that Stratfor, as wingnuts, dont like Chavez, and I understand why "pushback" will occour against Chavez using oil money to buy influence in South America ... but when you make a claim like "If there is a rise in anti-Chavez sentiment, it is possible that the bull market in oil could see a significant price decline. ", you should back it up. There is nothing in the article to support that assertion. Sloppy, very very sloppy. Ian Whitchurch
  2. In reply to: Marsupial on Wednesday 24/05/06 12:55pm Marsupial, The problem with Sellicks is that although it started great, water cut rapidly became a problem. While the well looks to have been well worth drilling, the 25% water cut on day 1 will almost certainly just keep rising. Yes, it is a different pool, but the odds are that the well will decline from 2500-odd bopd pretty fast. But even if it only does 2000 for a month, then the well has paid for itself and then some. Ian Whitchurch
  3. In reply to: kahuna1 on Monday 22/05/06 11:23pm Kahuna, I suspect they put price caps in the contract. From what I can remember, the Chinese leaned on various national governments (Oman was going for that contract as well) ... and John Howard then leaned on Woodside. Personally, I think your contract prices are material information for shareholders. Ian Whitchurch
  4. In reply to: kahuna1 on Monday 22/05/06 01:53pm Kahuna, Yeah, I meant LNG. This is me working thru the logic. From BP's site at www.bp.com.au/exploration/australia_wins_guangdong.doc "The People’s Republic of China has advised Woodside - Operator of the West Australian North West Shelf (NWS) Gas Project - that the NWS has been selected as the preferred supplier of three million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) a year over 25 years to the proposed Guangdong LNG Import Terminal to be located in the Pearl River delta area of southern China. This deal will be worth over A$ 25 billion in export earnings to Australia over the life of the contract." OK, as per the Santos calculator, 1 ton of LNG is equal to 8.6 "barrels of oil equivalent". 3 million tons of LNG is therefore 25.8 million barrels of oil equivalent. To be worth a billion dollars a year for 25 years, that is therefore a fixed $40 price over the 20 years. Ian Whitchurch
  5. In reply to: kahuna1 on Monday 22/05/06 09:13am Kahnuna, I agree in general about LPG exports, but the price Woodside neogitated with the Chinese wasnt anywhere near 1/8th of the price of oil. Ian Whitchurch
  6. In reply to: auroraoz on Sunday 21/05/06 03:52pm Auroraoz, If I was drilling somethng as deep and expensive as one of the Jeruk wells, I'd be less than happy with a flow rate of about what Worrior got in the Cooper Basin. Ian Whitchurch
  7. In reply to: Avenger on Wednesday 17/05/06 08:20pm Avenger, Yes, prices are caused by supply and demand. I might admit this is an article of faith, but there you go. As far as "supply not been met", I would like to buy 20 000 barrels of oil off you at a price of USD30 per barrel. Can you meet that supply ? Ian Whitchurch
  8. In reply to: Mork on Wednesday 17/05/06 12:08pm Mork, Just because you are a NOC doesnt mean you are incompetant - Aramco, for example, has completely and totally rocked at managing Saudi supply since they nationalised it. Burgan and the North Sea, which also fell off a cliff production-wise, on the other hand, were run by Western oil companies. But yeah, investors like to see certainty. Me, I think problems can be avoided with "escalator" clauses ... if the price goes above X, then the locals's cut becomes y. Better that than haviong them get real upset and hit you with nationalisation, windfall profits taxes etc. Ian Whitchurch
  9. In reply to: apache123 on Wednesday 17/05/06 09:38am Apache, The issue isnt so much a South American OPEC ; it's more of another round of national governments wanting more of a cut of the pie. Gordon Brown did it by raising taxes, but South America is less subtle. Ian Whitchurch
  10. In reply to: larne on Tuesday 16/05/06 06:30pm Larne, About Cambay, I like to know ... (1) what were the Operator's original estimate of oil reserves. (2) how much was produced, (3) what is Oilex's estimate of the remaining reserves (not OOIP, reserves), and (4) how much does it cost to drill a well in Cambay. Thats what I'd like to know about Cambay. Ian Whitchurch
  11. In reply to: RobAde on Tuesday 16/05/06 07:04am I believe RPM have a 5% royalty over some of LKO's onshore Victorian country. But then again, I think LKO's country is worthless. Ian Whitchurch
  12. In reply to: larne on Tuesday 16/05/06 12:27am Larne, Redeveloping old fields is harder than it looks., and the CapEx requirements will be higher in India than in, say, the onshore US. I'd be happier if Oilex went and took advantage of it's incredibly high share price to raise money in London ... like about $50 million. Ian Whitchurch
  13. In reply to: apache123 on Tuesday 16/05/06 09:53am Apache, The Saudis were saying that when it edged to the top of their $22-$30 range. Believe it or not, the Saudis want moderate prices. Around $20/barrel is good for them, as expensive oil means an unstable world, and an unstable world increases the chance of the overthrow of the House of Saud. Ian Whitchurch
  14. In reply to: diana on Monday 15/05/06 02:55pm Diana, A couple of years ago, we lived in a world where the Saudis had 2, maybe 3 million barrels a day of spare supply capacity, the rest of the Gulf had one or two, the Russians could crank another million barrels a day and so on. Now, we dont have that - a combination of field decline and crappy discoveries in the last few decades and rising East and South Asian demand has sopped up all that spare capacity. Before, if Nigeria lost 500 000 bopd from industrial action, or if the Norwegians went on strike, or whatever, then stocks could tide things over until the Saudis opened taps a little wider to make up for it. Now, they cant do that - and we know they can't, becuase over the last 12-18 months, they opened up their taps to full to keep oil under $40, and it didnt work. You can run a "Kahuna" argument, and point out that there are a bunch of new projects coming on line that will bring back a 3-5 mmbd buffer. But at the moment, there is no spare capacity in the system, and that means that rationing by price takes hold. Ian Whitchurch
  15. In reply to: diana on Monday 15/05/06 01:37pm The post-Katrina rise has, as far as I understand, been triggered byu political unrest in Nigeria and Venezuala and tension between Iran and the United States. None of these things are at all unusual in the last twenty years. Ian Whitchurch
  16. In reply to: kahuna1 on Sunday 07/05/06 12:05pm Kahuna, So whats the number ? 5% ? 10% ? 25% ? 35% ? What was it ten years ago, five years ago and six months ago ? Remember Yibal ! Ian Whitchurch
  17. In reply to: dannyf on Monday 08/05/06 10:28am You may have missed a bunch of things. These are questions I would ask about a new float. (1) How many shares exist that are not being sold to punters in the IPO, (2) What is the money going to be used for ? Will it make the founders rich, be used for expansion, or be used to pay for an asset that has been bought already, (3) If you owned the company, would you be happy with the management team ? There are more questions, but thats what I'd concentrate on. Ian Whitchurch PS I'm obviously one of the 70%
  18. QUOTE (dee27 @ Saturday 06/05/06 05:29pm) Kahuna, Just one question. Whats the water cut at Ghawar ? If you can show it hasnt moved in ten years, I might buy your story. But we both know what rising water cut means. Ian Whitchurch
  19. Kahuna, You keep spruiking tar sands and oil shales, and I keep not seeing the BFS's and infrastructure planning needed to make them work. We do the mega-projects list, we add in "Other Production" for the baby projects, and then we put in line-items for Canadian tar sands and so on - then we see what sort of likely forward production curves we're looking at. Ian Whitchurch
  20. In reply to: kahuna1 on Thursday 04/05/06 01:45am Kahuna, I call "horseshit" on Russia peaking in 2015. This is what you said "The actual decline side is wrong as well as I said ... Saudi Arabia will not decline until i think 2050 or latter most Gulf state same story ... Russia first ... 2015 ....." Check this 2003 Lukoil presentation as an example http://www.lukoil.com/materials/doc/presen...Oil_and_Gas.pdf The reason is really simple - their big fields (especially Samotlor) have already hit the downslope in a really big way. I also call 'horseshit' on the Saudis. They have drilled Saudi like Swiss Cheese - ok, they found Shabiyah, which is a good sized field and a different petroleum system, but they havenot found any more supergiants. We both get to find out over the next couple of years ... New Projects vs Decline + 3rd World Demand Growth. Ian Whitchurch
  21. Kahuna, A year ago we didnt know about Burgan being in decline, and we werent completely certain that Cantarell was on the downslope. Similarly, a year ago we didnt have some production going permanently offline due to Katrina and Rita. Yes, there is an element of "political crisis" pricing in the current spike. But we also dont have much of a cushion between supply and demand. Ian Whitchurch
  22. ian_whitchurch

    ACN

    In reply to: jessica11 on Wednesday 03/05/06 08:54am No, still the same old thoughts - their gas is worthless, and they have to get the oil flowing at Flax. Ian Whitchurch
  23. QUOTE (crookers @ Wednesday 03/05/06 01:21pm) Crooker, Go to the source. www.nymex.com Ian PS But be aware that Australian oil gets paid for based on the SIngapore Tapis price, not the WTI price. As always, oils aint oils, so heavy waxy crap like Carnarvon produces gets less than light sweet crude.
  24. In reply to: Greybeard on Wednesday 03/05/06 09:24am Apache, The articles you quote are the media going well ahead of the facts. There has been theorising, backed up by some data, that there might be sub-salt source rock. But it isnt a discovery, let alone reserves, until someone drills - and at 45000' in the GOM, I dont think that will happen soon. Stuart Staniford of The Oil Drum talked to Larry Cathless of Cornell about it, and this is what he said "I called and talked to Larry Cathles and he said it was a bogus fabrication. There is a large amount of source rock down there, and his group studied where it was migrating to, but in no sense did they find significant amounts of recoverable oil." Ian Whitchurch
  25. Over at Oil Drum, this project is already taking place http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/18/2149/32950 Kahuna, can I suggest that you take your 'New Fields' data and put it into their spreadsheet ? Ian
×
×
  • Create New...