Around 70 cents would be appealing for me as this provides a good discount to the AOE metrics. I just can not see much upside in current price without a bid being made. Obviously if the bid comes in, then there is plenty of upside.
kingcarmleo
Sorry - not sure what your getting at. I do get it and have understood and invested in this sector for many years. Before you blow your top may I politely suggest you read previous posts and comments made by myself and others.
You will also note that I (although I must admit to not putting the declaration on today - brain fade!!) declare in most previous posts that I am a substantial holder of ESG shares.
I think you should also be careful. At this stage NO company has spent billions of dollars on infrastructure for CSG to LNG. All infrastructure at this stage is in planning and none have "turned the first sod" or even got full approvals. A few have "significant status" standing from the state government. No company has yet proven that they can even turn CSG into LNG efficiently. Realistically - nobody expects this to be a major problem but the market will still factor the risk into the price until proven otherwise.
The "gas glut" as you call it may have been spun out of a few media reports (I dont know what media reports you are referring too) but it doesn't take much research to see how much is predicted to come online over the next decade and compare it to current usage and growth to come to the conclusion that there is a lot of people going to be looking for customers. That was one of the significant things about the AOE takeover - that it came with a large customer (Petro China).
Anyway - happy to discuss further but not happy to be abused for having a researched opinion.
malachii
Well put.
And, kingcarmeleo, I'll say what malachii was too polite say - relax and get some manners.
And, yes, big companies do get stuff wrong from time to time.
And yes, I'm a holder.
In terms of useful (flammable) gases, CSG is methane.I'm sick of this drivel that CSG-LNG might not be viable. I think you should go talk to COP,BG,SHELL,CNOOC,CNPC,STO,ORG,AOE. Now they are world class companies, what would you say the likelihood of all of them being wrong would be?
In terms of useful (flammable) gases, CSG is methane.
Conventional natural gas is also predominantly methane but also contains propane (what your BBQ runs on), butane (another LPG gas commonly found in Autogas and in cigarette lighters) and ethane (petrochemical feedstock). The non-methane gases are normally stripped out for separate marketing since they are far more vaulable than methane, leaving only the methane in the natural gas stream that goes into pipelines or for conversion to LNG.
The only real exceptions I'm aware of is (1) small gas fields where it's uneconomic to remove the propane etc due to scale or remoteness and (2) LNG destined for Japan which still contains the LPG gases due to gas specifications in that country. Sometimes this requires the additon of purchaed LPG (propane, butane) in addition to that naturally found in the gas.
Ethane is generally only removed if there's a local need for it. Eg Bass Strait - enough ethane is removed to meet petrochemical industry use in Vic and the rest is simply left in the natural gas that goes in to pipelines to homes etc. It causes no real hassle to leave it in, it's just that it's valuable (but not easily transportable) for other uses. Same with propane and butane except that they are more easily transported and hence more commonly removed from natural gas.
I'd be very, very surprised if there's a technical issue in converting CSG (methane) into LNG given that LNG is simply liquid methane at -161 degrees C. Depending on what market they are selling it into, they might need to purchase LPG (propane, butane) to add to the mix - but that shouldn't be a huge problem with proper organisation of shipping etc (and I'm sure that the likes of Shell, BP etc can work out how to source and ship LPG - it's a well established industry).
1. ESG
2. BOW (soon to be equal to or more than my ESG holding though)
3. AOE
All coal seam gas stocks that I believe will be subject to takeover. AOE already under activity.
I have held PES, QGC, Sunshine, etc that have already been taken over in this industry over the last couple of years. Once they get taken over, I just put the money in the next likely one to go (in my opinion of course).
Therefore, I'm in those 3 above for growth only, and takeover speculation.
From Grace on the 'Your Top 3 holdings' thread, on 14 Mar 2010:
Thread address: http://stockforum.com.au/forums/showthread.php?t=19031&page=2
Good article out of the CSG conference in Brisbane.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...m-gas-conference/story-e6frg8zx-1225847171696
Better not read it kingcarmleo - it mentions the "gas glut" and actually puts some numbers to it.
malachii
Sorry - never meant to give the impression that it cant be done - just that it hasn't been done before and the market was factoring this risk into the price.
Smurf has written a great technical piece on the specifics of it. The only thing I would add is as the calorific value is lower (due to high methane content) the price at this stage is expected to be about 10% lower than "normal" LNG (which is 15% lower than the oil price parity). The Japanese seem to be saying that they wont lock into long term contracts because of this and yet in the next breath Toyota Tsusho signed a deal with LNG's Fisherman's Landing project for 1.5 million tonnes a year.
malachii
PS - A big call to say that it wont go back into the 70s and that "he's missed the boat". 3 weeks ago it was in the 60s!
PSPS - Have sold some shares to take profits - still a big believer in this company so still very biased!!
Malachii Not such a big call unless there's a double dip & even then i doubt it would reach 70s let alone 60s.
The big call would be to say that it would go back down to that level.
Gooner would be wishing otherwise but as i previously said you wont get them back at those prices you've missed the boat. Currently nudging $1.
Short term a glut is quite possible I'd agree. But in the long term we're going to need all the energy we can get, especially fuels (including gas) which can be used for transport as conventional oil supplies decline.Better not read it kingcarmleo - it mentions the "gas glut" and actually puts some numbers to it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?