- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,072
Forward futures do not indicate the future price, only cost plus current price to hold....That's probably more optimistic that I thought.
It suggests a 50 / 50 chance of being above / below $60 in 2018 (Oil Futures indicate more like $45)
And also not a deterioration of supply to increase prices, but an increase in demand.
Interesting.
You know when you look back at the GFC and think, why didn't I buy? Well why?
If we can just get Iran on line and get the sell the news buy the fact done.
Then see.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/14/warren-buffett-digs-deeper-into-his-big-oil-bet.html
Crude currently 29.44!
You know when you look back at the GFC and think, why didn't I buy? Well why?
Problem is most Oil & Gas stocks are still priced for above Oil above $50.
Also keep in mind the impact of time:
EG. If Oil rebounds to $50 in 2018, STO is still unprofitable and will have been for 3 years.
There will be a big initial rebound whenever Oil bounces, but if it doesn't double to and sustain @ $60+ these companies won't be making enough to earn a PE under 20.
If it rains then someone will say we've got too much water. Didn't need desal. Built too many dams. Etc.
As soon as the next drought comes along the same people start screaming about shortages.
Just my observation. Been there, seen that one play out (water / power) and I expect it's much the same with oil. Humans tend to be pretty short sighted when it comes to this stuff.
A 0.2 mmbpd supply surplus. That'll turn into a shortage real quick as soon as some country has a revolution or natural disaster. For that matter, it won't take too long for US shale production to drop sufficiently as it's already down 0.5 mmbpd and falling.
for Australia and most countries there's only 3 weeks reserves
So far as I'm aware, Australia is the only OECD country that adopts the "leave it to the market" approach and fails to keep the Internaional Energy Agency's (IEA) recommended 90 days of imports in stock at all times.
Many lesser developed countries also do it or at least come as close as they can afford.
Should there be a supply disruption, Australia is the least prepared developed country in the world and even many Third World nations are better prepared than we are.
I read that UBS has estimates of STO and other oil companies under various oil price scenarios. According to that broker's mail-out from UBS, they value STO at -$1.67 per share when oil is $US30/b.
That's a negative -$1.67 per share. So according to UBS, when oil is $30, the seller would be paying the buyer $1.67 per share to take it off them. Good one
They are saying the equity value of STO is negative... given that STO has lots of debt, the enterprise value is still positive (I think).
All other countries pretty much somehow keep discovering more and more oil each year.
Not sure if that's improved technologies or good consultants at work
There are many who have looked at the OPEC reserve claims over the years and are extremely suspicious as to accuracy.
In short, many of them report exactly the same reserve figures for many consecutive years and then have a sudden rise, which then remains constant again for many years to come.
The basic conclusion drawn is that they may be reporting "total oil discovered to date" rather than what actually remains. If that's the case then the world's known oil reserves are substantially lower than the official claims.
Due to the workings of the OPEC quota system, member countries gain economically simply by reporting larger reserves. So there's a definite incentive to come up with the highest number possible.
There's also political influence. Eg if the Saudi's dropped their reserve numbers by 90% then all of a sudden they'd be a lot less influential in global politics. Same with the others so there's another incentive to come up with high numbers.
That OPEC wasn't able to significantly raise production even when prices stayed over $100 for a considerable period adds to the suspicion. They've supposedly got vast reserves, but chose not to develop them and only offered a bit of very poor quality oil to the market. Hmm...
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?