Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Oil Search on acquisition trail
#1


Oil Search on acquisition trail



Oil Search CEO Peter Botten at the company’s offices in Sydney.


Oil Search CEO Peter Botten at the company’s offices in Sydney.

Oil Search managing director Peter Botten says the company is looking for growth opportunities and expects deal activity to pick up in the second half of the year, describing the industry as “unsustainable” with oil at $US30 a ­barrel.

Speaking at the Credit Suisse’s Asian Investment Conference in Hong Kong, Mr Botten said it was “inevitable” LNG customers would seek to renegotiate long-term contracts should contract prices — which are linked to oil — remain well above suppressed “spot” prices.

“Clearly in the next couple of years the temptation, if contract pricing is substantially above spot pricing, you’re going to see pressure on renegotiations …. pressure on customers going to spot, and that’s inevitable in the next couple of years,” Mr Botten said.

The comments are likely to fuel concerns among investors about the sanctity of long-term offtake contracts.

His comments also contrast with those of Citi analysts who last month argued contracts would hold up and that the likes of Oil Search, Woodside Petroleum and Origin Energy were exposed to earnings risk by not being covered by long-term contracts.

Fereidun Fesharaki, chairman of FACTS Global Energy, said Chinese and Indian customers were most likely to try to tweak contracts compared to the Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese, but predicted few major price ­renegotiations.

After a pullback in the oil price in the past week to around $US35, Mr Botten said he expected ongoing softness. “The oil and gas sector is not sustainable in a $US30 barrel oil price for any length of time,” he said.

“I think this is a really healthy thing for the oil and gas business to go through. There were a lot of projects that shouldn’t have been sanctioned in a $US110 world. I think there was a lot of fat and cost inefficiencies built into the sector at a $US110.”

Dr Fesharaki said “high oil ­prices make you stupid” and it would take at least 10 years to breach $US100 again.

“This is an environment where people need to get thin and they need to accept the long-term world is a $US50, $US60, $US70 oil price — it’s not a $120 world. The demand growth will solve this more than supply restrictions, but we need time for that,” he said.

Mr Botten said Oil Search, which last year fended off an $11.6 billion takeover bid by Woodside, was looking for growth opportunities, and predicted more deals in the industry.

“The buy sell spread for M&A is definitely closing and I think in the second half of this year we’ll see a range of deals that will get across the line,” he said. “It has taken some time for that spread to close. It’s a really good opportunity, especially where companies are in stress, to pick and choose over those assets.

Reply

#2
Interoil is not in stress for a realist .
Reply

#3

'jft310' pid='68040' datel Wrote:Interoil is not in stress for a realist .

Only because we sold the refinery for full price.

Reply

#4
I think the refinery is making bundles of money with oil this cheap.
Reply

#5
Until IOC gets certification payment amount and date from Total on E/A, and/or until the US$300m credit facility is increased and/or repayment moved further out, and / or new monetization deals from BRT materialize - I would argue IOC is very stressed financially. By mid year 2016, the $300m will be fully drawn and probably $200m or more already spent. IOC must repay this loan by year end, so where does IOC get the cash for the $300m payback + interest ???

This is why Dr. Pink Shirt has had to slash spending and there is no talk of Antelope South drilling and not wanting to approve A7 drilling. Phil M sees this and is why he wants shareholder approval over any further asset sales, more drastic personnel cutbacks, among other things.
Reply

#6

'bdahl385' pid='68057' datel Wrote:Until IOC gets certification payment amount and date from Total on E/A, and/or until the US$300m credit facility is increased and/or repayment moved further out, and / or new monetization deals from BRT materialize - I would argue IOC is very stressed financially. By mid year 2016, the $300m will be fully drawn and probably $200m or more already spent. IOC must repay this loan by year end, so where does IOC get the cash for the $300m payback + interest ??? This is why Dr. Pink Shirt has had to slash spending and there is no talk of Antelope South drilling and not wanting to approve A7 drilling. Phil M sees this and is why he wants shareholder approval over any further asset sales, more drastic personnel cutbacks, among other things.

So, if one accepts your argument that IOC is financially stressed, how does a possible restriction on asset sales help the cause?.  Looking at the last financial statements, what kinds of cuts where will get the job done?   G&A is only about $40 million.

Reply

#7

(04-07-2016, 02:03 PM)katytrader Wrote:

(04-07-2016, 01:00 PM)bdahl385 Wrote: Until IOC gets certification payment amount and date from Total on E/A, and/or until the US$300m credit facility is increased and/or repayment moved further out, and / or new monetization deals from BRT materialize - I would argue IOC is very stressed financially. By mid year 2016, the $300m will be fully drawn and probably $200m or more already spent. IOC must repay this loan by year end, so where does IOC get the cash for the $300m payback + interest ??? This is why Dr. Pink Shirt has had to slash spending and there is no talk of Antelope South drilling and not wanting to approve A7 drilling. Phil M sees this and is why he wants shareholder approval over any further asset sales, more drastic personnel cutbacks, among other things.

So, if one accepts your argument that IOC is financially stressed, how does a possible restriction on asset sales help the cause?.  Looking at the last financial statements, what kinds of cuts where will get the job done?   G&A is only about $40 million.

 The proposed restrictions on asset sales would be structured to require shareholder approval rather than IOC management making the deal and then giving us shareholders the "transformational news".  I think Dr. MH would structure an asset sale to better his and the BOD well being over the shareholders.  I don't fully trust his judgment or motive.  As far as the $40m in G&A, I will take your word for it that it is the correct amount.  Phil wants to reduce the headcount number on the BOD to reflect what is actually required by the current operations IOC finds itself in these days. He also wants their pay to be in large part given in company shares / options instead of cash - so once again their interest would therefore be aligned with shareholders.  I make no money on my IOC investment unless the SP is moving upwards - I want the BOD to have a fair amount of skin in the game too.

Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)