Cenovus Energy Inc T.CVE

Zacks says sell Cenovus...

[Wynjoe]

after earnings release,Zacks investment research gave a sell ranking for Cenovus.With oil holding strong and even gaining,where and whom at these (investment) firms come up with these predictions???Cenovus is still reeling from cash payouts of its takeover of Husky in first quarter,and not doing as good as expected?,(IS EXPECTED),i.m.o.,lol.Cenovus will strive in this oil enviroment as time goes on.It is my opinion that its natural gas assets in the South China sea, should not be sold,as i believe in a very strong natural gas price increase,going forward.

[willyk3]

Absolutely agree with your sentiments about Zacks! As far as the  gas assets go I take it all with a grain of salt....if memory serves me correctly..the Chinese basically told Husky to take their take or pay contracts (at a very attractive price) and shove them...they were renegotiated and there was squat that HSE was able to do ...but take it

[RagingBull3]

I'm guessing there's more to the "contract" story..... Especially given how our Propoganda to China is.    Just look at how we treat our own shareholdes (Preferreds) and how things are said.    This "contract" that was "renegotiated" was probably a contract that was coming due and then was renegotiated for a LONG TERM contract at lower

[RagingBull3]

Meanwhile HERE prices goes NEGATIVE,  Differentials blows out to $45......  And People go on how China Cheats....LOL.....    F..ing HYPOCRITES. All just my opinion/view/thinking.

[mrbb]

Once again the ragingrabies make up sh!t story to defend china. China DID cheated husky and force husky to re-negotiate the Liwan gas contract.  The gas contract covers gas prices before and after payout.  Why would husky invite a re-negotiation when original contract that already covers long term pricing for a new lower pricing? Ragingrabies can't even make up a story that is

[RagingBull3]

Oh now you are saying that  NEW LOWER longterm pricing was Always in the contract.   LOL. Who is Husking going to sell the gas to???? to Canada at 8 times the discount??!!!! LOL Meanwhile, we have NEGATIVE PRICES here,  $45 discount.....  and these hypocrites will claim everything is "FAIR".... nothing wrong, that's the market.... LOL   F-ing

[RagingBull3]

What I do agree on that's not fair is back dating.    The new lower prices should only take in effect when current contract prices expires....which this article did not mention, IMHO.    Well, Apple becoming one of the RICHEST companies in the world.... CHOOSE to operate in China.    That's APPLE'S CHOICE.    As it is with all others. 

[mrbb]

ragingrabies, your english comprehension is not quite good. I repeat "Why would husky invite a re-negotiation when original contract that already covers long term pricing for a new lower pricing? "   I never said husky want to open up a new long term contract. I said the opposite.  IN FACT, A GAS CONTRACT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE THE LIWAN GAS FIELD WAS DEVELOPED.  If

[RagingBull3]

I haven't seen the actual agreement, I assume you haven't also, and the media reports haven't either.....  But in the END..... Just like you all say to the Preferreds.... They "Agreed" to the new contract.   Preferred voted "Yes"....   Husky Agreed to new contract.      Difference here is what would happen if Husky said NO??

[mrbb]

ragingrabies, I DON'T NEED TO SEE THE ACTUAL CONTRACT BECAUSE: 1 . That how 95% of gas contracts are created and signed, BEFORE A DIME SPENT ON DEVELOPMENT DRILLING,  AGREED WHO PROCESS IT, HOW TO TRANSPORT IT, WHO BUYS IT and AT WHAT PRICE, and FOR HOW LONG THE TERM OF CONTRACT.   For Offshore drilling, i would say 100% of gas contract is signed this way because the risk

[RagingBull3]

LOL.... That's right, you don't need to ACTUALLY know the contract.... that way you can BS and claim your "truth".      And notice you brush aside CNOCC 51%.    So.... how did you know that LOWER LONG TERM prices already in the contract?????   Oh ya, just making BS probably. All just my opinion/view/thinking/guessing.   

[mrbb]

so why china deface itself to re-negotiate an existing gas contract?

[RagingBull3]

As I said, the contract probably was going to expire anyways.   Contract is not FOREVER..  And you know it.    What I do agree on is that the new contract pricing should not have been back dated.....  But dont' know for sure as we don't know what the contract was... But we all know contracts are for a TERM, they are not for FOREVER.   If fact

[mrbb]

You are so sure of yourself by using words like 'probably' and 'All just my opinion/view/thinking' Just another way to hide your ignorance on the subject.  You even assumed all contract is timed based. What a moron. If it was time based, a disgruntle buyer can just stop buying gas and let time lapse to exit a contract. Husky threaten to sue cnooc, that's why china come

[RagingBull3]

Husky FAILED to deliver contracted volume of Gas.... maybe that explains back dating of prices of new agreement..      At least I usually say "probably" so that you and other know it's not FACT..... unlike yourself and many others....   "COP won't sell for less than $17"..... or something close to that.  So how long was the original

[RagingBull3]

Hey Bone Head.... It's STANDARD PRACTICE here to spend Billions on a Projects yet don't have a clue what prices will be the next year, let alone next month.     Again, your Hyprocisy just shows.      So why you think HUSKY would require a 20, 30, 40 year deal before building a project???? Again, you don't know...  You just making BS up.  

[autofocus111]

RagingBull It was a tough pricing environment and it threw the viability of the whole project into question. Fortunately level heads prevailed on both sides and a decent arrangement was concluded so the project is alive and well and delivering solid returns. To me that's all that counts.

[RagingBull3]

And if you notice, CNOCC owns 51%.     If Husky upset, maybe they should have thought about owning more than 49%.    But I know you..... owning 51% doesn't count because they are a Chinese company.  LOL.  F-ing Hypocrites. All just my opinion/view/thinking.

[mrbb]

hey fktard, why are you asking me when it was me you learned about cnooc's 51%  

[mrbb]

ok your dumbfk, you think u know about liwan. Which Liwan wells and which gas platform that cnoonc doesn't own 51%?

[woodwise]

LOL, That Ragingidiot3 is a complete moron. That Halfwit hasn't got a clue. Just full of absolutely stupid comments.

[stocktrader2021]

WOOOODpeker... I found you here as well. doing same bashing... unhappy with your birth... taking revenge with every stock ... LOL

[woodwise]

Hey dicktrader2021, you finally found your way off the penny pages. Don't look here, this stock is way too high for you and it's one that will make lots of money. Go back to your 0.02 cent pages.

[autofocus111]

mrbb The gas market was being flooded with LNG which created huge uncertainties about the future competitiveness of the project and led to the dispute. In the end HSE and CNNOC did come to an agreement that resulted in a realatively small ~13% haircut in the contract pricing but also the two stakeholders agreed to continue to expand the project. It was a tough call but HSE did threaten legal

[mrbb]

doesn't matter, the gas deal was agreed on before husky spent hundreds of million risk capital into exploration and development of liwan, and this was way before LNG became a competitive supply.  Like i said many times before, cheap NG is not the only thing china want, they want to learn and steal offshore drilling/operation technology from a western operator, so china can then use that

[autofocus111]

mrbb They came to what I consider was a reasonable compromise in a highly uncertain situation. I don't condone what CNNOC did, just highlighting for those CVE shareholders who don't know HSE's history there what led to the dispute. HSE also has projects off the coast of Malaysia. Their Asian assets are close to the growth. That is enough incentive to hold onto this asset base IMO.

[mrbb]

i only brought up liwan gas dispute to highlight the risk of operating assets in a corrupt country. The other corrupt country (with even more primitive business ethic) is indonsia, where husky has 40% in the Madura gas field, not offshore malaysia. Husky originally has 50% together with Exxon Mobil 50%.  The corruption is too much to bare even for the oil giant so ExxonMobil want out and sold

[autofocus111]

mrbb My bad yes it's Indonesia. And yes that is a corrupt jurisdiction no doubt. China has faced huge challenges in metals sector with that country, in particular related to nickel ore supplies as input to their stainless steel production. My point is that Asia has a strong energy demand outlook, so growth projects close to that market and with fixed price contracts I see that as benefiting

[mrbb]

Although i had highlighted business practices in asia, i didn't say cve should sell their asian asset right away. China is shrew, cve need a sell strategy that reflect the principle of Sun Tzu.  Of course i agree to keep it for now. Cve need to extract maximum value from china, china got the dough to do it.  Of course, china would have their own strategy to get it from cve as well