RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Top Clearwater WellsJohnnyDoe wrote: HeavyBanana wrote: riski wrote: I think they have already foreshadowed in the last quarterly report that they decided to shift a large amount of capex to H1 rather than the Q1/Q3 heavy capex plan they had before to start the year. So this will be another quarter with a moderate amount of capex, but likely not as high as Q1 due to breakup. Then they are planning to reap the cash flow in H2 for shareholder returns. Hopefully the oil price cooperates.
JohnnyDoe wrote: HeavyBanana wrote: riski wrote: The clearwater production is most certainly increasing but it is being offset over the past year or so by declines in other acreages in the portolio where less capital is being invested. This is standard operating procedure.
HeavyBanana wrote: The initial hype for Clearwater and the stellar results to date are seemingly already baked in to the stock price. Unfortunately it wasn't as big of an impact as everybody thought it would be early on.
I think the way to start seeing increased value as shown in the stock price from the Clearwater play would be for the company to increase guidance on annual production from Clearwater in a meaningful way. Currently it is a very conservative approach to production, imo.
Riski, I think part of the conservative approach to production increases on the Clearwater play relates to the agreements in place with the First Nations of the area and being mindful and respectful of having them comfortable with the level of work being done in the area.
A proven track record in the area of respecting the First Nations view whilst demonstrating the benefits of the play through measured production increases wins the day.
I'm not suggesting the strategy is flawed in any way. The measured approach just hasn't had as meaningful an impact on the stock price as was hoped for early on in the speculation phase of the play.
I believe the First Nations will in fact agree to meaningful increases in production as the play matures and minimal impact is demonstrated all the way through.
My thoughts on it anyway.
These may be the top 15 Clearwater wells but in the grand scheme of things, other formations have wells production 2x and 3x what the Clearwater wells are producing.
Crude averaged about 83 bucks in Q2. It was about 77 in Q1. So we had heavy capex in Q1. If they don't produce 250 + fcf this Q, I'm afraid the fat lady is going to start singing next Friday. No excuses. Low capex. Great wti price.
Riski, Brian Ector has given guidance of roughly $350 million in expenditures for Q2. JohnnyDoe you should probably divest now if you think the Q2 capex estimate Brian provided will crush the stock come financials release day.
I really don't understand people who speculate on fcf and capital expenditure when Brian Ector is as transparent as they come in providing guidance on both. All one has to do is ask him.
Where is the 350 capex guidance in Q2 coming from? It's not in the transcript from the last cc and it's not in the news release about the last Q unless I missed it.
I said 250 fcf. They guided to 700 fcf over 3 quarters. And wti has run ahead of strip since that guidance. Wti has averaged 5 bucks a barrel higher in Q2 than Q1. That alone is near 70M in additional revenue, almost all of which is fcf.
Like I said, they need to post a big quarter, not explain why they didn't. And I correspond frequently with Brian for years and recognize that he's very open. The past few quarters my correspondence with him has been more me challenging what gets publicly stated. There's always reasons for poor performance, it's just starting to get rather thin.
The $350 million projection comes directly from Brian Ector in correspondance with myself and other investors have reported the same info by way of Brian.
The company reported a loss of $14 million in Q1 so all things being equal, which they are not, Q2 would come in with $50 million in the bag distributed as per the plan for dividend, buyback and debt repayment.
We already know quite accurately what the divvy costs relative to the float for the quarter. Buyback value is easily calculated for the quarter via Sedi reporting.
The formula is 50/50 shareholder returns/debt repayment. So The numbers should jibe if all things were equal other than E&D.
It's a very simplistic way to view things but certainly gives a look other than "he said/she said" which I guess is a rather simplistic view in itself.