Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum Arcan Resources Ltd ARNBF

OTCPK:ARNBF - Post Discussion

Arcan Resources Ltd > That's enough for me!
View:
Post by opg210 on Aug 18, 2012 3:27am

That's enough for me!

Hello,

I've been a poster on the ARN board since I think 2009, before they started the HZ drilling. I'd thought they'd done an excellent thing in assembling that land block and then cracking it open with the new technologies, as did the rest of the market obviously. Over the years I've commented that one needs patience since this is a long term process to get a waterflood implemented and then wait for results.

Well I think they've had enough time and it looks to me like the results are finally in, and the big gamble has failed. Doug said at the AGM that in DMU#2 you could expect to see production increases as voidage was replaced, however that at Ethel/elsewhere where the waterflood was underway that you wouldn't see increases in well production, but a flattening of the decline curve.

So: if they quit drilling to day, it looks like production would flatten out at around 4,000 b/d hopefully for the long haul, even with waterflood support, based on what mgmnt had to say. And that volume has to repay $320 million in debt just to get out of debt. That is ridiculous. At a $35/bbl netback and 4,000 b/d you would cash flow something like $40 mm/yr, or if applied entirely to debt 8 yrs would be required to pay off the debt. That's with not another nickel spent on drilling producers or injectors. If there are modest declines and you need to drill even 2 wells/yr plus maybe an injector, that would take up 1/4 of your cash flow, and debt repayment would stretch to 11 years. If prod'n stayed flat for 8 years at 4,000 b/d and looked like you had another 15 yrs worth at that point, it might pan out for the patient investor but that would be the weirdest model yet for a junior to be successful at.

 

The deciding factor for me is CPG's refusal to take this thing out a bargain basement price. Last year at this time CPG needed to issue ~ 1/7th of a share to buy ARN, and everyone thought that was imminent, myself included. Now they need to issue ~ 1/30th, or say 1/25th to get tired shareholders to unload - and they still won't do it. So, you'd have to assume CPG doesn't see ~$500 million in value here (cost to acquire equity plus o/s debt). Not only that, 4,000 b/d of light oil with flat line production for 15 years is a dream property for a high yield vehicle like CPG, there are very few properties like that availabe, that are such perfect cash generating machines. This one is on sale and CPG is saying we're not really interested.

 

I have held onto a material block of ARN shares through this debacle and am obviously sad about that. But in hindsight the writing was on the wall: as I noted a few years back on a post, there were warning signs because these same guys acted out the same play on a smaller scale at Hamburg, with similar results. In 2007/8, they had some serious volume predictions for Hamburg, and assured the market that you needed patience to watch Hamburg unfold; waterfloods were expensive but worth it in the long run, a junior like ARN spending big $$ on a waterflood was unusual and showed how bright they were and with great long term vision. And where is it now? Hard to say really, don't hear anything about Hamburg, but the Grand Investment up there did not pan out as promised. Why should anyone have believed them after that example?

 

And finally, the last straw was to see poor Doug up there humbly facing the crowd, telling us that they'd learned their lesson and the days of overpromising/underdelivering were OVER. Then 6 weeks later...well I don't need to get into that do I...

 

On to the next one? GLTA is all i can say. I'm gettting old enough to say that with respect to the junior o&g gig I think I can say i've seen it all. Of course that's not true but I have seen enough to make me rethink participating in this racket ever again. Of course all juniors are out of favour these days, and when the tide turns they will all come roaring back, even ARN to some extent. But unless someone finds a hidden gem on all these Swan Hills lands, this is Rider Resources all over again. If you're not familiar with that story, they got taken out by Nuvista in ~2007 at about 15% of their peak share price, you can view the subsequent happy chart for NVA at your leisure...


I am going to hold on to the rest of my shares for now, I think there is a pretty good chance at a 50% upside from here in the next little while. but if I see something else that has a decent certainty of getting near that I'm gone like a shot.

 

Happy investing, over and out for this board.

 

opg210

Comment by nlr2 on Aug 18, 2012 4:12am
Good post and I agree with you. Its easy to get seduced by such a fantastic asset and CPG`s involvement but terrible mangment can ruin anything. The one thing I will say is with the convertible debentures when they expire if the share price is in the gutter does Arcan have to buy them out or do the holders get shares valued at 8.50 or whatever the face value was? If they are forced convert at $8 ...more  
Comment by teevee on Aug 18, 2012 9:48am
Very good analysis. Management blew up the balance sheet. I believe that if there ever is an offer (best case scenario), it won't come until well into tax loss selling season which should knock ARN down to the $.65 or $.70 level. THE real risk here is that the bankers cut the LOC based on lower production, forcing a liquidation of the company, leaving something between 0 and 10 cents/share ...more  
Comment by opg210 on Aug 18, 2012 3:56pm
Teevee, I normally don't respond to those that have vendettas of some sort, or those that are over enthusiastic boosters either. I just want point out that I don't endorse any of the values you come up with or your reasoning, you seem to have some sort of axe to grind or you are a shorter of some sort. I absolutely do not endorse that sort of commentary.    Junior energy markets ...more  
Comment by skeksis on Aug 18, 2012 4:10pm
I think everyone should be doing this analysis, but the specific numbers you use in the analysis make a big difference in the valuation you come up with.  First of all, 4000 boe/d * $35/boe * 365 days = $51 million, not $40 million. Second, oil prices are higher now than we saw in Q2.  Last year, the average price Arcan received was $10 higher per BOE than in Q2 this year.  Also, if ...more  
Comment by opg210 on Aug 18, 2012 4:46pm
Ah, thanks for the intelligent critique. My apologies for the math errors, shouldn't try that in the head at 2 in the morning. Your annual CF numbers give me a bit more comfort.   I do hope you're right, and as I noted i continue to hold shares. You are also right that it doesn't matter what you got in at, going forward is all that matters and ARN looks far more likely to trade ...more  
Comment by opg210 on Aug 18, 2012 4:51pm
When the convertibles are due, Arcan has to repay the money, unless ARN shares are trading over $8.50 and the holders convert. I'm surre a lot are hoping for that but the market is sure betting the other way.    Anyway, the problem for ARN then will be to either have the cash in hand to pay off the debentures or find a market for replacement debt. That is a long way away in the life ...more  
Comment by hardeehar on Aug 19, 2012 12:06am
Arcan stated in the Q2 report that Bank debt is currently at over $150 million. Time to do another recalc Skeksis.
Comment by skeksis on Aug 19, 2012 7:34am
Well, I'm not sure why you think this conflicts with what I said.  I said the total debt (which includes both bank debt and the convertible notes, plus current liabilities less current assets) was $300 million after accounting for their recent asset sales and breaking of the acid supply contract.  Anyway, at least we can probably agree on the numbers that are written down on the ...more  
Comment by teevee on Aug 19, 2012 11:55am
Using $70,000/flowing barrel in today's market for assets, and production of 5,000b/d, that values the company at $350 million. Subtracting the debt, leaves $50 million, or about $.50/share.......
Comment by hardeehar on Aug 19, 2012 11:57am
No problem with your calcs Skeksis.  I was a bit confused over the $300 million net debt number vs. the bank debt + debentures. If they had learned anything about missed targets Arcan would be wise to understate guidance going forward and the 4500 -5000 bbl/d numbers they announced would be deemed 'safe' or at least conservative. IMO even though they are currently choking in debt, I ...more  
Comment by skeksis on Aug 19, 2012 12:07pm
Can you point out any 94% light oiil weighted companies with similar operating netbacks per barrel to Arcan that are trading at the 70k/boe multiple?  If so, I would like to buy.
Comment by teevee on Aug 19, 2012 12:21pm
How about you tell me what share price is required for an ARN takeover to be accretive.  
Comment by skeksis on Aug 19, 2012 1:40pm
Accretive for Crescent Point?  They are valued at an enterprise value of 155,000 per flowing barrel, or $30 per barrel of 2P reserves.  At the current market price Arcan is 85,000 per flowing barrel or $11 per 2P barrel.  I think $2.75 would be a reasonable takeover price.  If they paid $2.75 per share of Arcan they would get the company for $107k per flowing barrel or $13.88 ...more  
Comment by skeksis on Aug 19, 2012 1:41pm
Argh, where is the edit button.  REL had 1000 BOE/d not 100,000 obviously.
Comment by azam101 on Aug 20, 2012 5:35pm
To Opg, This is my first post here, and I am happy to see some mature (serious) posts from this website. I am interested to know your opinion about the management and directors (specifically Penner). Also, how much muscle does CPG currently have over policy. It is my impression that Penners move to President is mainly shareholder pressure. I am relatively more optimistic when a person of financial ...more  
Comment by teevee on Aug 20, 2012 6:17pm
bank debt trumps the convertible debs and is what must be reduced first. 
Comment by wordless on Aug 20, 2012 7:04pm
"With regards to capital structure, I believe that it it is in the best interest of any acquirer to be purchasing the convertible debt from the secondary market before making a bid. I would not be surprised if CPG has discretely already purchased some at significant discount to par." ==================== Would CPG not have to disclose any purchases given their 19.9% ownership of ARN ...more  
Comment by oilnvstr on Aug 21, 2012 10:07am
Azam. I'm not sure why or how an acquirer would purchase the converdebt on the secondary matket. Would you pls educvate me. thks
Comment by wordless on Aug 21, 2012 1:18pm
The convertables are traded on the open market just like the shares are  Anyone can buy them.  Ask your broker.  They can currently be bought around $90-$92 per $100 of face value, thus you are effectively getting an almost 10% discount to face value if you buy them today.
Comment by opg210 on Aug 21, 2012 10:10pm
Hi Azam I don't have much confidence in management or directors, Doug partially excepted. I think he is a straight shooter and is taking this seriously. I've known him for a long time actually, he might be overenthusiastic sometimes but I do think he's honest and will try hard. Unfortunately I don't think his resume includes a near-death debt experience like this; if it had I think ...more  
Comment by CalgaryDowntown on Aug 22, 2012 10:06pm
How do you figure that 4,000 Boe/d can be kept flat with $20-25 million in capex? Think about it this way: Given the high decline nature of Arcan's Swan Hills asset base, corporate decline is now around 30% or higher per year. Let's assume 30% 4,000*0.30 = 1,200 Boe/d that needs to be replaced in order to keep production flat. With spending of $22.5 million, that implies a capital ...more  
Comment by skeksis on Aug 23, 2012 1:59am
Basically I don't agree with that 30% number at all as the terminal decline rate on their wells. I am modeling 15% for the terminal decline phase. I think that is slightly conservative relative to their published type curve. See the presentation dated 5/2012 here: https://docsearch.derrickpetroleum.com/search/presentations/q/arcan/document/4/page/0/ Look at the type curves on slide 18. The ...more  
Comment by skeksis on Aug 23, 2012 3:34am
Edit: I transposed a number in my spreadsheet and should have said you would get a 1.6 million NPV10 for a well with the same hyperbolic phase but a 30% decline on the exponential phase of the curve, but you get the point that the reserves report would be way lower if 30% was the number.  For the 1 million that was the NPV30 for a 12% declining well.