Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Magellan Petroleum Corporation Message Board

SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    "Bloodbath" ----- (BLOOMBERG)

    by avi.morax 7 hours ago

    The Scariest Number For The Oil Industry: $550 Billion
    August 28th, 2015

    Tyler Durden: Just over half a trillion dollars: that’s how much cash oil industry companies will need to repay in maturing debt over the next 5 years.

    Specifically, according to BMI Research cited by Bloomberg, there is $72 billion in oil-related debt maturing this year, $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, and a total of $550 billion in bonds and loans through 2020.

    This is a problem because while paying annual interest is one thing and easily manageable, rolling over debt when it is yielding over 10% – as is the case for over 168 global companies, or triple last year’s number – is virtually impossible."

  • "Oil and gas producers dropped to their lowest level in almost four years as collapsing markets in China heightened concern that demand will falter, aggravating a glut.

    The index of 40 energy explorers, refiners and drillers on the Standard & Poor’s 500 lost $17 billion in value, sinking 5.2 percent Monday in New York to the lowest since October 2011. The slide extended Exxon Mobil Corp.’s year-to-date decline to 26 percent, putting the world’s biggest oil producer by market value on track for the poorest annual performance since at least 1981.

    Stocks around the world plunged as a rout that began with the Aug. 11 devaluation of China’s yuan rippled through European and U.S. markets. Commodities fell to a 16-year low, Treasury yields dipped and U.S. crude closed below $40 a barrel for the first time since February 2009.

    “It’s a bloodbath,” said Mark Hanson, an analyst who follows U.S. crude explorers at Morningstar Inc. in Chicago. “We’re at an intersection of a lot of bad news.”..

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Reply to

    What Celtique's website says.........

    by avi.morax Aug 27, 2015 2:39 PM

    Like I said, two sides to every lawsuit. Avi, I do appreciate you posting the entire statement.

    On April 1, 2015, MPUK filed a defense and counterclaim asserting, among other things, that the cash calls by Celtique are not valid due to the failure of Celtique as operator of the PEDLs to comply with the contractual accounting procedures, adhere to an agreed-upon drilling schedule and otherwise properly execute the parties’ development plans, and seeking to recover damages from Celtique as a result of Celtique’s unilateral actions following the purported forfeiture of the PEDL interests.

    MPUK believes that it has strong defenses to, and intends to vigorously contest, the claims by Celtique. However, due to the early stage of this matter and the uncertainty and risks inherent in litigation, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter and believes that a meaningful estimate of a reasonably possible loss, if any, or range of reasonably possible losses Less

  • Reply to

    What Celtique's website says.........

    by avi.morax Aug 27, 2015 2:39 PM

    NOTE 15:
    "Broadford Bridge-1 Well. As previously reported, during the three months ended December 31, 2014, the Company received a cash call from Celtique for the advancement of estimated expenses in the amount of approximately $2,000 thousand in connection with the Broadford Bridge-1 well, and the Company is evaluating its alternatives under the applicable joint operating agreement. On March 3, 2015, MPUK received a claim form and particulars of claim issued in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court in London, England on February 26, 2015, pursuant to which Celtique Energie Weald Limited as the claimant seeks, among other things, a declaration that MPUK’s 50% equal co-ownership rights with Celtique in PEDLs 231, 234 (within which license area the Broadford Bridge-1 well site is located), and 243 in the central Weald Basin in the UK have been forfeited to Celtique, and payment of £1,540 thousand (equivalent to $2,284 thousand as of March 31, 2015) for the outstanding cash calls along with interest on that amount at 5% above base rate until payment.

    On April 1, 2015, MPUK filed a defense and counterclaim asserting, among other things, that the cash calls by Celtique are not valid due to the failure of Celtique as operator of the PEDLs to comply with the contractual accounting procedures, adhere to an agreed-upon drilling schedule and otherwise properly execute the parties’ development plans, and seeking to recover damages from Celtique as a result of Celtique’s unilateral actions following the purported forfeiture of the PEDL interests.

    MPUK believes that it has strong defenses to, and intends to vigorously contest, the claims by Celtique. However, due to the early stage of this matter and the uncertainty and risks inherent in litigation, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter and believes that a meaningful estimate of a reasonably possible loss, if any, or range of reasonably possible losses

  • Reply to

    What Celtique's website says.........

    by avi.morax Aug 27, 2015 2:39 PM

    What the 10-Q MPET Disclosure says:

    "A legal proceeding initiated by Celtique may have a material adverse effect on our interests in the central Weald Basin of the UK.

    In the central Weald Basin of the UK, we co-own equally with Celtique three licenses, PEDLs 231, 234, and 243, representing 124 thousand net acres that may be prospective for oil and gas development. As previously reported, during the three months ended December 31, 2014, we received a cash call from Celtique for the advancement of estimated expenses in the amount of $2,000 thousand in connection with the Broadford Bridge-1 well, the site for which is located within the PEDL 234 license area, and we are evaluating our alternatives under the applicable joint operating agreement. During the three months ended March 31, 2015, Celtique initiated a legal proceeding against us with respect to that cash call and related issues. See Note 15 - Commitments and Contingencies - Broadford Bridge-1 Well of the notes to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements included in this report for further information. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, which may have a material adverse effect on our interests in the central Weald licenses and/or require the payment of amounts for which we would need to obtain funding."

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • "In 2008, Celtique Energie Weald Ltd and its joint venture investment partner – Magellan Petroleum (UK) Ltd - were awarded three PEDL licenses in southern England’s Central Weald area from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) – PEDL 231, PEDL 234 and PEDL 243. All licences are valid for an initial six year term...." ( six years was up in 2014 )

  • Avi, home turf and deep pockets do not Trump Legal Contracts. I am not saying who will win in court because I have no idea what the criteria for payment was, if you know please share.

  • canes. Who has the home turf advantage and deepest pockets?

  • Own Turf? What was the criteria in the contract for payment? I am just stating a FACT, there are two sides in a lawsuit.

  • MPET is being sued on Celtique's own turf. Does anyone seriously believe MPET would be sued if they didn't owe the money and the agreements substantiate that?

  • Shares of this toilet paper are worth approximately 2 thin dimes ( $0.20 cents ).

    Anyone suppose the market has figured out you can't explore for oil and gas with marginal and rapidly vanishing capital while your production declines and you LOSE MONEY on every BBL?

    Maybe "virty virty, lost his shirty" can give us the shill perspective! lol

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Reply to

    HORSE HILL 1 UPDATE

    by virtua98 Aug 26, 2015 1:07 PM

    "Today’s report doesn’t really contain any new information. The data used by Schlumberger appears to be pretty much the same as that used by Nutech, earlier this year.

    According to UKOG, Nutech used “analyses of the HH-1 and Collendean Farm-1 wells and the 8 closest wells to the licences”.

    Today’s update says that Schlumberger used “electric logs [acquired] during the drilling of HH-1″ and “incorporates the analysis of a further nine wells located within and beyond the Licence Area”.

    It’s not clear to me why UKOG has paid for the same analysis to be done twice..."

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Reply to

    HORSE HILL 1 UPDATE

    by virtua98 Aug 26, 2015 1:07 PM

    I hope, virtua, that some company sees enough value to make such an offer for Magellan. But I suspect that no one will step forward unless the flow test (whenever that occurs) confirms such a estimate as Schlumberger has put forward.

  • Today Schlumberger Updated the UK Horse Hill 1 well analysis to Original Oil In Place (OOIP)
    increasing the P50 amount 19% to 10,993 MMBOE for the 55 square miles of PEDL'S 137 & 246.

    MPET's 35% = 3,848 MMBOE. If only 6% Recovery and only $1/BOE Present Value (PV) this
    equals $230 million. MPET currently has only 5.7 million shares. If this doubles to 11.4 mllion
    fully diluted shares = $20/share (equivalent to $2.50 before the 8 for 1)

    The Independent special Committee assisted by Petrie Partners Financial Advisors may sell part
    of Horse Hill 1 to raise needed cash. Flow tests are to be conducted later this year.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Roland Heald - Motley Fool

    by avi.morax Aug 26, 2015 8:51 AM
    taffytaffty@ymail.com taffytaffty Aug 26, 2015 12:59 PM Flag

    Hi ya Virty ! How's the health? I see we are up above a dollar, just like in your evaluations . When you were calculating the $1.00+ share price, had you factored in the 8 for 1 reverse split? What are the new values per share for Horse Hill? Australia? Timor Sea? Poplar?

  • You are assuming Celtique wins. I am not sure why the payment was not made; however, there are always "two sides" in a lawsuit. Also, not sure a chap 11 would get them off the hook if the court rules in favor of Celtique.

  • Reply to

    Roland Heald - Motley Fool

    by avi.morax Aug 26, 2015 8:51 AM

    THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS NOT CLEAR TO YOU

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • wildbeenyheeth@ymail.com wildbeenyheeth Aug 26, 2015 9:59 AM Flag

    MPET has to be a prime BK candidate....a good way to avoid the Celtique law suit ... maybe that is the Strategic Option that is being proposed by their strategic adviser...

  • You can only cover the deteriorating revenues for so long. The debt side of the balance sheet doesn't go away, folks.....

  • "A few minutes before I wrote this, former UK Oil & Gas Investments (LSE: UKOG) director David Lenigas took to Twitter to declare “great news from Schlumberger this morning”. So what’s the good news?

    According to UKOG, oil services giant Schlumberger has calculated a mean oil in place figure of 10,993m barrels for the PEDL137 and PEDL246 Horse Hill licences, in the south east of England. UKOG has a 20% interest in these licences.

    This is consistent with and slightly higher than the June report from consultants Nutech, who concluded that mean oil in place in the Horse Hill licence area was 9,245m barrels.

    These figures refer to the tight oil in the Kimmeridge, Oxford and Lias formations which lie below the separate Portlandian discovery, which has a mean oil in place estimate of 21m barrels.

    However, it’s important to remember the oil in place figures are not an indication of how much oil can be commercially recovered. Even if this discovery is commercially viable, the amount of recoverable oil will be much lower than the oil in place.

    What’s changed?
    Today’s report doesn’t really contain any new information. The data used by Schlumberger appears to be pretty much the same as that used by Nutech, earlier this year.

    According to UKOG, Nutech used “analyses of the HH-1 and Collendean Farm-1 wells and the 8 closest wells to the licences”.

    Today’s update says that Schlumberger used “electric logs [acquired] during the drilling of HH-1″ and “incorporates the analysis of a further nine wells located within and beyond the Licence Area”.

    It’s not clear to me why UKOG has paid for the same analysis to be done twice..."

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

Must Watch
MPET
1.68+0.07(+4.35%)Aug 28 4:00 PMEDT