I've traded enough distressed companies to know that they will delay the reports as Doral is doing while they are contemplating a restructuring. Sorry that me pointing out the writing on the wall is annoying you. Since I supposedly don't understand GAAP accounting, please put me on ignore and double-down on your position.
Sam, that would make sense to maximize near term production. However, I think we will see Mill stick with their strategy of maximizing reserves and Alaska rebates. If they get a 60% rebate for drilling into a new fault block, it's hard to argue that's a bad decision.
They could sell the rights. It was discussed on the last call. As Tsar pointed out the asset sale increases the amount they need to raise. The uncertainty and politics would also tend to discourage any potential buyers.
Robert, the fact that they still haven't filed the Q1 report is troubling. It's another reason why I won't trade the issues even though court victories are very likely. My viewpoint is that they are avoiding filing anything to reduce the risk of shareholder litigation if they later file a pre-pack. Any legal disclosures in the report or conference call could provide ammunition for lawsuits. I guess the lawyers are telling them its better not to file at all.
Updating equity holders is a very low priority at this point. They are concerned more about lawsuit avoidance. I suspect they are trying to file a pre-pack near term. Never mind the regulators or the courts. Worry about what management is up to!
Sam, do you think they should put a second rig on the platform? RU9 seems likely to be a good well, but has taken a long time to drill. Perhaps they need a 2 rig strategy on the platform. Use the current rig to drill stuff like natural gas, disposal wells and reworks closer to the platform. Get a new rig that can do these "extended reach" wells faster. Seems like they have many years worth of targets on the platform at the rate they are drilling. At the current pace they might do 3 RU wells a year if we're lucky (probably less given the need for the rig to do other stuff as well).
Well exuuuuuuuuse (spell check that!) me for the typo. As an investor I don't worry about whether they got a new credit line from Keybank or Keybanc. I said they would close a bank credit line and they did. Some posters such as Verado said they wouldn't. Looking at well results from the 1960's to draw conclusions about wells being drilled with modern technology is not smart. It really is like saying that calculations are impossible (even with a modern computer) because they couldn't be done on an Abacus. I stand by the comments.
Robert, the short answer to your question is "No". Management has made it clear that they would prefer to "restructure the balance sheet" rather than sell the crown jewel mainland operations. They would rather lose equity holders than lose that operation. But let's pretend they wanted to sell it, but retain some control. That wouldn't work. In the FDIC regulatory world if you control a bank you are responsible for losses of all related banks (and vice versa). The FDIC can go after the holding company of a bank for more than the value of it's equity controlling stake in that bank. If you sell a bank but still control it via options, those cross liens would most likely still be enforceable. The regulators have taken a rather expansive view of how they can enforce cross liens.
Cross lines make even a very clean sale of a profitable unit very complex. The buyers would want cross lien waivers from the FDIC to ensure that the buyers are not responsible for losses in PR. The FDIC might not want to provide them such waivers. As I've mentioned before, the regulators are basically a bunch of Vogon trolls. If you expect and count on them to impede the recovery process for Doral, you won't be disappointed
fp, I think there is a 99% chance they will eventually win in court unless PR settles first. How impatient the regulators are is a concern. You are also assuming that management will be patient (assuming regulators are) as things are being litigated. They already warned you in May that they might not be:
(2) Doral may not be able to effectuate the recapitalization and restructuring plans that Doral believes are necessary to comply with regulatory requirements or Doral does effectuate such plans that Doral can restructure and recapitalize its balance sheet and businesses on terms that will preserve the value of its outstanding debt and equity.
Fair points Tsar. If the Court moves faster than the regulators, you are likely to make money. If the reverse happens, you will lose money. Both the courts and regulators are difficult to predict. Staying on the sidelines on account of that.
Yahoo shows only 2% of the float is short. It is funny that people see shorts behind every trade.
Disc: Took profits awhile back. No position.
Seems like a decent trading plan Tsar. I think you are right that they will win in court and the court is moving about as fast as courts can move. My take is that the regulators are really putting the screws on Doral though. I don't even want to trade on the likely court victory until I see what happens with the capital plan deadline.
They need to file a capital plan before the end of the month. It's not a question of shareholders being impatient, it's a question of regulators being impatient. It would be nice if the regulators said, "sure take your time and take a couple of years to get back to well capitalized as long as you are making progress. We'll do our best not to hinder your profitability and liquidity in the meantime while you work towards that goal". Unfortunately that's not what's happening.
I think you have it backwards. DRL is winning every battle in court. PR blatantly violated the agreement and made up "legal" justifications to try and justify a political decision. I assume DRL will win in court. The problem is that PR can then still appeal further as you've pointed out. This illustrates why DRL shareholders desperately need PR to settle voluntarily (no appeal). Unfortunately I doubt we're going to get a settlement. I guess it's good politics to go after those "Wall St. Millionaires". If you own a few shares of DRL, guess who that is.
There's a short on the BPZ Board that is trying to resurrect them. It's stuff like that that tends to give shorts a bad name. Sort of like claims by Verado that Mill would never close a bank credit credit. By the way, at the risk of offending the message board police, BPZ (Peru)has been hitting some nice wells (actually Pacific Rubiales is doing the drilling for them). I'm still very partial to Petroamerica (Colombia, just merged with Suroco), Tag Oil (New Zealand) and East West Petroleum (New Zealand and Romania mostly.)
Another nice thing about a grass roots well like RU9 is that I suspect we will see lower decline rates than on the reworks. This may be why they are focusing on wells like RU9. They could be doing some nice wells that just weren't cost effective with older technology. Aside from the new technology, higher oil prices and Alaska tax rebates - we should also bear in mind that Mill has a much lower cost basis on the assets than prior operators did.
I do wonder if perhaps they should consider putting a second rig on the platform that can drill wells like RU9 faster? The existing rig could be used for reworks, shallow gas wells, disposal wells and drilling closer to the platform with the newer rig doing longer wells like RU9.
On the BPZ message boards, one of the shorts there is trying to scare people with 20 year old tales of terrorism by the Shining Path (no longer a big factor except in remote jungle regions of Peru and all of BPZ's production is offshore). Whenever you see a short talking about ancient events rather than current events it's a good sign they are trying to talk up a very weak bearish case.
Yes, it really is good news for PR. Escaping from onerous provisions of the Unaffordable Care Act could actually be a good reason for many US companies to locate operations in PR!
If you owe taxes the government will charge you interest on that money. The converse is true in this case. They overpaid 152 and the govt owes them 230 with interest.
As a trader I have a long memory for things that make me money. Trading on comments from DH about favorable well log results is one of those things.
At this point I wouldn't believe anything Hacienda had to say - even if they put out a press release calling themselves liars. These kinds of comments show how ridiculous the original decision by the lower court to send the matter back to Hacienda's Kangaroo Court administrative process was. No way DRL could have gotten a fair hearing there instead of in court.