Sun, Feb 1, 2015, 3:12 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed


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

Royale Energy Inc. Message Board

fastball.98mph 22 posts  |  Last Activity: Jan 9, 2015 2:35 PM Member since: Dec 26, 2011
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    IS RRC ready to bounce?

    by boonenrgtrader Jan 6, 2015 12:05 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jan 9, 2015 2:35 PM Flag

    Thinking along those lines maybe we see a Canadian tar sand producer to make a horizontal buy of a sizeable Marcellus/Utica producer? The house passed the Keystone pipeline. It seems that might be why COG is catching a bid. Either way more Marcellus will eventually be shipping north.

  • Reply to

    IS RRC ready to bounce?

    by boonenrgtrader Jan 6, 2015 12:05 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jan 9, 2015 12:15 PM Flag

    Exxon is sitting like a king in front of a harem right now. If they have one problem it's that they have a lot to choose from. A triple A rating gives it around a 2.5% cost to borrow billions long term. They have billions of international cash, and billions in treasury stock. With these tools you have to think that they do some big M&A in this enviornment.

  • Reply to


    by argentuminvestor Dec 30, 2014 10:37 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jan 1, 2015 12:24 PM Flag

    It's not nearly as dramatic as you want it to be. He will simply convert another 100k or so of B's into A's. Of the newly converted batch he will transfer some A's into his families trust funds, and then sell most of it into the open market for some cash. He has 3.8mil B's that are always freely convertible into A's. If he felt that this was wildly over priced he would be converting and selling at a rate of 1 mil per year, and bypass transfering to trust funds. Theoretically he could convert and sell all the way down to 100 B shares and still have control of the company. But he doesn't...I wonder why?

  • The escalating share price is likely because the publically available off premise data is strong.

  • Reply to

    Taxes on the Alaska land

    by frufjfjurjrf Dec 22, 2014 2:53 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 27, 2014 12:11 PM Flag

    Thanks to the well timed Rampart JV they actually escaped this on the plus side. Cash in was ($2.7mil) cash out was $3.4mil. They retained much of working interest over most of the acreage with some seismic data over some portion, but I agree it has no value at todays price.
    During the capital raising Rampart's management put together presentations on Alaska that now look like they belong in the museum of hype if there is one.

  • Reply to

    Here is what matters...

    by argentuminvestor Dec 18, 2014 1:03 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 20, 2014 5:31 PM Flag

    Get familiar with rule 10b5-1 to understand automatic sales vs. simply selling in the open market. The automatic sales are offset by exercising options a few times a year. This year all those automatic sales have been offset with exercising options of 380k after disposing 135k. His non-predetermined sales have totaled 123k this year (May, Aug, Nov)...This would equate to a 30 year liquidating pace. However, because of his options he's not liquidating at all...But no need to argue with me check the facts!

  • Reply to

    Here is what matters...

    by argentuminvestor Dec 18, 2014 1:03 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 20, 2014 1:58 PM Flag

    Or maybe Koch, the 64 year old founder, is selling some of that sweat equity for diversification/estate purposes. His B shares are readily converted to A shares which he sells. He has been selling on average 12,000 shares a month. With over 3.7mil shares, he's on a liquidation pace of 26 years!...I wouldn't call that a rush to get ahead of anyone.

  • Reply to

    Nice comments in Barron's

    by value_00 Dec 15, 2014 3:11 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 20, 2014 11:47 AM Flag

    It would be nice right now to take advantage of the market price. If they could raise a $1B in 5 year subordinated debt convertible at $100 per share for the sole purpose of buying stock today they could effectively take over 10% of the outstanding and put it in the treasury. In five years the notes would be converted into shares worth ~$200, that were bought at $60 and held in treasury. The winners of this maneuver would be the buyers of the convertible notes, and the long term stockholders benefiting from the cap-shrink. The losers would be those who sold an E&P stock that was priced at $1 Mcfe in reserves, and had an annual growth rate of 25%.

  • Reply to

    Oilman NFL Picks

    by juan_ton_amigo Dec 14, 2014 3:47 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 14, 2014 10:49 AM Flag

    Still like the Bills myself. The weather calls for 37 light drizzle and not much wind. With the weather being a non-factor the Pack will have a huge advantage at the QB position, as oilman pointed out. However, the Bills, who haven't made the playoffs in ages, are right in the mix for a spot and should be inspired to protect the home turf against the 10-3 Pack. Over the last few games the Pack have played teams that have tried to defend the pass "two deep safety"...this week the Bills, who lead the league in sacks, will likely focus on disrupting Rodgers behind the line of scrimmage.

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 13, 2014 12:35 PM Flag

    You make it sound as if SD rolled the dice and hedged 10x of its production before the drop...The hedges are slightly offset by something called revenue.

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 13, 2014 11:02 AM Flag

    They have a slide that shows debt adjusted reserves per share of 47Mcfe. This was based on year end 2013 reserves and share count. Assuming 20% reserve growth, slightly lower total debt, and over 165mil shares, the market is valuing Ranges' reserves at about $1 per Mcfe. At the base of $1 after the cost of lifting and tax's, and given liquids rich uplift the net-back has to be close to $2/Mcfe, A major or mid-major has an extremely low base to attempt an offer, and capture Ranges' vast resource base for next to nothing. I think an offer at the 52 week high ($95) could get a deal done.

  • Reply to

    OilMan NFL

    by juan_ton_amigo Dec 9, 2014 9:26 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 10, 2014 9:51 AM Flag

    What do you think of the Bills getting 5 at home vs. Pack-coming off a short week?

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 6, 2014 11:54 AM Flag

    I bought this a couple of months back in the $73's. Since then I think it spent maybe two minutes above my purchase price. I don't mind riding this out as long as the 25% production CAGR takes over. On the other hand it may not make it there. A major could really boost its North American growth production by taking this over...Heightened TO alert here.

  • Reply to

    Ceiling test

    by fastball.98mph Nov 29, 2014 9:43 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Dec 6, 2014 9:25 AM Flag

    A lot of investors blow off impairments because they are usually small and non-cash. But in this case you could have something like a 40% of the $ asset base vanish from the book through the income statement. That would be a day of reckoning for most firms. The debt might then exceed the asset value. Good luck accessing debt or equity capital after that.

  • fastball.98mph by fastball.98mph Nov 29, 2014 9:43 PM Flag

    Per 10Q...At September 30, 2014, the ceiling test value of the Company's reserves was calculated based on the first-day-of-the-month average for the 12-months ended September 30, 2014 of the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) spot price of $99.08 per barrel...If WTI stays around the newly printed forward strip from now through Dec 2015 this could face a $2B handle on ceiling impairments.

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Nov 28, 2014 8:18 PM Flag

    I think something more in the range of TCBI is what he might be red flagging.

  • Reply to

    Is Bankruptcy an Option

    by male_in_n_sa_4u Nov 28, 2014 2:17 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Nov 28, 2014 3:00 PM Flag

    The dilemma here is how much time can they afford to wait for oil to bounce back. In two quarters they could out of their financial covenants and then see their #1 source of liquidity slashed. Today the 2020's (by far the largest outstanding at $1.1B) closed at $76.75. The 2020's are senior to the Halres notes due in 2017.

  • Reply to

    HK Hedge Positions are Better Than Most

    by w999surf Nov 27, 2014 10:10 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Nov 27, 2014 3:37 PM Flag

    There's an old saying about banks being institutions that lend you an umbrella when there isn't a cloud in the sky but when it rains they want it back...Without any net working capital the liquidity comes completely from the borrowing base and the bankers who govern it. So if you were the CEO do you stand still and risk the next two quarters of sub $70 oil and the deteriorated covenants that would follow, or do you try to get liquid now by selling assets at fire sale?

  • Reply to

    Back In

    by elkster08 Nov 19, 2014 12:37 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Nov 22, 2014 12:27 PM Flag

    The company is swimming in capital. First the IPO in Jan then a large bond issue in late summer. Production growth shouldn't be a problem. Not a substantial amount of acreage so they might have to spend a lot on additional leases and or acquiring a smaller E&P. Seems to trade at a higher valuation than most in the sector. However, that usually is the case with tightly held companies with relatively low floats...Just my take after quick glance.

  • fastball.98mph by fastball.98mph Nov 22, 2014 11:19 AM Flag

    I unfortunately got siked out with the pension obligation after interest rates tumbled. The underlying business is sound and throwing off a lot of cash.

1.77-0.04(-2.21%)Jan 30 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.