Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 12:02 PM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 3 hrs 58 mins


% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Halcon Resources Corp. Message Board

fastball.98mph 38 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 22, 2014 10:08 AM Member since: Dec 26, 2011
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • MHR is a $2bil or so enterprise while GRH is $100mil. Where would GRH be without MHR?...Seems "slippery" to me.

  • Reply to

    technical analysis

    by jms54 Jul 16, 2014 6:17 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jul 16, 2014 9:43 AM Flag

    Correct if im wrong but before Yahoo added thumbs up/down the level of on topic discussions has nose dived. I suppose a childish feature will bring on childish behavior...Several really good level headed posters have disappeared.

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jul 13, 2014 10:32 PM Flag

    Strange deal to say the least. The premium (a measly 5%) comes from the conversion factor that KOG holders will convert their shares to WLL. However, $13.90 is still below the $14.23 Friday close. I doubt that this is the type of buyout that would move MHR or any E&P of its size tomorrow.

  • Reply to

    Look at the preferreds!

    by jdberwanger Jul 9, 2014 6:20 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jul 9, 2014 9:46 PM Flag

    The bond markets response to the "too much debt?" question...The 2020 maturity trades at $111.25 yields 5.75% or 400 basis points below coupon. Taping a strong bond market to take out the C and D looks like a good way to clean up some complexity and lower the capital cost. At least in theory.

  • However, Royale still has 100% on over 40k/acres. Royale still has roughly 55k net acres to Rampart's cap of 37k. Also assuming big success Royale has a original $1.6mil equity option on Ramparts shares...The best way to play this is with Royale...CASE CLOSED!

  • "Could"...the entry cost was $100/acre and thanks to the JV the cost basis is 0. Let a big player lift the O&'s early mineral rights that make quick fortunes in this business.

  • The last one pictured a stalking Leopard. I think this one will be a hard charging Grizzly.

  • fastball.98mph by fastball.98mph Jul 5, 2014 1:35 PM Flag

    The option expired yet Royale is either at the table listening to Rampart make a pitch for better terms, or Royale is at the table negotiating a better package in order to squeeze another payment from this struggling entity? Either way Royale really ought to let it go and let Rampart pull together so it can use its resources on next years drilling and completion of that well...far more important!

  • Reply to

    Finding & Development Cost

    by jansonnl Jul 3, 2014 6:09 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jul 4, 2014 10:09 AM Flag

    I think the graph is a product of timing. The bottom of the list has several companies that over 2011-13 that have sold significant producing properties, and used the cash on development of other plays. The result is a higher numerator over a flat denominator. At the top of the list are companies that have generally stayed put so their F&D is flat but production is growing...Strong names at the bottom. It wouldn't surprise me that a lot of those names on the bottom make it to the top on the 2016 list.

  • Reply to

    Bloomberg fails to provide complete story

    by themid2001 Jun 27, 2014 10:03 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 28, 2014 10:21 AM Flag

    Right off the bat the article says Magnum's ebitda trails the debt load by 70x. And then says the industry average is 4x. The article isolated MHR amongst the Exxons, and Chevrons of the industry, rather than peers closer to its size. Also don't expect Bloomberg to mention that MHR expenses exploration cost on the income statement in one period, while most of the peers do it on the balance sheet over time. This has a dramatic affect on the income statement...If MHR drills a $10mil well that $10mil is expensed and shown on the next reporting statement. If MHR were to account that same well under the full cost method the $10mil goes into a cost pool and is expensed through DD&A over several periods. The difference could literally drop a few million onto net income and show MHR being Halcon.

  • Reply to

    Share holder Value

    by sammc1960 Jun 22, 2014 11:05 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 22, 2014 3:42 PM Flag

    Not accusing anyone of whining, and I get the frustration of those who bought in April-ish of 2011. I just have a hard time knocking a stock that has returned 30% CAGR from the beginning. There may be a variety of reasons why the stock has stumbled since 2011. My opinion is the Baytex deal put too much leverage on the balance sheet and ultimately had to sell EF to avoid bankruptcy. I think when they sell Eureka, as he said they will early next year, and if its a cash deal, the market will respond with thunder. It makes sense because Eureka and take-away remains, operated by another, but MHR would have a boatload of cash plus capex diverted to D&C.

  • Reply to

    Share holder Value

    by sammc1960 Jun 22, 2014 11:05 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 22, 2014 11:55 AM Flag

    I just looked at a chart comparison between MHR and COG, and I didn't see COG in any time frame sky rocket over MHR...not in the past 6 months, not two year, and absolutely not the five year, where MHR has outperformed COG by 3x. Unless you like that 8/cent dividend that COG pay's I'm not sure what you're beef is?

  • Reply to

    Upward movement

    by deathblosom Jun 17, 2014 3:58 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 21, 2014 11:18 AM Flag

    The mark of a superb company might be a quit message board...Something is a little off, when a company that has declining volume growth (TAP) is priced exactly at the same EV/EBITDA as a company with growth and a lot more run-way, as is the case with SAM. The recent trajection of TAP has been fueled by investment banks upgrading the stock, which therefore give's TAP's executives currency for M&A...and which gives investment banks fee's that carry very high profit margins. Clearly SAM doesn't need M&A for growth and so we don't have the same relationship with Wall St. However, for proper valuation, either TAP needs to reverse a bit or SAM should be over $300...Just my opinion...Cheers, and have a great summer!

    Sentiment: Buy

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 21, 2014 10:02 AM Flag

    It's probably better to ask "Kip" Ferguson. This seems to be the project of Eagle Ford Hunter Pres, who doesn't have much to oversee since the EF sale. It's a way for Evan's to keep a trusted lieutenant on board, and thus far hasn't cost a dime in liquidity.

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 19, 2014 9:56 AM Flag

    The executives are boosting their holdings. Selling 50k in the open market to fund an exercise of 200k.

  • Reply to

    Central block option

    by fastball.98mph Jun 14, 2014 10:49 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 15, 2014 11:39 AM Flag

    String, Other than from hearing on this board that Rampart's stock hasn't been moving, I have not followed Rampart of late. It could be that Rampart may opt not to exercise the central block. If that's the case Royale retains over 60k net, and still has a negative cost basis on the acreage position. The option values the central block at $100/acre. I would prefer that Rampart passes on it. If this acreage were to get half or a third(~$10K/acre) of the values that the some of the lower 48 plays have gotten in recent years, would put a value of $600mil or $40/per share. Laughable as it may seem this IMO is not too far from a possibility.

  • fastball.98mph by fastball.98mph Jun 14, 2014 10:49 AM Flag

    Rampart can purchase 75% WI on the 17,000/acre central block for $1.7mil. If they do this will bring in a total of $5.1mil from the JV. The central block option along with Rampart drilling and completing two wells by April of next year would effectively give Royale an average acreage cost of MINUS $45/acre on the remaining 52,500 net acres. If the play does nothing going forward, Royale still will have done very well. If however, the play gets hot you can't beat a $50 million market cap that holds 52,500/acres at a cost of MINUS $45 per acre.

  • Reply to

    Down Under Hunter?

    by fastball.98mph Jun 10, 2014 9:31 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 11, 2014 8:33 AM Flag

    He skewed the post so he could get the word myopia in. It was beyond a reach. He seems to be the typical judgmental type, where he is doing the same exact thing that he accuses another of doing. In this case it's being a short-term trader-not an investor...Wasn't he bashing Evan's and MHR a couple weeks ago?

  • fastball.98mph by fastball.98mph Jun 10, 2014 9:31 AM Flag

    Is that going to be the name of these holdings?

  • Bob Brackett - Sanford C. Bernstein
    Then what about Alaska sort of North Slope, is that somewhere you would look?
    Bill Thomas - Chairman, CEO
    Yes. I think probably not, I think operating cost in those kind of areas for a shale play might make those plays very difficult to be economic.

    Don't mistake this exchange entirely as a "bearish" one. First, if there's an E&P CEO handbook the 1st chapter would tell you NOT to show the public that you have interest in a play BEFORE acquiring leases, otherwise those leases skyrocket on you overnight. Secondly, the fact that Bob Brackett ( an excellent analyst who is very well connected with the lower 48 operators) is asking about north slope shale tells me tells me that it's beginning to get batted around out there, as the Bakken and EagleFord mature...

6.9278-0.0622(-0.89%)12:02 PMEDT

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.