Statoil group does 308K oil, second best ever, but down from 355K reported in January. Of course there were 3 fewer production days in February.
Of note was 52 wells listed, compared to only 48 in January. 11 of the 52 wells reported no production. Of the 48 wells in January, 8 wells showed no production. That would imply more production coming in future months.
Yahool analyst's estimates still don't seem to reflect the expansion in Buda, or even more Bakken wells. Only expect revenue of $41.3 million for 2014 and $46.7 million for 2015. When these get updated, they should go into Schwab and all the others.
Thanks Richard, I hadn’t been aware of that link before. I’ve posted a few more quarters to show some history after we had the blowout quarter ending Sept 30, 2013.
While the average price tanked after that, the recent quarter shows prices higher than the last one by about 7.7%. Also consider the additional production being reported by the Statoil location, you could assume the quarter ending March 31, 2014 might show oil production in the range of 50-55K boe.
Maybe that would be enough info for Truth to make his next earnings forecast…
JulSweet Crude Price = $95.78/barrel
AugSweet Crude Price = $93.97/barrel
SepSweet Crude Price = $92.96/barrel
Oct Sweet Crude Price = $85.16/barrel
Nov Sweet Crude Price = $71.42/barrel
Dec Sweet Crude Price = $73.47/barrel
Jan Sweet Crude Price = $74.20/barrel
Feb Sweet Crude Price = $86.89/barrel
Mar Sweet Crude Price = $86.72/barrel
Richard, (not to be confused with the other Richard), would you have a revenue estimate for 2015? Assume oil stays at the same price.
Tex, after telling that whopper on the ESTE board the other night
Then forgetting to multiply that out by the 10.4 net wells. How can I believe anything you say? I don’t believe you were that stupid and just erred.
83 (82.88) boe/d per well times 10.4 net wells comes to 862 boe/d, a figure announced in the March 14, 2014 Earnings call transcript as 74% of total net daily production during the year.
While I'm a bit new to this company, the idea of having two separate lines of business usually doesn't help the share price. It normally confuses investors which tends to dilute the value of the investment.
More specifically Mt Emmons may have value, but it is a cash drain and unknown liability or asset and completely different from oil. It not only dilutes investor knowledge, but also dilutes management attention.
If the company were bigger, this would be a classic case for a tax free spin off, giving shareholders new shares for the Mt Emmons business. However, I don't believe there is enough value in it to warrant a separate company, so just put it up for sale, but don't sell it until a fair offer is made.
Current four quarter trailing P/E ratio is 10.65.
Let’s look at the performance over the last eight quarter and see if we can project out where we might be in another eight quarters…..
Quarter ending March 31, 2012
BOE Oil: 28,263
Quarter ending June 30, 2012
BOE Oil: 26,999
Quarter ending Sept. 30, 2012
BOE Oil: 31,169
Quarter ending Dec. 31, 2012
BOE Oil: 31,549
Quarter ending March 31, 2013
BOE Oil: 32,938
Quarter ending June 30, 2013
BOE Oil: 36,967
Quarter ending Sept. 30, 2013
BOE Oil: 42,706
Quarter ending Dec. 31, 2013
BOE Oil: 47,153
Keep in mind that the Statoil project is planned for 96 wells, yet the quarter ending Dec. 2013 got production from about only 35 wells.
What still is unknown is how fast production will decline in those Bakken wells after they’ve been online for 1, 2 or 5 years, etc.
If you look at the year over year change in net property on the balance sheet, it was virtually unchanged, up only $1 million, starting at $110.8 million and ending at $111.8 million.
Under such a situation, you’d expect the PV-10 valuation year over year to be about the same. However that was not the case in 2013. Instead, the PV-10 rose from $76.5 million to $115.1 million, a $38.6 million increase.
Or you might want to consider another metric listed in the 10K report, the standardized measure of discounted cash flow. This represents the PV-10 with income tax taken out. It rose from $71 million to $105 million, a $34 million dollar increase. Take the difference in net property investment and you end up with a $33 million difference off balance sheet.
None of the change in standardized measure is reflected on the balance sheet or income statement, it’s all off balance sheet. As a result, there is an argument to be made that 2013 was a much better year the shown on the GAAP finanacials, its income was $33 million better than what is reported.
That would have changed eps from a loss of $.27 to a profit of $.93!
I see your point. While the undeveloped mining properties showed no year to year change, their value is significant.
If we take the year end standardized measure of $105 million and compare it to the $80 million cost basis on proved reserves only, that’s quite a premium.
IMO, the company hasn't been big enough to warrant an analyst following it. However as quarterly sales increase to $5, 6 and 7 million etc., that may change.
As I've pointed out several times in the past, an analyst could greatly help the company get a fair valuation. Right now a guy new to this company like Tex has no idea what to expect for the future. How is he to come up with an estimate? So he (and others just like him) take a pass.
So us long termers just use the message board to make our guesses in a forum where hardly anyone pays attention. I'd say Q4 ending March 31, 2014 comes in with $5.1 million in revenue, and eps of $.73. Then look for the following quarter to show revenue of $5.7 million and eps of $.89. But since True_truth is the board's official analyst, it's time for him to update his forcast.
Go to the sec dot gov site and pull up Earthstone's last 10-K report filed around June 15, 2013. Attachment 99.1 shows the Ryder Scott report broken down by Bakken wells vs the traditional wells. The regular 10K also has data on the standardized measure which is PV-10 less taxes.
The last 10K covered the period ending March 31, 2013. There has been no info on reserves, PV10 or BOE levels that I am aware of since then. However, I expect a significant change in the next one after all the investment and improvement in oil pricing. Next 10-K should come out in about seven weeks.
I’ve done the math and I don’t come to your conclusion about the bounce back in March.
According to the records, production was as follows for the 18 wells
Total production: 62,317
Average daily production per well: 111.7
Total production: 58,038
Average daily production per well: 115.2
Total production: 66,279
Average daily production per well: 118.8
Total production: 206,779
Average daily production per well: 124.9
At any rate, kudos to Pocilujko for posting the March data so timely.
Why would you suggest a sell in May?
It looks like quarterly revenues and EPS are going to increase rapidly over the next two or three quarters. IMO, the share price doesn't reflect that kind of growth.
And I thought you’d be comparing the eerie similarity of Ray’s quote vs what we told us back in 2011….
We anticipate that this reevaluation and exploitation will positively impact production, in addition to reserves, and have a meaningful impact on the value of the Company.
My initial reaction to the huge down open off good news was a classic short attack. When the computer bot figures out there are no immediate buyers, it puts in a small trade to itself, knocking the price down to shock anyone who might have been planning to buy.
However, after getting email alerts on nearly a third of my followings, everyone of them with a 5% decline, maybe it’s just an awful day, with some one wanting their cash out of ESTE.
There was a very odd pattern of short trading today suggesting to me that there was no established investor dumping his stock. Instead the seller sold short and will have to cover later on.
According to the Reg Sho site
Short Shares: 100
Total Shares: 200
Short Shares: 2177
Total Shares: 6655
Short Shares: 6223
Total Shares: 6423
Adding all three together, you get 13,278 total shares with 8500 short, a 64% short ratio. Yet the ADF report shows a 97% short ratio. Just ridiculous considering that 30% is normal.
Just looking at the Yahoo analysts estimates revision, I'd say they've zeroed in on a better estimate for Q1 and Q2, but they have not reflected the growth for the remainder of the year, or FY 2015.
There might be some more revisions coming.
"We have just completed a challenging quarter as weather adversely affected our activity level. Although the team worked tirelessly through the weather conditions, the impact on our operations was of a meaningful enough size that we believed it to be prudent to reset our full year production guidance."