I work for TOTAL.
Clearly allsteel was just saying that just because they are both French companies does not mean that they are in any way related. I just thought it was an interesting relationship. I did not figure that the French presence in Oil and Gas was big enough that coincidences like this can exist but now that I think about it... Schlumberger, Technip, TOTAL, eCORP..... yeah.
eCORPstim is owned by french. Nanes Balkany is owned by French. Connection here?
CALGARY, ALBERTA--(Marketwired - April 8, 2014) - GASFRAC Energy Services Inc. ("GASFRAC" or the "Company") (TSX:GFS) announced today that the Annual General Meeting ("AGM") of GASFRAC shareholders scheduled for May 8, 2014 has been postponed to May 27, 2014.
Based on discussions with its shareholders, the board of directors of the Company is evaluating potential changes to board composition to ensure that the board has all necessary skills and expertise to optimize corporate performance relative to the Company's renewed strategic focus.
The expanded capabilities the Company has developed over the past year permit GASFRAC to have a strategic focus on: a) the Company's expanded fluids capabilities; b) geographic opportunities where, because water is not effective or not available, the Company enjoys a natural competitive advantage; and c) actively promoting and communicating the new and unique benefits of GASFRAC's extended technology platform.
In addition, the Company wishes to ensure that any potential new board members are involved in the process of determining a successor for the Company's current Chief Executive Officer, James Hill, upon his previously announced retirement at the end of 2014.
The AGM is being postponed to permit the Company to present shareholders with the opportunity to assess any new board candidates through disclosure in the proxy circular to be delivered in connection with the AGM which will now be held on May 27, 2014.
They are not creating competition. That is an ignorant statement. Period.
1. There are other companies that "stimulate" (not frac) with pure LPG. eCORP is one of them. There is no value add here....
2. Additionally, there are other companies that frac or stimulate with CO2, and other compressed gases (to liquid). Calfrac does this.
In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.
My reference was to your lack of intelligence, not your lack of beauty. I guess your beauty comment emphasizes my point.
Please, who are you referring to when you talk about "elderly trolls?"
You just traded assets for cash for a small gain (which doesn't really even matter because of the impairment. Net is a loss, that is FOR SURE.
Also, this is not cash flow from operations.... so gives a F?
Hey dumb, dumb. Just because there is a "book gain" does not mean that there was a gain of $9.3M. That is just want they sold them for. It is not hard to sell equipment record a gain considering their HUGE impairment they did at the end of 2012.
Since they are using some funds to pay for R&D, as well as fund operations and pay down debt, we can deduce that the net change in shareholder equity is NEGATIVE!!
Ironically, Bsimp has proven to be amongst the least knowledageable posters on this board. Stick around. You will see that he simply says the same thing over and over (only in relation to stock fluctuations), and adds no real substance.
I do see what is going on here. We had no idea that the cost of Gasfrac was double that of a water frac. A shade has been pulled over our eyes. Period. I get that. Not good.
However, there are trials, and there are trials with at least 1 major this quarter. When mr Hill was asked if between two majors were working with his company, he could not say for certain who it was, but there was a strong inference that one of them was.
Hopefully this pans out. We shall have to wait and see.
Maybe you missed something, so I will fill you in. With new available technology (hybrid fracturing and engineering fluids), Gasfrac trialed with 2 clients in Q4. In Q1 thus far, they have run 4 trials and could potentially do 2 more trials. This is the effort that can add future cash flows.
Although I do gather from the conference call that the prior Gasfrac technology solutions were completely not sustainable, and to be honest I am surprised that the company is still around when their fracturing solutions cost DOUBLE what a hydraulic frac costs. Their business plan is lunacy, but may work out if they continue the innovation.
Gasfrac needs to purchase the fluid, and keep reusing it for each job. This will make their cost more attractive.
That's the wrong approach, and you know it. You sound like an oil field rough neck with the logic that you're using. No offense, really, just speaking the truth.
Gasfrac needs to be compeditive. They are competing in an extremely compeditive market against HUGE compeditors with tried and true methodologies. Gasfrac just needs to get out there and disrupt the market.
Facturing is not he key to E&P. Period. Just because you can save a little money or have increased recovery does not mean that you have run a successful E&P. There are WAY to many moving parts.
To address your questions:
1) If you own and operate wells, you would effectively be competing against all of your customers. Well data is extremely sensitive, and if you are operating wells, then clients will not want to share well locations with you. That's a fact. There is a reason why you can get fired from Schlumberger or Haliburton by simply loosing your computer, or sending well data to the wrong client. I've seen it happen.
2) The alternative is to continue to stay on the leading edge of fracturing technology. Keep developing the technology, reclaimation process, etc. Make the fracs more effective, and develop more solutions for shale oil like the hybrid frac they they recently started doing. Gasfrac sounds like they could become a custom fracing technology leader if they keep up the innovation.
3) What is see is a bit more stability, and cash generated from operations. It may not be much now, but it is more than it has previously been. What Gasfrac needs is larger SCALE, and product adoption. Their impairments and depreciation rate on equipment that is sitting idle is what is hurting them.
4) Haliburton and Schlumberger ARE fighting for survival. They just so happen to have more O&G solutions and technology. What you need to know that it is a dog fight for the sales guys that sell services to E&P companies.
This is my suggestion:
I do not know what your cost structure is , but if you ask that your client purchase the propane I suggest the following:
If you purchase propane/butane yourself, but also use the reclamation technology, then why not purchase the propane FOR your customer to help reduce the high initial cost? If the customer sees any cost, then it would be the amount of propane that was not recoverable. In fact, if the well contains sufficient propane anyway, then there is no reason why you should not be able to reclaim 100% of the propane that is put down hole. This same propane can be reused over and over for other clients assuming the reclamation process is sufficient to maintain purity, and etc.
This would eliminate the high initial cost for clients if there is an LPG shortage or cost fluctuations with an end goal of reducing business risk and increasing competitiveness (or rather: perceived competitiveness).
If you have a moment, please advise thoughts.
Since when was competing with you potential customers a good idea? There is a reason why haliburton and schlumberger do not own wells even though they have every resource possible to capitalize on E&P. Please don't preach "strategy" because based on your comment, you haven't a clue.
Well, clearly their client is purchasing the LPG. I think it may be better to OWN the frac fluid and reclaim the frac fluid to be used later, so that the client only has to pay for what they use. I think this should help their cost structure, BUT I'm not sure if equipment can stay onsite for so long.
"Cost of sales decreased to 35.5% of revenue from 60.7% of revenue in 2012. The decrease in the cost of sales reflects the direct purchase of fracturing fluid by the customer. This process has the impact of reducing the Company’s revenue and cost of sales by like amounts and effectively decreasing cost of sales as expressed as a percentage of revenue."
The good news here is that Gasfrac is staying on par with revenue while removing an expensive part of the fracturing cost from their revenue. It would be great to know how many overall treaments were in 2013 by quarter.
Also note that: $171,209 / 63550 [shares] = $2.69/share
-No asset impairment because gasfrac can justify future cashflows
-Fixed costs reduced year over year by $10 million
-Service delivery reliability improved to 98%
-Hybrid LPG service delivery platform introduced
-Initial engineered fluids system introduced
-First horizontal fracture in “black oil” window of EagleFord formation
-Bank debt, net of cash, reduced to $16.6 million from $22.1 million
-Zero serious incidents, TRIF in top decile of industry
-Q4 revenues down big time.
-LPG shortages add significant risk to future revenues, and I suspect this is shown in the 58% increase in revenue per day in Canada. Gasfrac needs to find a way to hedge LPG costs in the future. I do not know what their price structure is, but I suggest that they only charge clielnts for LPG not reclaimed, and take LPG with them to future job sites to help lessen the impact of high LPG costs, and lower the cost of fracing. (They may already be doing this).