Comments on Randy Kirk's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/randy-kirk/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-220488 220488 Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:45:54 -0400
The real issue, if you are a Gazprom stockholder, is that the stock has been artificially suppressed for quite some time. Reports like the IEA piece shown above is intentionally made for this purpose, I might add. Gazprom meanwhile is under slow accumulation by these same suppressor-instigators, who all the while have been attempting to engineer a Political disruption within Russia's Political-Economic-Def... space that will allow these same elements to snatch up the pieces of a broken Gazprom. Why? So as to leverage them out again for windfall profit to the Western holders and creators of trillions of nearly worthless USFED paper and associated created in an eyeblink electronic blips, so as to pull off a bloodless resource grab dwarfing "Operation Snatch Iraq".

Doubt it?

Stay tuned.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81328-gazprom-neft-aims-to-become-russias-leading-oil-producer?source=feed#comment-219697 219697 Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:47:27 -0400
jegan ;-) ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/56637-likely-beneficiaries-of-heavy-oil-production-technologies-schlumberger-imperial-oil?source=feed#comment-196291 196291 虹吸排水 超声波 化工机械]]> Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:19:13 -0400 www.wxrongcheng.cn" title="虹吸排水">虹吸排水
超声波
化工机械]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81328-gazprom-neft-aims-to-become-russias-leading-oil-producer?source=feed#comment-185999 185999 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:44:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/81328-gazprom-neft-aims-to-become-russias-leading-oil-producer?source=feed#comment-185997 185997 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:41:51 -0400 www.gasresources.net/D...

www.gasresources.net/T...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81328-gazprom-neft-aims-to-become-russias-leading-oil-producer?source=feed#comment-185995 185995 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:36:55 -0400 Also read the PNAS article by the russians on geogenic oil - they make no claim to this being source on oil supplies and freely admit in the discussion section of the paper that no geogenic source of methane is hypothesized. Sheesh]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81328-gazprom-neft-aims-to-become-russias-leading-oil-producer?source=feed#comment-185970 185970 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:35:39 -0400 www.chinapost.com.tw/b...

In contrast, the absurd idea that hydrocarbons miraculously evolve from biological organisms in blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics caused American production to peak. In the absense of seismic data, the success rate of American and British petroleum geologists using the biogenic theory has been an absolute failure, 1 sucessful oilwell for every 28 dry holes. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81328-gazprom-neft-aims-to-become-russias-leading-oil-producer?source=feed#comment-185929 185929 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:00:02 -0400
Having said that, given the current poltical climate in Russia, I can easily see oil being used as an economic "weapon" to bolster Russia's resurgence as a "super power". In other words, I suspect one shouldn't be looking for a return to "cheap oil" anytime soon, even if all of the production increases mentioned above do, in fact, occur.

jan]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78856-sinopec-potential-for-growth?source=feed#comment-178088 178088 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:23:21 -0400
The extent to which Sinopec's refining division is losing money is a complicated matter, which doesn't translate easily into the press -- I've addressed Sinopec's refining division in an earlier article which can be found here: seekingalpha.com/artic...

I can comment, last quarter was a bit of a surprise in terms of the size of the refining losses, however, SNP didn't provide much detail on their other divisions -- I suspect that they are expensing a lot of exploratory expenses in their upstream division, which didn't show any profit growth in the first quarter (which was a surprise, as oil prices were up significantly). But as Tahe, Puguang (as mentioned in the article above) come online, E&P profits should increase.

Overall, the Chinese oil majors tend to move a lot day to day, with moves of -/+5% not uncommon -- much of this I believe is due to the movement of the overall Chinese markets, which are very volatile.

Note sentiment towards Sinopec is currently at a nadir, as most endowments and EU related funds have divested Sinopec due to the Sudan issue, and there is a lot of resentment towards SNP by western oil majors due to SNP's aggressive attitude towards international oil acquisitions. This filters down to articles in the press.

In terms of a pair trade, I generally go long and hold for a longer period of time (well over a year) so can't predict short term moves. Also, I can't predict what will happen to the price of oil over the short term.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78856-sinopec-potential-for-growth?source=feed#comment-176462 176462 Fri, 30 May 2008 00:14:06 -0400
I don't own any energy stocks, but frankly am looking at them as potential short candidates for a temporary drop in oil px. (not saying this is one, just researching).

Coming from a long perspective though, you mentioned above that SNP doesn't make money unless oil is less than $76 and in fact, they got a capital infusion from PRC to offset losses. Unless your view is that oil will come down, does it make sense to own SNP?

In pricing action today, SNP moved up $5 - in your opinion is this a result of the falling price of oil (-4%).

Further, I'm just speculating here, but they actually might be a lone firm out there in the energy space that actually increases with oil decreases? Could actually be some kind of pair trade...?



]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78856-sinopec-potential-for-growth?source=feed#comment-175365 175365 Wed, 28 May 2008 13:41:13 -0400
The relatively low market capitalization of Sinopec is I believe is mainly due to three issues
1. Refining division -- this is currently losing money, although how much and what sort of subsidies and future price increases in the price of petrol within China is a point of debate

2. Sudan divestment -- PetroChina is much more active in Sudan than Sinopec, (any activity there could be construed as a legitimate reason to sell however) and most funds and endowments which have divested PetroChina due to the Sudan have also divested Sinopec.

3. International oil community resentment of Sinopec -- Sinopec has been very aggressive in bidding for international oil projects, which has driven up the price of oil projects for all oil majors -- this has led to a negative attitude in general towards SNP by oil majors and western oil publications.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78856-sinopec-potential-for-growth?source=feed#comment-174822 174822 Tue, 27 May 2008 20:44:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-174752 174752 Tue, 27 May 2008 18:00:37 -0400 www.reuters.com/articl...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-174748 174748 Tue, 27 May 2008 17:54:20 -0400 Shtokman therefore appears to be in the same range in terms of reserves as Gazprom's existing four producing fields.

Further, as a background, Shtokman should also be placed in perspective in terms of its potential for the Barents Sea: there is a map of potential gas and oil fields here in the Barents and Kara Seas: www.environmenttimes.n...
Gazprom officials have stated that there will be "significantly more" natural gas reserves in the Kara Sea, to the East of the Barents Sea. There is also likely to be more discoveries in the Russian and Scandinavian territories of the Barents Sea, in addition to Shtokman.

Shtokman appears to be moving forward currently - there has been serious criticism of Gazprom that it will not be able to develop Shtokman on time (with the first phase slated for 2013-2014), some of this criticism stemming from Gazprom's announcement that it would develop Shtokman alone in mid 2006. However, several observers, including the Russian Investment bank UralSib and the Jamestown Foundation, stated that this announcement was more a bargaining move to extract better terms from international partners (see: www.jamestown.org/edm/...). Gazprom has announced the signing of Total at 25% and StatoilHydro at 24% ownership of Phase 1 of Shtokman at the beginning of this year.

Shtokman is intended to be developed in 4 phases, with the first phase planned to be completed by 2014, and between 20-30 bcm of natural gas produced during phase 1. Costs for phase 1 are estimated between $15B and $20B -- but could go higher. It is noted that StatoilHydro developed the only other offshore Barents Sea gas field Snohvit, significantly closer to land and significantly smaller at approx. 200 bcm of reserves was completed for a final price tag of approx $10Bn. see for information on Snohvit: (note that StatoilHydro developed Snohvit, gaining expertise that will be valuable in producing Shtokman): www.offshore-technolog.../

After phase 1, current agreements are for Gazprom to buy out both Total and StatoilHydro from the project. Each phase is planned to add approximately 23.7 bcm of natural gas production per year -- 23.7 bcm is approximately equal to 410,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. (see www.barentsobserver.co...
for reference)

Most likely, the project will be somewhat delayed due to the fact that the field lies in very difficult conditions, 650 km away from the mainland -- so it is theorized that a refueling station for helicopters will have to be built, and the underwater terrain is reported to be uneven. The Russian newspaper Kommersant reported on May 6, 2008 that StatoilHydro "doubts" that Shtokman will start up as planned in 2013. How much delay past 2013 is not known at this time.

Overall, Shtokman is an important future project for Gazprom, with a possible 70 bcm of annual production by 2020, compared to a current production of approximately 550 bcm. It should be noted that Shtokman production is not included in the official Gazprom projections presented above, -- Shtokman is distinct from the Ob and Taz Bay regions and the Offshore Yamal Peninsula regions indicated in the projections. I don't know why Gazprom did not include Shtokman in its official projections. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-172732 172732 Fri, 23 May 2008 13:03:36 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-170066 170066 Mon, 19 May 2008 12:32:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-169141 169141 Fri, 16 May 2008 20:14:13 -0400
I think you're batting one thousand. I'd like to contact you personally to talk business. How do I go about it? By the way, beside Gazprom, I also own Lukoil and Surgutneft. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-167841 167841 Thu, 15 May 2008 00:56:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-167669 167669 Wed, 14 May 2008 17:39:16 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-167667 167667 Wed, 14 May 2008 17:38:05 -0400
A fairly well witten article with multiple perspective's and fair objectivity.

Just to note that th Gazprom president, just became President ... of Russia! I guess you know that Medvedev is now presiden, but how will it factor in? Any thoughts on it? Last time that ive seen a president of a major nation become president .....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-167580 167580 Wed, 14 May 2008 14:18:15 -0400 www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/c...) Gazprom is not currently participating in Sakhalin 1 although wants to buy out Exxon's stake (Exxon at 30%, Rosneft at 20% ownership, of Sakhalin 1).

Gazprom is planning to start shipping LNG from Sakhalin 2 in 2009, at an estimated 9.6M tonnes annual rate, which is approximately equal to 84,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent -- Gazprom will get 50% of the revenues from this so this means it will likely not be a major percentage of overall production (as Gazprom's natural gas production is equivalent to approx. 9.5 M barrels per day oil equivalent). I am not sure if the production levels are expected to increase going forward.

Gazprom is also positioning itself to control all delivery of natural gas from Sakhalin -- whether produced by a Rosneft led consortium or not -- and so, if successful, this would be a boost to Gazprom's downstream segment.

Overall, Sakhalin is a potentially large oil and gas production region as the EIA estimates that there are approximately 12 bn barrels of oil and 90 tcf of natural gas (approximately 15 bn barrels of oil equiv) of reserves -- it is not clear if this is recoverable oil or oil in place, however. What is potentially interesting from an investor's standpoint (in my opinion) is if Gazprom Neft participates in Sakhalin 2 -- currently Gazprom Neft is participating in exploratory work in Sakhalin 4, which is not expected to come online for several years. Gazprom Neft generally produces the majority of Gazprom's oil production, and there should be significant oil production at Sakhalin 2 with an estimated 1 billion barrels of liquids reserves estimated (in addition to the 3 bn barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas reserves (see: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/c...) - -however the liquids may be "natural gas liquids" in which case Gazprom would likely not bring in Gazprom Neft. Note that Gazprom Neft trades as a separate company -- 75% owned by Gazprom, ticker: GZPFY.

Overall Sakhalin should be placed in perspective to the Yamal Peninsula, as shown in Figure 4 in the article above, Yamal is a much larger reserve area, -- although Sakhalin in that figure only includes Gazprom's 50% ownership of Sakhalin 2, if Gazprom moves into Sakhalin 1 then Figure 4's estimated reserves would increase. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-167109 167109 Tue, 13 May 2008 18:31:05 -0400
I'm also a GZP shareholder.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-167084 167084 Tue, 13 May 2008 17:34:33 -0400
50 bcm annual transit* 30% margin, price of $9.00 per mcfe, = approximately $US2.0Bn annual profit to Gazprom from Turkmenistan's production. This would comprise about 8.3% of Gazprom's expected net profit for 2007 of $US24Bn (official Gazprom results will be released May 15, 2008)

Also to put Turkmen production in perspective: Turkmenistan is producing about 63 bcm per year according to the EIA while Gazprom produces 550 bcm annually.

In Chart 1 above, Turkmenistan gas is part of the "gray area" in the projections, -- the other parts of the gray area are non-Gazprom owned natural gas production -- such as Lukoil and Rosneft production of natural gas (which is growing) -- Gazprom estimates that Russian independent production ie Lukoil and Rosneft, etc of natural gas will grow to 82 bcm annually in 2010 from 62 bcm annually in 2006 (reference: eng.gazpromquestions.r...). The gray area in Chart 1 above also includes future natural gas production from other Central Asian countries -- mainly Kazakhstan.

In Chart 2 above, Gazprom's official projections, Turkmenistan gas is not included as the transit profit is included in Gazprom's pipeline segment -- Gazprom believes it can increase production without additional supplies of gas from Turkmenistan.

Turkmenistan and Gazprom signed a 25 year supply agreement in 2003 for approximately 80 bcm per year of natural gas sales, -- however Turkmenistan is only delivering approximately 50 bcm in 2007 according to the Russian i-bank Troika Dialog -- with the price I believe undisclosed. Turkmenistan is also targeting Chinese sales through development of new fields -- estimated at 40 bcm per year with a new agreement with PetroChina beginning in the 2010 time range. Turkmenistan has also targeted India and Iran for future natural gas sales through new projects. Overall Turkmenistan has ambitious growth targets, at over 100 bcm of production by 2010.

I noted Turkmenistan has a UK based geological firm Gaffney Cline currently auditing their reserves of natural gas, which is expected to be completed by the end of 2008 -- by this time, there will be more clarity whether or not Turkmenistan can meet its Russian and Chinese (and Indian and Iranian) prospects. I noted that Chinese petroleum geologists have audited their section of Turkmenistan's gas fields and have found significantly more natural gas (1.6 tcm) than Turkmen specialists (source: Turkmenistan Plays with Europe's Gas Hopes, Asia Pulse, March 13, 2008) -- this gives some initial confidence than Turkmenistan can meet its proposed projects, but again more confidence will either be gained or not at the end of 2008 when Gaffney Cline completes its audit. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-167005 167005 Tue, 13 May 2008 15:26:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-166963 166963 Tue, 13 May 2008 14:13:19 -0400 www.iht.com/articles/2... This will of course help overall revenues but also encourage domestic (Russian) conservation of natural gas usage.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-166862 166862 Tue, 13 May 2008 11:52:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/76982-can-gazprom-realistically-meet-its-natural-gas-projections?source=feed#comment-166742 166742 Tue, 13 May 2008 09:52:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71658-gauging-sinopec-s-refining-losses?source=feed#comment-147837 147837 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:39:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/59016-tsx-group-an-undervalued-takeover-candidate?source=feed#comment-108867 108867 Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:19:53 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/59016-tsx-group-an-undervalued-takeover-candidate?source=feed#comment-108469 108469 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:37:46 -0500
ATSs are not only run by investment banks. The top four independent ATSs (Liquidnet, ITG, NYFIX, and Pipeline Trading) account for about 400mln shares per day including DMA. ATSs in the US on an aggregate basis, where the equity markets are the most developed, have built up a near 20% market share. The liquidity residing in these systems will be the determinant of their future success. Whether or not an investment bank owns an ATS, the Chinese walls are required by wall no matter what. If you believe ownership negatively impacts the public’s confidence in the public markets, how can you also encourage the trading on stock exchanges that are now publicly listed and controlled by shareholders…many of which are the same firms? Publicly owned exchanges now have their stakes controlled by financial firms that can push them in certain directions as well. I am not saying this is reason for concern, but ownership does not necessarily translate into a loss of confidence. Best ex requirements require all to go wherever the best price is and a fund cannot be meeting their fiducial responsibilities if they are not accessing a significant amount of off exchange liquidity.

Exchanges themselves see the value is non displayed liquidity and are beginning to embrace this. The NYSE has formed a joint venture with a broker owned block trading ATS in the US dubbed BIDS and is launching an ATS in Europe as well dubbed SmartPool. Exchanges that do not follow will continue to lose substantial market share as is already happening.
]]>