Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View aegwal's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Pengrowth Is Executing Well With Lindbergh Expected To Be In Commercial Production In Early 2015 [View article]
    It looks to me as if the numbers were actually better than you are indicating above. Maybe it escaped your attention that they also incurred a $20m cost in Q1 for clean up and remediation costs. I assume these were unplanned as there had been no mention of these costs in any of their previous comments. This would have added another 4c to the Funds Flow numbers, if indeed it was unplanned.
    May 13, 2014. 08:17 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • SandRidge Permian Trust- Q4'13 Results Show Risk And Reward [View article]
    Excellent article. I really enjoyed it. However I do have one question. I notice that in the Annual Financial Statements they show a roll forward of the reserves and they show a reduction in reserves between year end 2011 and 2012 of 1,350 Oil, 145.6NGL and 400.9 of Gas due to revisions of estimates. This seems to me to be a big issue as it significantly reduces the reserves for PV-10 calculation at the end of 2012. I now look at the 2013 10-K and see a further downward reduction in reserves of 1,624 Oil, 138.1 NGL and 406.6 Gas. They state that this is due to pricing and well performance but I have difficulty believing that pricing is really as issue as it does not seem to have changed much. Again the PV-10 valuation has declined significantly. This is worrying, as a trend is emerging. Also I note the following wording in the 2013 10-K. "Sandridge is not required to drill Trust Development Wells on locations with respect to which proved undeveloped reserves have previously been identified for the trust. In this regard, Trust Development Wells were drilled during 2013 on locations different from those included in the reserve report prepared as of December 31, 2012." Is this not know as "bait and switch". I expect that these undeveloped wells now go back to Sandridge for their benefit while we PER shareholders lose out. Am I misunderstanding this situation, as I cannot think of an alternative explanation. You are clearly much more knowledgeable/experienced in these matter than me and can maybe set me straight.
    Mar 5, 2014. 11:10 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Ireland Is Bailing Out Foreign Banks [View article]
    To quote your article: "Total foreign bank exposure to Ireland’s economy is $844bn, or five times the value of Ireland’s GDP or economic output". I think this is just plain wrong. I am sure a significant portion of the bank debt is owed by "Irish" banks to their parent company in Germany or the UK, but in turn is loaned out to other subsidiaries in the rest of Europe. In other words there is very little exposure to the Irish Economy. I have seen other analysis which shows the "net" amount exposed to the Irish economy and it is a much smaller number. Remember that the IFSC in Dublin is a large center which banks use to channel money between subsidiaries due to favorable tax treatment of such intercompany loans in Ireland.
    Sep 28, 2010. 09:34 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Luck o' the Irish Runs Out [View article]
    Everyone has gotten too negative. Look at the Irish government response to this downgrade as published in the FT. See link below.. You have to admit that they make a valid point about the S&P analysis.
    Aug 25, 2010. 08:14 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment