Falkland Oil and Gas Limited
EPIC : FOGL
Shares in Issue : 320 million
Web Site : http://www.fogl.com/fogl/en/home
Unlock the rest of this article with a 14 day trial
Already have an account?
Login here
Falkland Oil and Gas Limited
EPIC : FOGL
Shares in Issue : 320 million
Web Site : http://www.fogl.com/fogl/en/home
Already have an account?
Login here
Hi Pro,
We had the island of HK in perpetuity (admittedly, a somewhat 'forced' concession) and - as PeterG says- the New Territories on a 99 year lease.
Since the NT provided/provides most of the island's water and agricultural/other resources, the island by itself wasn't viable - I think HMG was merely acknowledging the reality on the ground.
And - returning to our 'moutons' - I don't think comparing the Argentine military 300 miles from the Falklands and the Chinese military surrounding HK on all sides is comparing apples with apples.....
GLA
PS My biggest concern (as a small FOGL holder) is that the Americans decide to side with Lat Am - which would put our much vaunted 'special relationship' into perspective, esp. in an election year , where anything goes !
As an eight year resident of Hong Kong I can confirm what extrader says. Keeping HK island, in the absence of the New Territories was just not viable in the slightest. hence the talks.
The Falklands however is a completely different kettle of fish and any Argentinian aggression should be met with the full force of out esteemed military services(if it that happens to be two planes , one submarine, and no aircraft carriers!)
EE, the Argentinians have no legitimate claim to the Falklands. This is recognised by the UN.
The UN in these circumstances dictates that the people of the Island have the right to self-determination. The people have chosen to be part of the UK. This is the end of the matter.
The Argentinians are trying to coax the UK to discuss the matter
I agree all of that - and never suggested otherwise. This is indeed the legal and theoretical position.
The problem is, though, that further oil finds will only encourage the Argentines to press their claims. It doesn't matter that they have no decent legal basis for that. The USA has always been pretty ambivalent in respect of such matters and generally prefers to not antagonise its neighbours in South America. Accordingly, I don't think they can be counted on if push came to shove - and neither can the UN.
Of course having 3,000 troops there is some deterrent - but one shouldn't assume that that will suffice
Rig has arrived safely and is now east of the Falklands Islands in Falklands waters, in the Berkeley Sound.
http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?mmsi=308243000¢erx=-57.76173¢ery=-51.57527&zoom=10&type_color=9
So spudding of BOR's first well is now due very soon. Should BOR strike the impact on both BOR and FOGL will be immense (more so to BOR but in no small way to FOGL as well at this stage given their market cap is half of BOR at the moment).
So spudding of BOR's first well is now due very soon. Should BOR strike the impact on both BOR and FOGL will be immense (more so to BOR but in no small way to FOGL as well at this stage given their market cap is half of BOR at the moment).
Does this mean that returns to FOGL holders in the short term are dependent on BOR's wells? In effect, aren't investors in FOGL effectively surrogate investors in BOR for the next few months?
EE, yes, that is the case in the short term.
BOR are drilling different types of play to FOGL - so limiting the downside on failure, but then also FOGL has leads of the same play type as BOR are drilling - which get derisked if BOR succeed, so there is plenty of upside if BOR are successful on their drills.
The problem is, though, that further oil finds will only encourage the Argentines to press their claims. It doesn't matter that they have no decent legal basis for that. The USA has always been pretty ambivalent in respect of such matters and generally prefers to not antagonise its neighbours in South America. Accordingly, I don't think they can be counted on if push came to shove - and neither can the UN.
EE, I fully agree with this. It's one thing to assert that our legal claim to the Falklands is sound (on which note Pro is quite right to remind us that it is copper-bottomed). Unfortunately though it's as much, if not more, down to realpolitik. The current US administration seem hostile, if anything, to the UK's jurisdiction over the Falklands and there's no guarantee that a change in administration would see a change in attitude on this point, either - many Republicans would argue that relations with South America are more important than those with Britain and that accordingly the Argentine claim should be allowed/heard. Large oil finds also, in my view, strengthen the Argentinian claim, because they can start to make noises (as they have done already) about it being fair for them to have a share of the oil because they are likely to suffer if there are any large spills. And I think there might've been an incident not too long ago that is still fresh in peoples' minds as to what such spills can be like...very easy for the Argentinians to make an argument for having a share based on a reverse 'polluter pays' argument, that the Falklands government do not have the wherewithal to clean up a large spill.
Very hard to predict how it will play out on a political level, but certainly we haven't heard the last of the Argentinians, their neighbours and (perhaps more worryingly) our supposedly 'special' allies banging the drum on this.
Not that that makes Falkland Oil And Gas (LON:FOGL) (or Rockhopper Exploration (LON:RKH) or any of the others) uninvestible by any means. It's just a factor to take into account in how sentiment is going to move on this issue.
The US has always played a 2 faced game with the Falklands. To keep their South American neighbours happy they openly appear to be a little anti-British on the subject.
But behind closed doors they fully support the UK.
I mean, what precedent would this set for Guam and other US interests around the globe. (Just like France which has many islands scattered around the globe and who fully supports the UK - which is why they have openly said we can borrow their aircraft carriers)
So, as per the Falklands war, the US will support the UK covertly, but overtly will be a little leaning towards their neighbours down south.
So do not forget, France and the USA have plenty of overseas islands to lose should a precedent be set with the Falklands............. and so they will both covertly or overtly support the UK to the hilt. It may even be they force a US company into developing some Falklands oil, this will prevent any Argie Bargie................... for fear of retaliation from US forces.
If Anadarko have confirmed that the US Government is happy with their reported approach in the Falklands, then that is potentially an important straw in the wind in the political game - though I don't think I would want to rely on it, given that the game may end up being played for much higher stakes than at present.
Does this mean that returns to FOGL holders in the short term are dependent on BOR's wells? In effect, aren't investors in FOGL effectively surrogate investors in BOR for the next few months?
Not quite. FOGL have four play types:
Tertiary channel - eg Loligo
Mid Cretaceous fan - eg Scotia
Springhill - eg Inflexible
Tertiary fold belt - eg Undine
FOGL's preferred targets at present are probably Loligo and Scotia, whilst BOR is drilling plays of the Springhill and Tertiary fold belt types.
If BOR discovers HCs, FOGL has the option of switching to plays of that type (though Inflexible and Undine are much smaller than Loligo and Scotia), whilst if BOR's wells are both dry FOGL can legitimately say they have no relevance to FOGL's preferred prospects since the latter are a different play type. In this sense FOGL investors hold a call option over BOR's drilling performance, benefiting from success but unaffected by failure. Of course any BOR failure will in practice hit FOGL's SP in the next 3m, but it's not a simple linear relationship.
Does this mean that returns to FOGL holders in the short term are dependent on BOR's wells? In effect, aren't investors in FOGL effectively surrogate investors in BOR for the next few months?
Not quite........Of course any BOR failure will in practice hit FOGL's SP in the next 3m
QED !
Daily Mail's take on the politics:
How the Falkland Islanders are preparing themselves for either untold riches... or Armageddon
...somewhat over-dramatic, but there is little doubt that the politics would be "interesting"....though a good find might offer the chance for a win-win outcome - or at least room to negotiate one if all parties were willing.
ee
Interesting article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/28/falkland-islands-belong-argentina?INTCMP=SRCH
suggesting that many amongst the younger generation find it hard to see in what way the Falkands are "Argentinian".
Though of course, massive oil riches on the doorstep can change the way people think.
As you say, some sort of negotiation and compromise might be in order if there really do prove to be big oil fields there. Not least as there would be potential for massive oil field support and other related revenue for Argentinian companies if they got on board.
I'm not quite sure what all the political risk fuss is about. It seems obvious to me that the 4 Tornados and a frigate (or however many) are just stationed there for the next few years whilst this phase of exploration goes ahead. If plenty of HCs are found, that'll provide enough Falklands govt revenue to reimburse the UK for some beefed up defence hardware for the next few decades. If not many HCs are found, then in five or ten years some incoming new UK govt will find an excuse to quietly withdraw the defence hardware and allow the UN maybe to supervise some internationally conferenced handover to the Argentinians. On this reading, if there's oil it will be defended, and if there's not oil investors don't care, so the political issue is a bit of a non-issue to oil investors now. In the meantime it's perfectly practical for vessels supplying the Falklands to fly non-Falklands flags (are many vessels registered in the Falklands anyway?) and for large oil hardware to be supplied via Brasilian ports. There are other oil-prospective locations on Earth that are about as remote as the Falklands without Argentinian port support, eg North Alaska, Greenland, Turkmenistan.
I don't agree with the suggestion that just because Anardarko are rumoured to be bidding for Rockhopper, that means the US govt have in any way rubber stamped the continuance of the current political regime on the Falklands. Even if they had at present, it would be perfectly open to any incoming new President to have a different foreign policy that emphasised cooperation with S American countries rather than political support for the Falklands.
....I don't agree with the suggestion that just because Anardarko are rumoured to be bidding for Rockhopper.....
I do not think they are currently bidding. Anadarko have their own data room open in Brazil, as they are trying to offload their Brazilian assets, so a short trip over to see the RKH data room is no more than that imo. Certainly they will be interested in the Falklands as a whole, but I guess they will wait to see what BOR and FOGL find. More than likely they need to offload those Brazilian assets first as wel, before making an entry into the Falklands......
If a company like anadarko was bidding for rockhopper what price would they have to pay and then would this make Falklands oil and gas the next target
As the BOR result on Darwin nears (circa 24 to 34 days from now), need to remember.
FOGL have 16 billion recoverable barrels of potential in just their main present prospect list (They have over 100 potential prospects totalling a staggering over 60 billion recoverable barrels of potential). Looking closer at what the BOR drills could mean for FOGL.
Borders and Southern's Darwin prospect and drill, if good, will light up circa 2.78 Billion recoverable barrels prospective from same play type leads that FOGL have.
Borders and Southern's Stebbing prospect and drill, if good, will light up circa 1 Billion recoverable barrels prospective from the same play type leads that FOGL have.
And if they both fail FOGL still have 12 Billion barrels potential in their own play types - with first drill at Loligo for a mere 4.7 Billion recoverable barrels........ ;)
Proselenes,
Come on, you know perfectly well that O&G companies are valued off the prospects that have firm drilling plans in the next year or two, not the whole possible inventory. If the first few prospects fail, the chance the whole inventory even get drilled is close to zero. Your producing the whole list of prospects is not relevant analysis to the current SP.
hi there can anyone pls confirm the TD date (approx days left) to BOR drilling result.
i heard it was a short 28 days left. whens results explected pls? gla
14 days ago, on 1st Feb (http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=201202010746015700W) they said:
It is anticipated that operations will take about 45 days. A further announcement will be made once the well has reached total depth and the wireline logs have been run and their interpretation completed.
So, if you are hoping they find something to log, it's likely to be a few more than 28 days before you hear anything.