Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Canadian Oil & Gas Companies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Saunders who wrote (6768)	8/27/1999 2:13:00 AM
From: Upick	Respond to of 24921

Thanx for the 'heads up' Richard.

To: Richard Saunders who wrote (6768)	8/27/1999 7:24:00 AM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24921

Richard, My understanding is the 1mmcf = 6mm BTU and that 1 bbl = 6 mmBTU so that 6 to1 is the proper thermal relationship. Bob

To: Richard Saunders who wrote (6768)	8/27/1999 8:44:00 AM
From: Syncrude	Respond to of 24921

Richard, Thanks for the heads up. This will ensure that we compare companies on a consistent footing. With the Blue Range et al fiascos, this becomes even more and more important.

To: Richard Saunders who wrote (6768)	8/28/1999 2:17:00 PM
From: VisionsOfSugarplums	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24921

Excellent comment, Richard. Will be interesting to see if Cdn companies move towards a 6 to 1 ratio, since it seems more appropriate (as you stated, economic considerations - essentially the discount for deliverability issues - previously dictated the 10 to 1 ratio). The companies, if they change, would normally have to apply the ratio to their prior year figures as well (would change last year's ceiling test and depreciation expense) so that the two years are comparable. It will be interesting to see if companies who change to 6 to 1 try to argue that it is a prospective change and should be applied to the current year numbers only (gas deliverability drove the ratio change and it only changed this year). Also if their auditors would let them do this. Would make current year figures quoted on a BOE basis look that much more favourable in comparison to the prior year if they could. Not sure if anyone cares about that but might be worth keeping an eye out for as well, esp. when looking at year over year growth. Regards, t.

To: Richard Saunders who wrote (6768)	8/30/1999 12:16:00 AM
From: Kerm Yerman	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 24921

Richard / Natural Gas Conversion to barrel of equivalent I suspect the reason for variance between U.S. and Canadian ratios (10:1 and 6:1) was very proper - that is, up to about a year ago. It is my belief that the variance was based on prices received by producers in their respective countries. There was a huge variance between the price realized by a Canadian company versus its counterpart in the U.S. Over the past year, the Canadian pricing scenario for Natural Gas in Canada has been in a process of change -- all being brought about by de-bottlenecking the gas supply from Canada via new pipelines. The variance between U.S. prices and Canadian prices have narrowed tremendously. Beginning fiscal year 2000, I believe Canadian companies will begin to change their ratio - to 6:1 also. Using an average crude price of $19.00 in year 2000 and $2.80 mcf for natural gas, the resulting conversion ratio would be 6.78X. Over the next decade, I would guess that ratio to lessen somewhat, with added value given to natural gas. Thus, 6:1 seems reasonable to me. What we need to see is a standard accepted by the industry in reporting the conversion ratios. Companies should not be allowed to report with other than a standard ratio. Exactly what will happen is unknown at this time. One source which might shed light on the issue - is CAPP. capp.ca