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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joan Osland Graffius who wrote (99190)	6/11/2003 6:34:37 PM
From: AuBug	Respond to of 132070

Joan & ild, thanks much for the links and symbols. Looks like I missed the boat on FRO but I didn't buy it because of the spotty dividend. Was there something that foretold the big increase in dividend last time? I read Galbraith's (www.galbraiths.co.uk) each week to get a feel for the tanker market. Are there any other good sources of data? From reading their info it looks like more tankers will be produced and coming to market soon, forget if they're more VLCC or Suezmax. I picked NAT over VLCCF last summer/fall because NAT ships had more time left on their BP lease than VLCCF had on their Shell lease. Also, I figure that Suezmax tankers are more versatile and can more readily take product away from VLCCs than vice versa. VLCCs can combine loads but may not be able to unload all at the same port and loose efficiency by having to go to more destinations. Also, Suexmaxs can go to more ports than VLCCs, or so it seems to me. My impression is that the run up in tanker rates we've enjoyed in the last year was due to tankers being in the wrong places due to the shut down of Nigeria and Venezuela. This had refineries bidding up the tanker rate for ships that could get to the open ports. Now it seems supply is equaling or exceeding demand and that tanker rates will drop or level off, or so my intuition tells me. I read the PRs from NAT & VLCCF and it seems safe to buy when the rate drops to their base rate as one is guaranteed a fixed revenue with only upside and no downside. Take a look at the table NAT provides in their quarterly PR and compare to NAT share price chart. Seems to correlate well. www.uns.no/uns/PDF/NAT_Press_Release_Q2_2003.pdf I think the rationale for BP & Shell to enter into such leases is that after 7 years they can dump them annually. They're also guaranteed ships on certain routes that sell their production regardless of what's going on in tinpot dictatorships like Nigeria & Venezuela. I wonder how many tankers they employ on a regular basis? I wonder what their in house fleet size is? I'm with you, if VLCCF spikes down I'll buy a boatload ;-}

To: Joan Osland Graffius who wrote (99190)	6/12/2003 1:13:45 AM
From: Bill/WA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Joan, re: VLCCF... <<VLCCF: The Math Doesn`t Add Up - Initiating with a SELL (1/2) Alan Weichselbaum Knightsbridge Tankers Ltd. #(VLCCF $14.10, NASDAQ, SELL) June 11, 2003 If Shell decides not to renew, Knightsbridge needs to decide what to do with the ships. It can scrap the ships, sell the vessels, find another partner or place the ships into the spot market.>> It was my understanding that they leased their ships and did not own them. If so, how could they "sell or scrap" them? TIA Bill/WA