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 (99337)	6/24/2003 1:19:57 PM
From: Tommaso	Respond to of 132070

I was holding some but decided to get out with a 25% loss rather than sit there wondering if they would sell their ships or try to find a new lessor.

To: Joan Osland Graffius who wrote (99337)	6/27/2003 10:35:24 AM
From: AuBug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Looks unlikely that BP will renew NAT since almost half the time they could've gotten cheaper tankers in the spot market. If one looks at the most recent NAT PR uns.no you'll see in 7 quarters BP had to pay the base rate with 1 close call. It may make some sense for them if prices stay up and they get to make annual decisions as opposed to VLCCF which wanted a 7 year renewal. There may be a flaw in the design of these partnerships. If NAT dips below $11 before next ex-div I may take another flier on it otherwise it doesn't seem worth the risk. I guess if yer gonna run a 95 ship tanker fleet why not 100. I suspect the experiment failed. It sure looked good to me last summer though. Did you snag some of that sub $9 VLCCF? I'm sure tempted since its clear no one's going to scrap new double hulled tankers & someone will pay to use them or buy them. However, with more new tankers due for delivery than scheduled for scrapping I'm ambivalent.