/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>18658219
peepeepoopoo

>>18658219
What about STNG

FRO bro here. Everyone needs to look up rates. Spot rates rule. DHT has half their fleet fuckin hedged. Well managed, but this will cap upside. FRO and tk are the plays for most upside. Buy and fuckin hold. These things swing like 7 percent a day. It's like a shitcoin but worse. FRO usually trade up early, down midday, really end of day. Same pattern usually everyday.

Why is FRO down again?

Let me guess we all bought it high and we're going to sell it low.

>>18658346
What do you mean with hedged?
They have only 6 tankers on TC contracts and the other 21 are in the spot market.
ADSC has already made known that they have only contracted out 500 vessel days (45%) so far for an average of 72000 per day (36 million in total), break even is 15k. Of the three, only 1 is under a long term contract and the other two are in the spot market, 1 returning next friday, the other one the week after. They might hit close to 100 million in revenue this year, with 80 million in profits. Not bad for a company of 65 million.

>>18658455
>>18658455
10 vlccs are currently fixed. Averaged at like $60k a day. Again, I think they are the best managed, however I want the biggest fleet during this time. Like tk is run like shit, but they can possibly have the best run

>>18658219
no one has explained to me why this is a good play when onshore storage is near capacity or at capacity. these aren't primarily storage vessels, they're transportation vessels. they don't even hold a "lot" of oil. no company in its right mind is going to pay these tanker companies indefinitely to act as a floating storage vessel. it makes no sense from an economic perspective. it's like paying $100/month for a storage unit to hold a few barrels of rainwater in monsoon season.

>>18658534
They can’t turn the pumps off and won’t burn it either, see the problem?

>>18658534
Tankers are the last line of storage basically. Rates get pricey due to the storage of last resort.

>>18658551
uh can't they just pump more mud (or mud with a higher density) into the well bore to kill flow?

>>18658568
This as long as oil contango is real (about 10 bucks for the next 100 days) you can make exactly that amount by buying this months contract and shorting the futures contract, holding the oil and settling your shorts when the month of the future contract has arrived.

A VLCC tanker holds about 2.1 million barrels. this contango justifies rates of 21 million to store a VLCC worth's of oil for 100 days. or 210k/day.

>>18658534
>it makes no sense from an economic perspective
Thats where you're wrong.
>these aren't primarily storage vessels
You've never heard of FPSOs?
>no company in its right mind is going to pay these companies indefinitely
Who said indefinitely? This is a contango, the tanker charter spot rates are proof it is happening.

>>18658593
This doesn't work for every type of well, and the Saudis aren't about to do it regardless.

>>18658811
Contango is real this far, tho being exaggerated some. People need to realize your playing Brent not wti. Tanker play has legs, though everyone here needed to invest jan/feb like some of us have been saying.

>>18658270
STNG is product tankers, refined rather than crude. So they're generally smaller ships.

They also contract maintenance and services to a private owned company that presumably friends or family of the board/founders own.

They've been crowing for years about the coming retirement apocalpyse for the global product tanker fleet leading to a huge undersupply of newer ships allowing them to set the price and rake in the cash. It hasn't really panned out.

>>18658906
March was the best time for FRO/DHT

>>18658877
Isn't it possible to reverse the pumps on dead wells? Refill Texas for chump change and sell it back later

>>18659034
Sometimes, but it costs significant money. A large number of shale wells have been shuttered but that doesn't stop the Saudi jihad to kill shale.

Frontline CEO Robert MacLeod said "The Kpler data is showing that oil at sea is growing by 50 million barrels per week, or the equivalent of 25 VLCC cargoes per week." The amount of oil now stored at sea is around 250 million barrels, far above the circa-2015 record of 150 million barrels.

>>18659025
>>18658906
yeah everybody can reach charths and see where the bottom was in the past. The question is, is it priced in. Tanker rates went from 50k to 200k and have stayed there for an outrageously long period. Yet stocks have pumped 30-50%.

>>18659274
Thats 120 VLCC's that are stored at sea.
Isn't that like half of the global tanker capacity?
This storage isnt going to be drained soon.
As long as its not drained, tanker prices will remain high.

Some Greek anon last thread said you can use the vlcc fixture app to view that shit in real time. Its useful but uses a lot terms I'm unfamiliar with like "on subs"

>>18659388
Well they keep on pumping. I think the thought of production cuts may 1 is holding the market back. If something messes up and they don't cut, that's when I think u see a run. Or possibly earnings to a lesser extent

Numbers go up

EURN, FRO, NAT, TNP

>>18659291
Don't think we're fully priced in yet. There seems to be a fair number of potential investors who are either distracted or just don't understand how something like this could happen given the record demand destruction that has occurred. I expect more run up as the ex-dividend dates approach.

>>18659407
>Fixed on Subjects - Said of a ship, when the terms and conditions of chartering her have been agreed except for a few, normally minor, details.

>>18659602
Thanks. The rest of the relevant data is tce and duration right?

>>18659656
Yes
http://www.charteringterms.com/abbreviations.html

>>18658219
I think if you look at the fleet and the Mcap/VLCC ratio, you also already have a good idea of which ones are overvalued...

For 7.1 year old vessels they should be worth 66 million vs frontline 50.2 = +31.5%
For 8.1 should be 61 million vs EURN 45.8 = +33.2%
For 9 years old it should be 57 vs 43.3 for DHT = +31.6%
For NAT should be 45 million vs actual 68.7 million = -34.5%
For TK should be 45 million vs 25.15 million = +78.9%
For ADSC should be 30 million vs 21.67 = +38.4%

This is not the only metric of course.
Some have few on the spot market, some have them hedged at lower prices, some have high debt.
I already am invested in ADSC and DHT.
For me I can so far only say that NAT seems to be an overbought play at the moment.
The others seem quite good.
Appearantly TK has horrible management but then so far the best figures and that is using just their VLCC fleet and accounting nothing for their very large LNG fleet.