re: entropylord Supertramp,You say ARQ cheap, STU not. I wonder...

re: entropylord Supertramp,

You say ARQ cheap, STU not. I wonder on what basis?

Whilst not trying to advise you, interestingly I got more or less out of ARQ recently, and substantially increased my STU stake (mostly around 130, but up to 169), after having done a comparison on my projection of current numbers. This has benefited me, albeit at some tax cost.

Even now ARQ has over three times the capitalisation. Lets say 1/3 represents gas, Yemen and cash. If you accept that, then the question is whether ARQ's core oil assets are better than twice as good as STU's. ARQ earns considerably more per barrel, but given the planned refinery and very little hedging left I'd say value barrel for barrel, STU will come close to catching up.

STU is producing over 800,000 bbl pa, starting to rise rapidly again vs about 1,400,000 and about to decline for ARQ (barring major new find).

STU's reserves must be in the 3 to 4 mmbo range now, perhaps ARQ have 6mmbo?, but certainly not 8mmbo.

The major difference IMO is that STU has 2 rigs fulltime on a suite of targets that has proven productive, and is growing both reserves and production. ARQ has to reprove itself.

Apart from recent exploration track record ARQ has an excellent track record, therefore I may well reenter, but when value looks more compelling. Personally despite recent sp changes I see STU as still offering slightly better value than ARQ, but admit an argument could be made for the converse.

Then if you like ARQ, ARQ vs TAP makes an interesting comparison. Similiar capitalisation, TAP has more cash, legacy assets (HJV and WJV) arguably the equal of ARQ developed O&G, and a heap more interesting exploration options. However TAP is as down on it's luck as ARQ, both being punished by the market.

With the high poo I like the surety of high and INCREASING oil production, on INCREASING RESERVES more or less regardless of luck, that STU offers.

Just my thoughts,
Entropylord