Oil Investing: The Falklands

Published in Investing Strategy on 24 February 2010

The first Falklands drilling campaign in 12 years is causing quite a media stir.

Discussion board regular Hallucigenia continues his series on oil investing.

You will have heard a lot recently about Argentina rattling her sabres over the start of oil drilling in the Falkland Islands on Monday. The media may present this as deliberate provocation by the Royal Navy, but of course it's not really like that. Oil exploration in the islands is driven by four AIM-listed companies looking to make money for their shareholders. Should you join them?

CompanyMarket capShare price
Desire Petroleum (LSE: DES)£336m103.25p
Borders & Southern (LSE: BOR)£271m63.25p
Falklands Oil & Gas (LSE: FOGL)£231m158p
Rockhopper Exploration (LSE: RKH)£107m61.5p

In this article I will give an overview of exploration in the Falklands, and in a follow-up piece I will look at the individual companies.

Geography and geopolitics

As you probably know, the Falklands are an archipelago 300 miles east of the southern tip of South America. They are a self-governing territory of the UK -- their defence is provided by the Royal Navy and RAF, but are largely independent in other matters.

Notably that includes taxation -- with a 9% royalty and 26% corporation tax, the fiscal terms are among the best in the world for oil companies. This makes a huge difference; 200 million barrels (mmbbl) of oil in the Falklands might be worth more to shareholders than 500mmbbl of oil in somewhere like Kurdistan, or 1,000mmboe of gas in North Africa.

Argentina has a long-standing claim on the islands that is fiercely rejected by the inhabitants and by Britain. The Royal Navy may be in no state to launch another 1982-style taskforce, particularly during the "carrier gap" around 2014-17 if indeed they get their new carriers at all. However, it can be assumed that there will be British hunter-killer submarines in the area to disrupt Argentine supply routes should they attempt another invasion, a threat that they will be well aware of.

On the other hand, Argentina's armed forces are in even worse shape than Britain's thanks to years of economic crisis; they would need help from their South American allies to launch a serious attack on the islands and it would make more sense to invade after billions of dollars had been spent on exploration and production platforms rather than before. 

I view the current noises from Buenos Aires as little more than rabble rousing ahead of next year's elections from a president who is even less popular than Gordon Brown. You can't dismiss the claim entirely, but I don't think it will be particularly relevant for investors during the next 3-4 years of exploration other than as part of market "noise".

Geology

Three areas around the Falklands could hold oil, each independent of the other. Desire and Rockhopper have licences in the North Falklands Basin to the north of the islands, Falklands Oil & Gas (FOGL) and Borders operate in the South Falklands Basin to the southeast, and the Malvinas Basin lies to the southwest. A border dispute with Argentina separate from the main sovereignty claim means that no licences have been awarded in the Falklands bit of the Malvinas Basin.

Exxon drilled a few wells in the latter back in 1980 and found signs of hydrocarbons but lost interest after the 1982 war. This year the Malvinas Basin will see drilling in Argentine waters by a consortium of Repsol YPF, Petrobras and BP (LSE: BP) subsidiary Pan American Energy.

North Falklands Basin

The North Falklands Basin is a failed rift system geologically similar to the Albertine Graben in Uganda or the Balmer basin in Rajasthan that have proved happy hunting grounds for Tullow (LSE: TLW) and Cairn (LSE: CNE) respectively. However it's worth noting that such systems tend to have fields of the order of 50-500mmbbls, as a rule they don't have multi-billion barrel fields although the North Falklands Basin may contain one such giant field. 

Small fields are less of a problem onshore than offshore, but Desire's consultants reckon that a 50 mmbbl field would break even at about $55/bbl oil and anything bigger than that would be seriously profitable, a 400mmbbl field would be worth over £4bn at current oil prices and exchange rates.

At least Desire and Rockhopper know that they are drilling an area with a working petroleum system and the second-best source rock in the world. The British Geological Survey has estimated that the main source rock in the North Falklands Basin has generated between 11 and 60 billion barrels of oil. 

Only a small fraction of that might be recoverable, and then only if it has migrated into a suitable reservoir and trapped by a suitable seal. There are particular risks of poor reservoir quality and that the oil has not migrated in many cases, the limited data available suggests that it's quite hard for oil to move through the rocks of the North Falklands Basin.

1998 drilling campaign

Desire was one of several companies to licence blocks in the North Falklands Basin in the mid 1990s, conducting a joint drilling campaign of six wells in 1998. Since each company wanted to drill the single best prospect in their block, they all ended up drilling into the sediment (mostly mud) in the middle of the old rift lake. 

They found lots of organic matter there -- five wells had signs of oil and one of those also had gas -- but the mud wasn't a good enough reservoir for oil to flow in commercial quantities. Shell recovered 27˚API oil to surface, but then the oil price sank to $10 and the majors lost interest in exploration full stop, let alone exploration in remote frontier regions such as the Falklands. 

Things look different now at $75 oil.

With fewer companies involved this time, each well can be aimed at a different geological setting. Desire recognises 14 different such environments that could hold oil, the first priority is to drill the sand deposited by rivers flowing into the former lake.

Unlike in 1998, the current campaign recognises the importance of having the flexibility to change drilling plans depending on the result of each well. Investors may get frustrated at the gaps in one company's drilling whilst the geologists pore over well logs and generally have a think about things, but it's essential if the rig is to be directed at the best targets.

South Falkland Basin

Confusingly Desire have started talking about a southern (sub-) basin within the North Falklands Basin, but the South Falkland Basin to the southeast of the islands is very different. No wells have been drilled in the South Falklands Basin, the nearest relevant one is a scientific research well 500 miles to the east, so exploration is much riskier. However the potential is also much greater, with several multi-billion barrel targets; in the past FOGL has estimated that the basin could hold 60 billion barrels recoverable, as much as the whole of the North Sea.

Weather conditions are much more challenging than in the North Falklands Basin, similar to west of Shetland. However fields such as Foinaven prove that oil can be produced in such conditions and FOGL has conducted surveys at the height of the austral winter, although they'd prefer to avoid drilling in winter if they can help it.

Another issue is that most prospects in the south are in 1,000-1,500m of water, which means a top-of-the-range (hence expensive!) rig is needed to drill them. In contrast most of the prospects in the North Falklands Basin are in 150-300m of water and can be drilled by a mid-range rig such as the Ocean Guardian currently on site. Weather conditions in the North Falklands Basin are no worse than the central North Sea, unpleasant but not exceptional by industry standards.

www.falklands-oil.com is a site run by the British Geological Survey on behalf of the Falklands government that has lots of technical information and discussion of the 1998 campaign. The company websites and presentations are also useful, particularly www.desireplc.co.uk .

In the next article, I look at the companies looking for oil around the Falklands.

More from Hallucigenia on oil investing:

The author has a beneficial interest in Desire and FOGL.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

Randval 25 Feb 2010 , 10:42am

Congratulations Hallucigenia on an excellent series of articles

ralos 25 Feb 2010 , 12:45pm

Excellent piece of work, well done!

BarrenFluffit 25 Feb 2010 , 1:53pm

Interesting. I like the snippet that BP are drilling oil in Argentinian waters. In theory it would be possible for their government to take a stake in the oil explorers but that would be misunderstanding the situation! By industry standards its a minor issue.

tux222 25 Feb 2010 , 3:15pm

A great article.

One company not mentioned is Falkland Island Holdings (FKL). It's not an oil company, but it does own a significant stake in FOGL. It is a "picks and shovels" play on Falklands oil, because it's the main retailer, distributor, port operator, hotelier etc. on the islands. It also runs the Portsmouth (UK) ferry, and Momart.

Hallucigenia 25 Feb 2010 , 3:41pm

Thanks all. Don't worry tux - I'm well aware of FKL as our family first owned shares in it the last time it was listed (pre-Coalite) and I continue the tradition today. :-) It's getting a mention in the susbequent "companies" article, this one was meant to be more of a scene setter and was already too long!

Fluffit - I can't see .gov.ar buying the companies, they just don't have the hard currency. Repsol YPF would be the logical suitor as they need the reserves if nothing else; Petrobras don't but might be a more politically acceptable buyer. Whether a deal with any company with close links to a South American government would be acceptable is another matter, but I can certainly them trying.

bginnity 25 Feb 2010 , 4:24pm

I am a total novice at these things but can you tell me if I have understood what I have read on other message boards?

Suppose the SFB is found to have 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, each barrel worth $5 profit.

Then the field is worth about 4 billionX5X0.6 = £12 billion.

So, RockHopper, which at present has a market capitalisation (total value of all the shares) of about £112 million would rise in value to £12billion, i.e. an increase in share value by the ration 12 billion/113 million i.e.a ratio of about 114. So the shares which at present are worth about 63p each would rise in value to about £70.

Have I got this about right? or totally wrong, or is it right up to a point but far too simplistic.

Apologies for what is probably a stupid question but I am a total amateur in these matters, although I have significant (to me at least) shareholdings in Desire and RockHopper

bginnity 25 Feb 2010 , 4:26pm

Sorry, I meant to say the North Falklands Basin.

Hallucigenia 25 Feb 2010 , 4:54pm

bginnity - you're probably better off waiting for the next article where I throw some numbers around. You're sort of heading there but being vastly optimistic because you're ignoring things like a) Rockhopper don't own the whole basin, only a share of it and b)a lot more capital will be needed for the NFB companies to prove up 4 billion barrels. So you've got to allow for dilution either by partnerships or further share issues - and in the real world the stock market will always discount the shares relative to the sort of NPVs that would be used by a trade buyer.

I've not run the numbers for RKH yet, but I'd be thinking in terms of full success (unlikely in itself) making them more like a 8 or 10-bagger than a 100-bagger. At the moment you should only be really valuing them off the prospects that they have the cash to drill right now - so the current programme of Sea Lion, Ernest and Johnson, plus 7.5% of Ann, Liz, Ninky and Rachel. It's hard to value unappraised discoveries, particularly when we don't know who the Argentine president will be by that stage. If absolutely everything went to plan in the next year, and even the wells with odds of 10/1 against came in - then RKH might be sitting on somewhere between £500m and £800m-worth of unappraised discoveries, possibly with quite a heavy gas bias (which makes development more complicated). Quite how the markets choose to value that little lot is another matter. :-) Gulf Keystone suggests that markets can get somewhat carried away, but the political smell might have taken a turn for the worse. But it's worth emphasising that's the perfect scenario, somewhere around £200m-worth is more likely at present but it could also be worth zero.

bginnity 25 Feb 2010 , 5:16pm

Thanks for the reply. I will read your next article with interest.

But according to RockHopper's website, they own licences PL023, PL024, PL032 and PL033. In two documents entitled "Prospect and Lead Inventory", they list the fields in these licences below a sub-heading "prospective recoverable resources mmbbls oil unless stated otherwise". It does not state otherwise.
The figures for the 4 licences total 4.3 billion barrels.

Have I misunderstood RockHopper's website.

http://www.rockhopperexploration.co.uk/pdf/ProspectInventory2.pdf

Hallucigenia 25 Feb 2010 , 6:13pm

You're not wildly off - but the point is that at present Rockhopper cannot afford to drill $20m wells to see if most of that 4 billion barrels is actually there. And the only way they will ever drill those wells is either by issuing more shares to add to the current 174m (so each share you already own will be entitled to a smaller fraction of the total value), or by doing deals like Desire and FOGL's, where they reduce their stake in the licence in return for a partner paying for more drilling. Or they wait until they're getting cashflow from production, which won't be for another 5+ years. And if you're not going to drill them for another 5 years, you should discount for the time value of money in any value you assign, which will more than halve any numbers.

But that's getting so far out into the future that there's just too many factors to consider. In the real world, the City tends to look at what could happen within the next two years or so, and then may apply a bit of a fudge factor if there's a prospect inventory beyond that looks OK. As it is, all the numbers on recoverable oil could be thrown upside down by the first well, these really are very "soft" numbers.

You're also ignoring the fact that there will have to be quite a few wells just to appraise any discoveries to the stage where other companies will "believe" them enough to pay good money for them. Typically any one well can convert no more than ~50 million barrels into bookable reserves - it depends on the nature of the hydrocarbons and the reservoir, but that kind of number. So at $20m for a well with testing, you might be looking at $200m to appraise a 500mmbbls field to the stage where you could sell it off, and that's before you start putting $1bn production platforms on it so that you can generate cash flow.

Anyway - probably best if I just get on with the next article. :-)

bginnity 28 Feb 2010 , 5:26pm

OK thanks. I look forward to reading it.

har86vey 04 Mar 2010 , 3:12pm

great article. looking forward to reading more

http://thetruemoneymaker.blogspot.com

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.