Thread regarding Apache Corp. layoffs

We will have to sell Permian to fund our share of the Suriname $9 Billion

Its basic math

by
| 3731 views | | 32 replies (last November 2, 2023) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1oBj3rxz

32 replies (most recent on top)

Now FID by end of 2024, we have time…

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Naue+1oBj3rxz

Apa would have to pay ~$2.5 bill out of the $9

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ztir+1oBj3rxz

Still need to offload Deepwater and Eagleford. Legacy NM would be great too!!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @purg+1oBj3rxz

This company has completely and totally lost its direction under the current executive leadership team while the board watched it happen.

The past acquire and exploit success went out the window with RP and billions were bought with no real value.

GSF tried to keep the gravy train going and then when that wasn’t working attempted to pivot to exploration.

JC and his team wallow around with no strategy other than paralysis by analysis and get shown up by smaller (although now the same market cap) companies like Permian Resources and Earthstone while buying assets that will not meaningfully add to the production (Permian garbage and Alaska).

The asset base is quickly decaying and this disaster is taking in water quickly,

The new culture is every pronoun of your choice for themselves.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gecf+1oBj3rxz

Yet we bought in Alaska….

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @glse+1oBj3rxz

Lol got an analyst here now looking for info on “simple Jack” carry explanation. Guess he’s all insecure about that buy recommendation.

NO REGERTs Brah

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @9rgn+1oBj3rxz

Can someone please explain in a simple way, how much of those $9 billion Apa has to pay and when? What is covered by TE?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @7lys+1oBj3rxz

https://youtu.be/D6M97HhmVcI?si=XYL-omodFq5BAbdI

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @6jvf+1oBj3rxz

It's the New Alpine Hill !!! Get it !!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @6btc+1oBj3rxz

The company has poked around in Alaska before (unsuccessfully, of course) and really wanted BP’s stake there in 2010.

One must wonder why there is such an apparent fixation for such an expensive place in which to operate.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @6qoo+1oBj3rxz

Vive la révolution!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @5ibv+1oBj3rxz

Just what we need … a minority interest in a North Slope exploration project!?!?!?!?

This company needs more flowing barrels for the future because our asset base is old and tired and isn’t going to take us behind the retirement of most of the executive staff. At least they can sleep soundly knowing they will be OK and f rest of us.

In guess this is what the new SVP brought us … awesome!!!

This company is going down in flames with JC and SR at the controls.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @5kkc+1oBj3rxz

Apaches new slogan for 2024

“It’s not He---s if it’s everywhere”

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @5vpn+1oBj3rxz

I thought George Clooney ran Apache out of Alaska when he was trying to save the whales?!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @5dgr+1oBj3rxz

What about the report of Apache picking up 13% stake in the Alaska Pikka field: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-santos-divest-half-working-074642156.html Why would we want to be in Alaska? How much is this costing? All the news comes from the Internet. JC is uncommunicative.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @5bft+1oBj3rxz

Reminds me of my time working on the notorious Kashagan Field or as we use to call it the Cash-All-Gone Field.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @5ugt+1oBj3rxz

JC wants so badly to be a homerun hitter but has always, and I mean always had warning track power at best.

"A Façade of Competence: The JC Story"

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @4otf+1oBj3rxz

First we buy the junk in the Forties, then we bet the bank on Alpine Low, now we keep chasing Suriname after years and years of lukewarm results. All the while moving Apache into a holding company. Isn't it clear that we all work here just to serve JC and his friends to su-k out what's left of this shell of a formerly great company?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @4rmj+1oBj3rxz

Only 12% but hey. Good excuse to sell

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @4pgv+1oBj3rxz

Don’t worry. Planning has it all figured out. Lol

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3xdf+1oBj3rxz

It isn’t the cost share that is the problem it is that fact that APA is not going survive with the current asset base until barrels flow from Suriname and sure that the folks at Total know that.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3jcz+1oBj3rxz

JC and SR don’t care. They’re so out of touch that they think one of them will take over at BP and bring the other one with them.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1llq+1oBj3rxz

Sales coming soon....

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1aiz+1oBj3rxz

Yes, Total carries the majority costs but they also pay themselves back first when production comes in. It will be many years before Apa sees FCF from Suri

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1myx+1oBj3rxz

Gap!? More like a CASUM!

That initial carry isn’t even inflation indexed..why do you think the French are stalling? Yesterdays dollars ain’t gonna save us.

APA is what the French call les incompétents!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jcy+1oBj3rxz

Whereas it's not neccesarily true that Permian would need to be sold, this question highlights the potential cashflow squeeze towards the end of this decade. Significant capital will need to go towards UK abandonment and Suriname development (even with the carry) at a time that Egypt and Permian inventory will be running down. There will be a gap between Suriname first oil and realized cashflow with the cost barrels.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1zxy+1oBj3rxz

Just did the math and it returns single digit real rates once accounting for inflation, taxes, marketing haircut and forex. If APA spent less time playing with its Bonaparte and more time on executing we wouldn’t be up next for the M&A guillotine!!

SACRE BLUE!!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jql+1oBj3rxz

Suriname Corporate Tax rate of 36%

Don’t imagine we get any benefits of the write-offs associated with the first 9 billion on the carry portion, so in all actuality it’s not really that great of a carry; Total is getting the tax advantage Vis-à-vis a “tax shelter carry from Suriname Gov because of its capital spend. That soft French power is real. Who negotiated this debt trap of a deal for us anyway?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jib+1oBj3rxz

UK Eagleford and Alpine first please

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wtu+1oBj3rxz

No we’re not, check APA’s website, Total carries us for a large portion of development costs. APA puts up limited cash.

https://investor.apacorp.com/static-files/dc915dfd-18a5-44e8-94e9-ed9fa2dd7a3c

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ilf+1oBj3rxz

Total is going to bleed us out. Poor unfortunate souls.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @txe+1oBj3rxz

I’m not sure exactly how it works but APA is carried by Total for certain costs. So I don’t think they’ll pay half. Even so they’re gonna have to sell a lot and lay off tons of employees. But I’m sure they’ll keep almost all of the execs. Sad part is who would want their current assets. They might have to sell down part of their Suriname position.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @uzh+1oBj3rxz

Post a reply

: