London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
geo
the figure from the Permian for possible resources was given at 46billion bbls oil etc,
considering that's based on simple math calculation and not entirely on results spread over that area.Firstly the oil may or may not be recoverable and normally recover is well below 40%, putting that at a new figure of 16 to 20 billion recoverable and much of that it appears will require more than smart technology but a lot of money to break even. The question is how much oil does the US consume in a year? I reckon its close to 6 billion barrels. Of which its reasonably safe to say that 4 billion is now coming from shale. Can one gauge energy independence by the factor of 5 years of oil supply or can we expect more of these startling revelations from the same organization over the coming months.
Been reading lots about this shale, at $50 they are losing money, for the most part or at least that's what is being said. The discounts in the Permian because of take away capacity puts them in a precarious position or is all the oil hedged at 55/60 for example.
I ask only because your are aware of the Permian itself, and I don't doubt its a massive resource but it seems to me to be a short lived energy supplier to a consumer like the US. For me energy independence must be measured over a generation or more, not 5 or 10 years.
It was a draw, as for clueless when did I sell PMO and what date was I back on here when I bought back in? And I've still got my original avatar, how many times have you been banned now for drink posting?
Would be better to get rid of SL and keep Zama. SL has to much baggage, i fear another Solan with that one.
After the FID timeline end? Is there a deadline prior to Feb I’m not aware of? I wouldn’t expect SL to be sanctioned until Q2 2019 at the earliest. Zama is 2 well appraisal programme, first well is a deviated well designed to test the deeper Marte prospect as well as firm up the northern extent of Zama. After hitting TD it will come back up slightly and be sidetracked to get more info plus carry out a DST. Then the rig will move south and spud the 2nd appraisal well. Hopefully by then Pemex will have spudded the well on their side. I’d guess they have anywhere between 10-30% of the volume.
Additional funding to RKH, from whatever source, won't make the difference to starting SL production, except that it will contribute to RKH's continuing independence and not being taken out, as its cash runs out.
Nigoil, I suppose it's possible a deal has been made in advance to sell Zama to a 3rd party. Either way it's worthless until Zama is appraised which will take time...IIRC the earliest that can be is Feb, which is after the FID timeline end. Also OM arbitration for RKH could be positive and supply some cash - not sure how that'd work though as RKH aren't the ones needing funding to kick off SL, I'm not sure exactly how that'd help but logically it should help somehow! Here's to hoping!
Timing works fine. Most of SL spend would be be 2020 and after.
Nigoil, My thoughts are that selling Zama to fund SL is an excellent idea, and I would support it - for what it's worth. I think the timelines don't quite work out though...if we waited to get max value for Zama then we'd be late for FID for SL...so that'd be a tricky road to negotiate while keeping everyone happy
Tomcorvid,
Come on its only a silly little wall.. put your foot down and go straight through, it could be made of polystyrene and its a Utopia on the other side. Don't worry about the paintwork on the Porsche and that dent will Polish-out. Those builders do need higher wages after all. Think of poor old andy.p
It can Ausen but as things stand we are leaving without a deal unless parliament proposes an alternative or postpone article 50. The trouble is we ate where we are, the leadership thing is just a distraction
Well we can agree on that Marshall. Gentle breaking to a stop with concensus gets my vote over driving full pelt into a brick wall any day of the week. Auston, sure. Lots of uncertainty. Pesky russkies.
Tomcorvid, marshall2810,
Article 50 can not only be extended it can also be rescinded. There is no mandate in Parliament for a no deal and no plan in place.
But then again it sounds like the Russians have started putting Otters in peoples dishwashers again so anything could happen.
I believe we should have had a coalition government across the political parties to form a coherent position and ser out our position prior to negotiating with the EU. Like Cameron failed to prepare for both results it looks like May hasn't prepared for No deal in any way
Whilst that might be true ‘Something acceptable to parliament’ is a very broad brush. There is a strong possibility on a free vote and bipartisan agreement.
It was a statement of fact Tom. If they dont find something acceptable to parliament it's no deal. If I wasnt sitting on a huge paper loss from this I'd put money on it
You seem very certain Marshall. I hope you are wrong but I fear you are not.
If it is a draw of 4m I'd expect PoO to increase ~3%
Hard Brexit is the default which is happening 29th March unless a deal can be agreed in parliament which clearly it cannot. We are leaving without a deal, make arrangements
The huge draw indicated yesterday did little to raise prices, doubtful today's figures will impact either regardless
I think it will be a draw on EIA, of over 4m.
Not sure how you reach the conclusion that a hard Brexit implies we are superior to everybody else, but that's your opinion and should be respected just as Hard brexit supporters opinion should be. We're in danger of losing Democracy in this country as well as freedom off speech thanks to the snowflake liberal feckwets.
Market expectations are for a 2 mill draw, so anything below this could sink oil, so a 1 mill draw might not be enough to keep prices this elevated.......seems very unfair but i don't make the rules.......regarding Brexit, I think Mays agreement is a good one, stops freedom of movement and gives us some independence, lets just get on with it, Hard Brexit is bonkers, people calling for a hard Brexit are hardwired euro-cynics, karma will bite them very hard on the arse when they realise we aren't superior to everybody else and cold reality sets in.