Shaikan is apparently the same as Atrush. But Ain Sifni isn't IMO.
Petroceltic had David Mackertich (ex-Gulf) as their geologist, and they believed that their acreage was the same as Shaikan, because it was reasonably close. They said that the massive discovery at Shaikan had de-risked their acreage. But it had done no such thing.
Is Akri-Bijeel the same as Shaikan, immediately to the East? It doesn't look like it to me.
If there really were water in the fractures, it would be visible from the production of the 10 million barrels of Shaikan crude, because at these flow rates per well it would surely come up the fractures. But Gulf decline to give information on this issue. In the same way that they decline to release John Stafford's AAPG April 2014 AAPG slides about the Shaikan fracture system.
why would someone from a company Mearsk that was in no difficulty would want a CEO position in a company that in present circumstances could go to the wall, I presume either he thinks he can turn things around and needs the challenge or he has been head hunted as others think he can, or could the CEO be taking a position on behalf of himself and who ever is hoping to control the assets if its ' allowed ' to go bust and continues whatever happens,
i'm sure his first duty is to share/stakeholders but what does he lose if it goes to the bondholders, i'm buoyed by his credentials, hope they and his Kurdistan knowledge are used to the advantage of all investors and not opaque vested interests
Nicki - if that is the case why would someone like RPS use it in a CPR. Looking at the operator map the Simrit wells are as close to Shaikan literally as those on Atrush. I have no idea whether that is also true geologically. On Shaikan 6 there was a discrepancy between oil cores taken as they drilled down dripping with dry oil and DST flow tests of just water from the same areas having completed drilling/casing. JG explained this by a bad cement job at the bottom (ddboy - drilling fluid residue wasn't Shaikan 6 but one or 2 other wells). It seems RPS have agreed with Equipoise that its the DST's that should be used to determine OWC. I was just interested in your views on that.
The crushing demolition of the Excalibur claim by Lord Clarke was - at the time - considered to be the smashing of the glass ceiling which had been holding Gulf's share price down!
What was not openly revealed was that the CPR was being prepared on an "ultra-conservative" basis, being aligned with the narrow Field Development Plan. But I now think some people did know that. Therefore, while buying was taking place - because the Excalibur glass ceiling had been well and truly smashed - there was also selling. That's my current view. And the CPR came as a severe shock to most - but I suggest not to all.
Therefore the time to sell (ignoring long-term value) was immediately after Lord Clarke's verdict in September 2013, but do so would have relied upon insider knowledge (of what ERC Equipoise were doing).
It always comes back to thd CPR and its presentation, in my opinion.
The market price is just that...the market price.... If any potential suitor is looking seriously at the actual assets of a company, it is not inconceivable for them to offer a much higher price then the current market price. I some how imagine an offer of around 50p would not win any bid, opportunistic as it may be.
There's some very interesting information about Atrush in the public domain. It's best IMO to go back to the earliest presentations and news releases about Atrush, because there's stuff in there which doesn't otherwise appear.
There's separate volumetric information in there for the fractures and the matrix.
btw the Well Productivity Indices are about the same as for the Shaikan wells.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.