Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
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.
It should also be remembered in any discussion on P#1 that the lower formations, the ones which were not drilled, were very different in nature and were High Pressure. Drilling deeper carried an increase in risk.
The men who drilled P#1 were 'oil men', not your average PI's who spout off on a free BB and grumble about share prices. These men will have seen what they needed to see and in their experience were comfortable with what they saw to TD the well when they did and not go for the higher risk zones on a drill that had enormous environmental scrutiny and where even the tiniest of mistakes would have likely shut exploration down in the whole basin forever, never to be repeated again.
A working hydrocarbon system has been declared with information obtained that provides insight and derisks other targets. We need to wait for the full report on P#1. There could be a significant quantity of oil there, just not enough to justify field development on its own, we simply don't know. Find 200m barrels at another target and everything flips on it's head. We were told April/May before the drill for full results so we simply have to continue to play the old BPC game - wait in silence.
Stop crying everyone and grow a pair.
Zag you do not know of any success or otherwise until the results are seen until then it’s merely your opinion - so perhaps you should think before you make statements of fact?
Until a major is fully signed up, yes it will be considered an unsuccessful drill with 12 years and $130M wasted, that's the nature of oil exploration however I firmly believe a farm in/out will be agreed thus allowing bpc to quickly expand it's other assets.
Tiburn
I look at results
70% drop in price.
No commercial find
I say again and again, it is in no way a successful drill. 12 years and +130 million dollars spent with not 1 drop of oil.
Complete pathetic financial position with the 6 placements from November onwards.
I would expect another placement soon.
I would add, in all probability the P#1 site was as BPC described as the optimum location as :
"This location has been chosen, based upon high resolution 3D seismic data, as the best balance of lowest technical risk, geological conditions and recoverable volumes at the crestal point on the northern segment of the very large B structure."
and Major may have agreed it being a reasonable decision - if they didnt then BPC may have adjusted, but didnt.
Thats separate from Geological risk of the structure not having HC overall - its all about where the oil has migrated/source now.
Surelock
if it was geological risk perceived as to high back then - fair enough
this being the risk of not having HC in place
That could only be understood in full with a drill
but this drill has proven the geology and HC was found - working system
When the Major marched away from the exclusivity period I seem to remember Simon saying when asked why, he said geology. Did that mean the drill site was not in the best location in their view?
The drill position of P#1 was set years ago.
Its the summation of all that $130m data set they have collated over ten years.
When the Major had access to data room , BPC would have shared their P#1 positioning rationale, the Majors tech team would have reviewed it, must have been approved and validated by them as the drill site didnt change after this period.
The dialogue will now resume - hopefully with the same people. The questions that were asked back then by the Major can now be answered/inferred from the RNS data alone plus whatever briefing pack Gneiss may have issued to the Majors interested - however the data room exclusive access Major are still at point in terms of their understanding they gained in 2018.
Once BPC have analysed and collated all data , briefed Bahamas Gov, then they will engage with Majors in full.
Gneiss have been employed to act as an intermediary and control direct communications to BPC in the interim period, create a level playing field, order the inquiries and rank their seriousness - its extremely encouraging they have been secured.
BPC know the value of what they have found and will wish to market it to highest or most suitable bidder - but on their terms.
Now is the time to consolidate your position if you believe this scenario to be the case.
BPC were never going to produce from P#1 site even if a billion barrels found in this locale, we knew that before drill spud - it was always going to be plugged and abandoned.
Why not go for the motherload, the best COS site for commercial , a producing well position?
Its just not that simple.
It seems Lower Geological/Technical drill risk were the key drill goals - then commercial, not to prove up a producing site.
This article shows the stages in evaluation:
http://www.petrocenter.com/reservoir/economics/Evaluation%20of%20Exploration%20%20Prospects.htm
"The probability of the existence of hydrocarbons in a play depends on:
1) Confinement or closure of the deposit
2) Adequate deposition of organic material to form oil
3) Right conditions (time, pressure and temperature) to become oil or gas"
This the “geological risk.” This does not describe the chance of a commercial discovery. So BPC have achieved this for the B structure in P#1 and established the working petroleum system.
Step 2 is "Technical risk" is drilling in this new frontier - the drill was a success in this aspect aswell:
"The information gleaned from the successful drilling of Perseverance #1 confirms that technical issues encountered during the drilling of historic offset wells (including extreme losses and very slow rate of penetration) which required several casing strings, can be overcome by the application of modern technologies and engineering design. This is particularly important in demonstrating that the costs of drilling to deeper target reservoirs, including the important Jurassic horizons and the Lower Cretaceous, deeper water reef build-ups seen within the Santaren Channel, may be commercially viable at currently prevailing oil prices."
Only at Step 3 is then commercial a consideration - its a right of passage:
" For a commercial discovery, the discovered accumulation must meet certain threshold criteria:
4) Sufficient quantity of recoverable hydrocarbons (HC)
5) Reservoir productivity is sufficient to produce hydrocarbons at commercial (economic ) rates
6) Hydrocarbon discovered is commercially marketable
"Now, consider that the chance of success of each of these six factors is 95% or a 1 in 20 chance of being absent. The chance of hydrocarbons being present is 86%, but the chance of a commercial discovery is 74%."
“ An exploration program of a block will typically involve more than one well, so the chances of one or more successes will increase as exploration program continues”
BPC found HC, proved the technical risks are acceptable but could have missed out on commercial by a small margin and further drills were always planned.
Its why Majors are interested.