We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
My message was to Nigel of course
Was that a long way of saying that you don't actually have a tangible opinion of the probability of any figures yourself?
As such, your own views (whatever they are as you have not said) would be wild speculation also on your analysis.
None of these numbers are certain, but they are based on published data. You can contribute to their analysis or you can just make noise to feel big.
Thank you for your reply Nigel.
There is evidence to reduce the COS from current drill and the other sources (albeit up to 50 years old) but possibly no better than already calculated.
Was reading more regards the variables of Gcos calcs. So potentially TGB2a could have a cos of 25% minimum instead of the 10% given in your view(?). And MOU2 prospect could have a reduction on the existing 34%.
Further survey could reduce the Cos more but without the actual follow up drills values are still open.
Good Q, firstly we do not know how PG came up with 57%, if we did then we could refine the COS. At this point probability would normally have converged with reality but as we all know, the two ops update RNS are not clear, at least in part for good reason.
Re TGB-2a we may never know exactly but yes with good evidence of thermogenic gas one of the four metrics of the gcos calc can be lifted to unity or refined.
So at the moment the uncertainty which is normally resolved by actual drilling remains in play.
Reading Winifriths' article, interesting...
Nigel, that is a good idea. Are you able to provide any input into how to achieve that?
The TGB2 prospect had a COS of 57% prior to drill and is an area to be tested now the drill has been completed. Does the outcome for probability stay the same still or is there a change in possible outcome?
Same with TGB2a which had a 10% COS pre mou1 drill…. Surely with the drill this has now changed?
Why not answer a simple question put to you very recently? Or are you simply going to continue to disrupt, slander and irritate just for the sake of it?
Why not substantiate your outlandish numbers with a probability factor of achieving your low, best and high share price wild speculations?
I have revisited GRHs post of MC and come up with my own figures based on recent updates. Any updates to CPR will change this.
Others may be completely different because of assumptions I have made.
I have included in my calculations another 40m share dilution for various reasons. I have not included state royalty, corporation tax or other costs. Likewise I have not included any bonus arrangements such as gas discovery or $5m bonus for 30,000boe/day production. Instead I have followed the MC model of halving my amounts. Crude but simple.
So my halved price per share per bcf is 0.58p
This gives, based on prospective resources (as detailed in MC), a Low estimate of £1.62, Best estimate of £4.75 and High estimate of £10.56 per share
I could have added all my workings out but they follow a similar line to MC model and all information is available in annual reports, RNS and presentations.
I can add the following though as I have performed a single calculation on TGB2 which is the current area to be perforated and tested. This is detailed in the presentation as prospects of 50 to 138bcf for 10-55m sand thickness. So estimates are 29p to 80p per share.
The latest RNS however has described this as being 75m of sands. This scaled up gives a high estimate of 188bcf or £1.09 per share.
There are many other items I have noticed while reading through all these documents. So also worth revisiting again with the latest updates.
Just a caveat. These are my own calculations based on the information available. Others may have different ideas of how to interpret the data so alway DYOR.
GLA
Hello Adon...
THANK YOU for looking at the maths and sources that sit behind Michael Caine (MC)!
MC's 279bcf was of course the low case NETT ATTRIBUTABLE figure ...
and was taken directly from the table published in the RNS dated 7 Dec 2020
If you don't mind , I do not want to shy away from the RNS figures I quoted...
I quoted them of course as they provided the validation to the MC figures
There is no doubt that one can now calculate differently ...
and indeed, I anticipate that the MC figures WILL soon enough change ...
for the better
I hope that is OK
Regards
GRH
Morning Graham,
I worked out from the various information in the public domain how you calculated the first part and confirmed it.
I then took info from the same information and calculated a different way and came to the same results. So all good there.
Please take a look at your low gross prospective estimate. You have 279 bcf. This to me is overall net including the Triassic. For Miocene low gross (including mou4) I have 148 + 146 = 294bcf
I am however trying to recalculate based on separate parts for tgb2, tgb2a/mou4 and tgb3&4/mou2. Figures making some sense across the various rns, annual report and presentations. Only figures I am ignoring are the tgb2a figures in the presentation as these were management estimates that are a lot higher than declared in a rns. These are the ones zebra mentioned in their post also.
Does anyone know if the SLR consulting CPR for 2020 was ever in the public domain?
As was just wondering if that had any revised figures.
Hello all...
I have just checked in...
I am not stopping ...
as I have no wish to set off the URABIP machine
THREE things if I may:
1) MICHAEL CAINE
Adon...
if you do find an error, please let me know!!!
equally, if you find the maths correct...
could you please confirm...thanks
2) SHARE PRICE
I have said it before...but it might be worth restating:
IF the RNSs of 6/12/19 JULY had been issued as ONE item...
I am very sure the SP would have been way north of 40p
It is a matter of some interest re WHY the RNSs were issued as they were.
3) THE PRIZE
As many know...
I had long personally considered SGB2 to be likely a PART OF the wider SGB2A sands...at slightly higher level
It was good to see that view supported by the Company in a recent RNS
Some might want to read that last sentence again...yes that is correct!!!!!!!!
As some know...I rely on private and public information
Whilst the private stuff is not going to be made available on here,
it’s really good that the BB debate is NOW focussing on the publicly available information
about the ASSETS that this tiny outfit has already 'discovered'
Are there likely to be assets/ sizes quite a way beyond what we have heard about on here?
I think that is very possible...
The company has already given some clues in RNS form
Regards
GRH
URABIP =
Unwashed
Randomly
Abusing
Better
Informed
People