The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
Was Tgb 2a the link to mou-4?
Simple answer, Yes
Tgb3/4 = mou2
Will look up those bcf estimates as I’ve seen different figures in different docs. Plus maybe found a tiny error in GRHs calcs (but it may be me). This doesn’t really effect things greatly as figures are only estimates anyway.
Ref. Tgb2. I think that was based on 55m and latest rns says 75m so could be revised.
The last rns says we penetrated Tgb2. Highest chance of success. The cpr estimated it contained 50-130bcf. This was only confirmed 2 weeks after the original completion rns. Curiously waiting on further information on the remaining targets within the testing depths.
Tgb 2a was the monster at 1376m. 1100-2600bcf.
From the presentation "Mou1 tests the extremity of Tgb 2a delta slope/fan and assess reservoir quality of volcaniclastic/sands - potential to derisk new upside.
We know wireline logs were completed over this depth and there was gas shows.
We know mou-4 has been de-risked and upside increased. Was Tgb 2a the link to mou-4?
We need more information but if we've found evidence of the Extremity of Tgb 2a, the rest of the targets are less relevant.
It had the lowest COS but the largest target. So if there's an indication we have, Paul would need to be sure before he comments on it.
Something from the early Mou1 results has got Paul excited to drill mou-4.
There could be several options as to why the below 1500m to TD have not been announced/ achieved:
1. They drilled to depth and found nothing so haven’t reported
2. They stopped at 1500m because they had found the main prizes. If you note SDX abandoned the LMS2 sands target as uncommercial and grf1 lower gas shows were possibly not commercial anyway. So stopping at that point saved some drill capital.
3. They attempted to drill but upper zones mud weight/ pressure too great for rig
4. Well bore damage meant they couldn’t continue anyway so stopped to save further well damage and test what was found
Could be other explanations as well….
Adon,
Re C2-C4, I was reading about Pixler gas ratios and found the following:
? C1/C2 > 35 and C1/C3 > 80 and C1/C4 > 200 - Dry non-associated gas;
? C1/C2 from 10 to 35 and C1/C3 from 15 to 80 and C1/C4 from 20 to 200 – Gas condensates;
? C1/C2 from 2 to 10 and C1/C3 from 2 to 15 and C1/C4 from 2 to 20 - Liquid Petroleum;
? C1/C2 < 2: Very low gravity, high viscosity, non-productive residual oil.
Shame we don't know the exact proportions for each alkane, but food for thought.
Mick
Can find the rid specs on star valleys website. The rig can drill to 3km plus.
We should've drilled to 2km
https://starvalleydrilling.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Rig-Specifications-101-.pdf
Rig 101 capable to 3000m plus
Interesting.
I did wonder how come it seemed to be able to rig up so fast.
What do we know about the rig? If SDX have been using it for shallow targets, was it used as it was available close and cheap, but found not to be able to handle what was found? Right, I'm off out for the day.
Highlandmatt
1. One of my questions as well and I’ve mentioned it several times. Not sure how many picked up on that. As no mention of it I’ve discounted below 1500m (for now).
2. Yes I’ve highlighted this also with the comparison. Also note the C2-C4 gas type also cross referenced between documents and drill rns.
3. I hadn’t initially spotted this with first rns but I described this later as BCF ‘bubbles’. These could be targets in TGB5/6/6a sands which were not really mentioned. However they could be lower depth still. They would be low cost/ low depth drills which could supplement another find with an infrastructure in place. On their own I think they would ‘keep the lights on’.
I recalculated Michael Caine last night briefly with latest dilution and came to a new figure. However I wanted to try and understand possible capital costs, license period and future taxation. Struggling with that bit though….
Was also going to revise for different gas volumes and prospects by area….
Hi everyone,
I'm crunching my way through the various presentations, annual report and CPR. A couple of observations/questions so far:-
1. The July 2020 presentation states targets down to 2000m depth in TGB1 sands, same as the GRF-1 well. However, I cannot find any reference to MOU-1 hitting this depth. RNS just states:-
TGB-2 target successfully reached according to pre-drill prognosis.
Higher log resistivity and dry gas readings in TGB-2 unit over a gross interval of 75 metres despite significant increase in mud weight required whilst drilling.
Perforating and testing warranted to evaluate commercial flow potential.
The lowest depth I can find is logs were run to 1487m. So.....did we not make TD due to high pressures ('significant increase in mud weight')? Is this why there is a reference to 'safe completion'? Or did we make TD, but the deeper TGB1 zones were empty? Does anyone know how deep MOU-1 got?
2. GRF-1 recorded 0.1-0.5% C1, with 0.23% in TGB-2a. Anchois (offshore) is apparently 0.23% (in 2020 pres). MOU-1 is 0.7-1.5%.
3. Shallower, above 1100m. MOU-1 recorded up to 3.8%. Are these the targets mentioned in this statement 'whilst adding some additional potential shallow targets that had previously not been considered'?
I'm left wanting to understand geology better. There seems to be a number of positive indicators, but I don't know enough to piece them together. But I bet PG does. Does anyone else get the feeling he's gone quiet because he's trying to prove something?
I'm going to bed now. More reading to be done over coming days I think.