Our live Investing Matters Podcast Special which took place at the Master Investor Show discussing 'How undervalued is the UK stock market?', 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.
Agreed VF. Just seems an odd change. Probably all be clear at some point. Atb.
If you ask the man at the top and he says .5 is enough then that is the answer we are looking for.. so if it comes out above that then that is a bonus.. Don't question the man your asking the question too.
He knows his figures and what we need. Is that not enough.
Not having a go Gordon but you got your answer.. ;-)
Haddy. Dont blame you for that. I have doubted others when they have said they have been in contact with Roland. He hasn't told us anything price sensitive. Personally, I am still a little confused. Previously, they seemed to be saying that we needed 2 mmscfd from the refac to be equivalent to a viable 4 mmscfd grom a new well. Now it seems 0.5 mmscfd is enough. Hopefully, we'll know more soon. Overall I'm a little mire confident. Gla.
Thanks from me too Gordon. Decent of you to post for all our benefit. :)
I no deranper , and I want us all to make money but I doubt Roland would be doling out any info to anybody until it is in an rns, that would be price sensitive.
Good shout Gordon, great update/feedback
That's really quite informative .
Thank you Gordon for your efforts .
Excellent job Gordon thank you. :)
Good effort Gordon, thank you.
Yeah sounds positive, thanks for checking with him
He replied.
" As mentioned before, if the stable gas flow rate from the two fracced zones is 0.5 mmscfd then the new wells are viable. And if the gas sales price continues to rise, then even lower rates are viable. New well with 8 fracced zones @ 0.5 mmscfd each = 4 mmscfd.
I truly do not know what the full potential of the two fracced zones is going to be until the frac fluid is flowed back and we have the production tubing re-installed.
My final reply.
“ Thanks for your help Roland. Sounds like you may be expecting an increase on the current 0.25 mmscfd per zone to 0.5 mmscfd oer zone. I appreciate to say any more would be jumping the gun and price sensitive. "
Agreed pysblore, but let's see what his next reply says.
One more try. Don't want to badger him too much.
" Thank you Roland. It sounds like you are not expecting to achieve the 2 mmscfd, so the concern is if the current rate of 0.5 mmscfd does not go up substantially the new wells will not be viable."
Gordon I presume he can't give market sensitive information more than the last RNS. They wanted to achieve 2 mmscfd, his data may say that we do or dont but, he can't tell us yet either way.
He has replied again already!
" Yes, the target was 2 mmscfd from the two new fracced zones and we have yet to achieve that."
Is it me or is it slightly worrying that he doesn't say " We expect to achieve that" ?
Received the following reply almost immediately which is impressive. Will know where to go to in future.
" Hello Gordon,
Apologies, I didn’t receive your previous email.
The flow rates seen from the two newly fracced (and isolated) zones on the C-77H well have been up to 0.5 mmscfd despite the presence of the frac fluid in the wellbore which inhibits gas flow. The frac fluid is still being flowed back and until it is removed, we wont have a definitive flow rate picture.
We need c. 4 mmscfd per day from the new wells planned to be drilled in 2023 to have good economics. New wells will have 8+ fracced zones so 0.5 mmscfd from 2 zones is on course. "
Great to hear him say it's on course. However, presumably to be on course for 4 mmscfd from 8 zones, you'd hope for at least 1 mmscfd from 2 zones. They previously said the refrac target was 2 mmscfd, but it sounds like 1 mmscfd may be enough.
I replied
" Thank you for your prompt reply Mr Wessel. I believe the company previously said the target from the two refac zones was 2 mmscfd, so I assume you are hoping for something near that when all the fluid is removed?"
This is what I said.
" Good morning Mr Wessel.
I attach below a copy of an email which I sent to the company email almost a week ago. In spite of my sending a reminder they seem to be ignoring my query.
I think the contents are self explanatory. One particularly puzzling thing, to the layman at least, is that the flow rate has not increased between 10% and 50% of the fluid removed.
I await your response with interest.
And my previous email.
" I am a long term holder of Oilex now Synergia Energy shares.
There has been much discussion on the lse bulletin board about the latest rns on the refrac operation. The consensus is one of confusion. On the face of it the flow rates seem low at 0.5 mmscfd, nowhere near the target of 2 mmscfd but the commentary is upbeat saying the new methodology seems successful but the decline rates need to be determined to be satisfactory.
Presumably the company is expecting a much improved rate once the remaining fluid is removed and the decline rate will be measured from there. This is by no means clear and probably has something to do with today's drop in the sp.
Perhaps a clarification rns might be in order?
Might not get a response, especially as another update may be imminent, but worth a try.
just forwarded my previous email, which the company has ignored for almost a week, direct to Roland's email.