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.
You're ribbing me, ribeye.
North Cadeby, south of West Cadeby, referred to by spike501.
North Kelsey you mean?
I can't wait to find out what's at North Cadeby!
HI spike501. I'd certainly agree that only "about a third of the risked value of WN has been assigned" so far, possibly even less. But what exactly is West Cadeby? I know we are meant to see the Cadeby formation in the next (B-1) well, and it's been written about here. I believe it's present in all or most of the previous wells in the area and oil shows have been mentioned previously at WN. Can I assume that West Cadeby is something new? I assume any reserves found in it will be additional to those we already know about in the Kirkham Abbey formation. Any thoughts?
Oh dear.....
Another vacuous over leveraged fool. At least you strung a sentence together, unlike your mate Denzal.
I think I’ll stick around to give you chavs a target for your one liners
Jack
Thanks appreciate your comments but will stick to my judgement and that of the brokers. Of course there’s risk...idiot don’t know why people like you come onto bbs just as shares get going? Filtered
"With the UJO SP @ .22 you can see that the Market has overvalued UJO as Investors have already booked a third of the base case expected value of WN £81.2M or .52 per current share."
Its about a third of the risked value of WN that has been assigned, which isn't excessive and the campaign will shortly be underway to firm up the resource with some high impact as well with West Cadeby - sure if there is an issue with WN, this is overvalued, but if WN is proved up near the volumes that are prognosed, fair value is substantially higher than this.
Denzal
Almost 6000 one liner posts of zero value. Why don’t you jog on And maybe offer up some well thought out research
No I thought not ......
Jack
Jack!! Ffs do some research you idiot !! Paid Deramper go jog off
GreyPanther
I agree with your assessment. Biscathorpe has a 40% geological chance of success and the base case value to UJO is £6.9M or .04 per current share. The expected 200 bopd from Wressle is valued at £4.2M or .03 per current share.
With the UJO SP @ .22 you can see that the Market has overvalued UJO as Investors have already booked a third of the base case expected value of WN £81.2M or .52 per current share.
So basically over hyped, over traded and PIs should beware.
Jack
There have been a few comments here recently about Biscathorpe being the largest un-appraised UK onshore discovery. Rather than assuming that’s the case, I looked at what’s been published about both Bisc and WN and I thought I'd share my conclusions if you're interested. I’m not comparing them with Saltfleetby or Wytch Farm, although I worked on both for a while in the 1990’s. Even the onshore portion of WF’s original reserves went way beyond any of them. Regarding the actual figures, it’s worth pointing out that we only have oil and gas IN PLACE figures for WN to compare with Bisc’s prospective resources. I’m pretty sure that the term “resource” for Bisc means they are talking about potentially recoverable oil, so we aren’t yet comparing like with like. The numbers for Biscathorpe were given in Egdon’s 30 March ’20 RNS, and for WN they were in Rathlin’s 11 Nov ’19 RNS. Please note: I used the operators’ more optimistic upside cases for both discoveries.
For Biscathorpe the upside case prospective resource for the Westphalian reservoir was estimated by Egdon to be 6.69 mm bbls. In addition, the upside case Dinantian oil in place was estimated to be 36 mm bbl. I’ve no idea what the Dinantian oil recovery factor might be, but it probably won’t be very large as the Dinantian reservoir isn’t usually very porous. So let’s say that Biscathorpe is 6.7 mm bbl x UJO’s 30.0%. This comes to about 2.0 mm bbl net recoverable for UJO, plus whatever they can get out of the Dinantian.
Rathlin have published a WN upside case of 283.0 mm bbl of liquids, plus 265.9 Bcf of gas. Both are in place figures. What about the likely recovery factor, you may well ask. Unfortunately we don’t yet know, but we can probably make an educated guess. Let’s say that it might be 25% for the liquids and 75% for the gas. These may seem a bit low, but the oil and gas at WN are in a Zechstein carbonate (limestone and / or dolomite) reservoir, rather than in a sandstone as at Biscathorpe. So if you use 25% and 75% you get 70.75 mm bbl of recoverable liquids plus 199.4 Bcf of recoverable gas. The gas is equivalent to 33.24 mm barrels of oil equivalent (boe) which you get when you divide the 199.4 Bcf of potentially recoverable gas by 6,000. The oil and gas come to a total of 103.99 mm boe. Let’s call it 104 million. So, if you multiply that by UJO’s 16.665% it comes to 17.33 MM boe net for UJO.
So Biscathorpe is certainly very interesting at 2.0 mm bbl net recoverable for UJO, but it’s a lot less than the 17.33 MM boe net that UJO might have in WN. I certainly know which of them I would rather have. This is even more the case when you remember that we already have two apparently successful wells at WN, but we'll need a side-tracked well at Biscathorpe to prove up the resource. Any constructive thoughts on my amateur calculations will be appreciated. Thanks, GP