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.
Hi Alexios. I think "CoS" could be useful if analysts like Shard would distinguish between the geological chance of success (that some hydrocarbons will be found) and the commercial chance of success (that hydrocarbons will be produced commercially). At WN there is obviously a very high chance of the former but, as you say, the jury is out on the commerciality until we see an EWT or two.
We wait to see the B1 drill result first
And then extended well test, then we can talk about the real numbers.
There are historical gas fields who had production from Kirkham Abbey (Kirby Misperton, Pickering the two which came up through the quick search) to see the commerciality of the zone
GreyPanther,
These geological chance of success numbers are not even worth the mention if I'm being honest...
I've been through around a dozen so called 'appraisal' wells with gCOS or POSg ranging from 70-90% and majority of them came up dusters and non commercial.
Extended Well Test or Early Production Schemes is what proves the well commerciality.
Commercial and continuous gas flowrates remain to be seen at West Newton 'discoveries'
Alexios. Deloitte's CPR is dated June '17 so it predates the A-2 result. The latter will probably have changed Rathlin's perception of the CoS. I agree that Shard aren't qualified in this area, so I assume they got their CoS via UJO from Rathlin. Also, I struggle a bit with a Cadeby COS of 26% but we now have two wells, one of them cored, and oil shows apparently in 2 out of 2 wells.
Hi Alexios. Thanks for the link to that paper. I too was surprised at the suggested recovery factor, so you might like to have a look at UJO's home web page: Shard Capital Research, July 2020, page 10, as suggested by Kristof's posting at 16.03 yesterday . There is, however, a positive factor at WN that's not apparently been seen in many other onshore Zechstein gas fields that could improve the recovery factor here. We didn't see a gas / water contact in WN-1 nor an oil / water contact in WN A-2, so water break through would probably be more difficult here.
GreyPanther,
How did you come on up this 72% recovery from KA???
Historically recovery is only ~12% from Kirkham Abbey clearly stated here
https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/465/1/119
Exploration gCOS for Cadeby 26%, Kirkham Abbey 51%.
This is from Deloitte cpr
Shard KA upgrade comes at 72% but they are not qualified to quote this number. Pure nonsense due to appraisal well status meh...
Hi SecretBlueprint. Could you point me to that diagram please? The only one I can find is a well schematic in the Shard report, which is also shown on Reabold's website. If that's the right one, I didn't think it was very helpful as no depth scale was shown. It also shows the proposed B site wells incorrectly since we now know that B-1 is to be a deviated well. Regionally speaking, the Zechstein formations dip gently to the east so, as the B site is south-east of the A site, any wells drilled from it should generally see the Kirkham Abbey a bit deeper, IMO. The real problem, though, is that all the WN wells to date seem have been deviated. So, unless you know the exact bottom hole location for each well, which I don't, it's not really possible to say. Regarding the 72% chance of success shown in the Shard report, it looks to me as if they were talking about the KA gas, rather than the oil. This seems about right to me. It's probably a coincidence, but 72% is also their recovery factor. If the KA were actually to be deeper here than at the A-2 well, then we should see oil again, and possibly even an oil / water contact, if there is one. Mind you, this is only my speculation, so please take it with a pinch of salt.
If you look at the well diagram published by the operator, B1 looks to be up-dip from A2 in both target formations and by more than 40 metres. It would not surprise me if Kirkham Abbey was all gas at this location and any oil, if at all is in the Cadeby formation. What CoS are we talking about? Gas or oil or both?
What CoS are we talking about ? Gas or oil?
Hi Kristof. Thanks for the info. I wonder how Shard calculated it? I assume it must be just for the KA target since it's so high, but it doesn't seem unreasonable with two KA wells already successful at WN.
GP. COS 72%. Source UJO homepage, Shard Capital Research paper July 2020, page 10. How accurate this is, who knows ?
It's far too easy, with our SP where it is right now, to forget that there's plenty to be optimistic about at WN. JustBe was asking about the chance of success at B-1. I can't recall seeing a figure from the partners, but please say otherwise if you've seen one. We should perhaps bear in mind that the average success rate for appraisal wells (which is what B-1 is) is only a bit better than 50% on a global basis. But it's much better than that in the North Sea and adjacent onshore areas, where the geology is mostly very well understood. Obviously nothing can be a dead cert, but surely we can still be "cautiously optimistic" - as they say - whatever is going on / not going on at the moment.
Maybe they 've all gone down with the plague. Stop worrying what will be will be
Or maybe they are all correct. IE. Perhaps there is an issue right now but not one that would prevent completion within the Timescale set out ? We will know soon enough.
Dave said drill going as planned.
Swampies think rig has stopped
Manwell02 thinks rig is down for last few days and waiting parts .
Someone is not telling us what's really going on .
Hello Heid. You must have noticed that oil prices are down lately, and so are share prices around the world, not just at UJO. But it's not like you to show signs of losing the plot. Who on earth do you think I'm trying to fool, and in what way? I am (or was) a geologist, not an operations type, so it might be useful to look at what Manwell02, who seems to me to be very knowledgeable about drilling ops, said on Reabold's board at 16:37 on Thursday: Quote "I would say they are waiting on a part for the rig. The videos seem to be true, (I was sceptical about them this morning) the rig hasnāt moved since Sunday. Can be the only explanation as to why it hasnāt moved & why thereās still 24 stands of pipe in the hole & the crew are cleaning to pass the timeā. It sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, unless your sources know differently.