George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video 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 there AJamesW. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. Standard oil field abbreviations are always used in a CPR and I'm sure that's the case here. So, I still think M = 1,000 and MM = 1,000,000. B (or Bn) is sometimes used for a billion (1,000,000,000) but not here. I'm also sure that the term Mbbl means a thousand barrels (of associated liquids). Why else would they use MMcf for a million cu ft lower on the same page? Also, if you add the "best estimate" 581 Mbbl of oil and liquids (the equiv. of 3,486 MMcf in my opinion) to the "best estimate" 184,724 MMcf of gas you get 188,210 MMcf which is darned close to the published best estimate elsewhere of 189 billion cu ft.
Thanks AJamesW. I looked at page 2 of the executive summary first, of course. However, the numbers on that page are all expressed as M boe, and not as Mbbl or MMcf. To my mind this means the gas they thought was there at the time has been turned into an "oil equivalent" by dividing the gas in place numbers by (about) 6,000 to get an equivalent number of barrels of oil equivalent. This will be very different from proper "oil in place" figures since the original gas will almost certainly have been estimated at surface conditions (usually 15 degrees C and 1 atmosphere pressure). For example 6,000,000 (6MM) cu ft of gas at the surface is the equivalent of 1,000 barrels of oil at the surface. The same 6MM cu ft of gas down in the reservoir would occupy about 31,915 cu ft by my calculations, which is about 5,684 barrels, and not 1,000. So I still think it's the Mbbl and the MMcf on the next page (the contingent and prospective resources for the KA Shoal only) that we should be looking at. Mind you, the table is pretty
confusing. I guess it was done for Connaught by Canadian reservoir engineers who probably do things differently to over here.
Hi there MarkA8178.
What I put on this BB yesterday isn't "ramping" IMHO. It's based on data published by Rathlin and / or its partners RBD and UJO. The analysis was done by someone who knows about oil and gas reservoirs. I'm sorry you don't like it much .... but there you go. All the best.
Hi OIler87
I've looked at the CPR again to see where your "170,000,000 with a high of 385,000,000 for the Kirkham Abbey" came from. On page 34 of the CPR it actually says 170 and 385 Mbbl. I think this means thousands of barrels of prospective resources on the then undrilled KA "Slope". It's a bit confusing, but to my mind these figures mean 170,000 and 385,000 barrels of potential oil & liquids in the "slope" gas prospect . If you look lower down the same page where it talks about natural gas they use MMcf which means millions of cubic feet. A better guide to what they had already found in June '17 (after WN-1 only) can be found on am earlier page (33) where the "resources", or what's been found, are shown as:
Best Case: 581 M (thousand) barrels of liquids and 184,724 MMcf of gas (or 184.7 billion cu ft) & High Case 1,330 M (thousand) barrels of liquids and 368,446 MMcf of gas (or 368.5 billion cu ft.
This makes better sense to me, but what do you think?
Et voila ... H x
https://twitter.com/Heid_oil/status/1184198427976097793?s=20
Huge gas fields just of the humber / Lincolnshire
Coast so close to our gas find
Oil is a bonus ball
Loaded dice as well
Could be our lucky pick with DB in the room
Actually, I shall work on a tweet.. dice
Three sixes .. actually feels more like five coming up.
Marknumbers
Numpties or so called experts don't matter
On aim it's a casino
So roll the dice it could be ujo tomorrow
Jeez, Heids rampathon starts again....fcuk'd emoji
Told ya..it's gonna be huge.
My 3p prediction just keeps looking better.
Do we really need these guestimates. Cant u just wait for results?
Huge guestimates lead to numpties expecting them.
Sound huge to me and must be worth sqillions
Just for the gas alone
Bring on the news pronto and let's be aving a
Great aim share for a change
Here's a thought on the possibility of water production at WN-2. There hasn't been any mention of a water zone underlying the 65 metres of gas and oil here, so I wonder where it would be produced from. I suppose it could possibly move sideways or from a deeper part of the reservoir elsewhere through breaks or fractures in the reservoir, which is probably a limestone or dolomite rock. This is only a thought, and I'd be happy to hear other opinions.
Good work grey panther
I was burbling yesterday about some useful info on the UK Geophysical Library website. It hasn't been working very well lately up until now. At
https://ukogl.org.uk/map/?e=-93085,7083239,43890,7181079&l=5,1392640,0&b=3&sm=true
I was able to find out the depth to the Kirkham Abbey reservoir in the WN-1 well, which was from 1,683 metres sub-sea level to 1,765 metres sub-sea level. It was therefore 82 metres thick which is a bit more than the 65 metres net or gross, (I don't really know which) seen in WN-2. From the WN-1 info it's possible to estimate that every single cubic foot of gas within the reservoir at that depth would be converted to about 188 cubic feet of gas at surface conditions. You can then divide the former 189 billion cubic feet "best estimate" of gas discovered by WN-1 by 188 to turn it into an equivalent reservoir volume. This comes to 1.0053 billion cubic feet. If you divide the 1.0053 Bcf figure by 5.6146 (the number of cubic feet in a barrel) this gives you an amazing 179 MIILION BARRELS OF OILPOTENTIALLY IN PLACE. This is just the old CPR number for the gas in the Kirkham Abbey "Shoal" reservoir turned into oil in the same reservoir. It doesn't take into account the fact that 20 metres of the total 65 metre column seen in WN-2 is still gas, but this would come to less than 5% of the total reservoir volume if you do the sums. If you have a look at the Connaught CPR they mention a further 54 Bcf of prospective gas resources in the Kirkham Abbey "Slope". I assume this is what they were looking for in WN-2. If you add this number to the former 189 Bcf best figure you get 243 Bcf which, by doing the same sums, gives you an even better 230 MILLION BARRELS POTENTIALLY IN PLACE. It will be very interesting to see what the new CPR has to say - when we get it - but these calculations give you some idea of the overall oil potential at West Newton. I'd say this would be good news for all shareholders.
Uggy100 I agree wit you that the potential for early water break through is real, as demonstrated by other fields producing gas from the Kirkham Abbey. Hopefully this possibility has been comprehensively studied in the lab work but I suspect we will only really know after extended production.
GLA
I'm iNvested here & in RBD, my only issue is the water cut, which I have mentioned before. Now if RBD have thrown the kitchen sink at this without some internal info on the project I'd be amazed
Still no luck. Try starting at:
http://ukogl.org.uk/
Sorry, that link should be:
https://ukogl.org.uk/map/?e=-93085,7083239,43890,7181079&l=5,1392640,0&b=3&sm=true
If you're a bit of a nerd - like me, you'll probably say - take a look at a website called "Onshore Geophysical Library". It has a lot of useful geological info that's been published recently. Just copy the following link, then go to:
ukogl.org.uk/map/?e=-112394,7081892,24581,7179732&l=5,1392640,0&b=3&sm=true
You should see a map of the West Newton licence. It's PEDL 182. If you click on one of the small square symbols or a circle you will see a well name. Try clicking on the small square that's just above "PEDL 182" and two well names will come up. There's nothing there for WN-2 as it's not been released yet. That takes 4 or 5 years I think, but there's a lot of info for WN-1. Try clicking on "Images" and then on "Well Tops" and you can see what they found in the well, including the depth to the Kirkham Abbey and the Cadeby. I think this info could be useful in estimating the amount of oil in the ground, rather than the gas they originally thought was there. I might be able to do that with a bit of help, based on what's been published so far …. but don't hold your breath.