The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with London Stock Exchange Group's Chris Mayo 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.
Well I was hoping for a correction or clarification to the RNS, but nothing so far. They could have put out a tweet clarifying the result.
Skippy, this is why I stated the other day
- correct and from what I read it flowed very well and the small number of barrels collected can be understood by the fact that they were still cleaning up the well. thus they were concerned with how well it flows, not how much oil they could get, as they have already stated,
"Some 70% of stimulation fluid had been recovered at the conclusion of the test at which time water salinity measurements indicated that stimulation fluid was still being recovered and the well was still cleaning up. Oil cut would be expected to improve once stimulation fluid was fully recovered."
The collection of oil was imo unimportant the test was to understand the flow rate, not to be in oil production, they achieved this but in doing so they were still cleaning up once this question was answered.
Unfortunately it has provided ammunition for the two trolls to jump on, bit of an own goal by the company, they should really spend more time on their RNS's and understand how each word, sentence and paragraph will be disseminated by those that seek to use it for their nefarious aims.
Skippy
There is a hole in the logic, in that oil cut took place over 16 hours, so when the 50 bopd rate occurred it must have been at that rate for a short time. Further the drawing on the well while it was flowing oil at whatever rate only produced 4 barrels of oil over 16 hours. Which means the average flow rate over the 16 hrs is 0.25 of a barrel per hour, on a 24 hr basis, 6 bopd
Unless the company corrects their own statement (which will have gone through a review process), we must assume they are telling the truth: 4 barrels recovered.
Since 88e are masters of ambiguity and spin, one can very reasonably assume that they would have taken any possible opportunity to word the RNS more positively.
They did not. Nor have they (yet) corrected it if it gives a falsely negative view of the results.
Until then "the market" will put a value on it.
Perhaps *one* day a different BoD will be able to bring some value to my remaining holding.
Olderwiser. No the likely explanation is that they achieved a flow rate of 50 for a period of time. Which is enough. One of your mates tried to draw an analogy about taps and plumbing yesterday which was a load of nonsense. It's more like they turned a tap on that is millions of years old, cleared the tap of what you would rightly expect needed to be clear (OK a lot of that is what they introduce during the test), it spluttered for a while but once it got going - 50bpd flow rate. You dont' have to keep it going to know what flow was being achieved and whether it contained oil.
A 50 peak flow rate literally means nothing.... That's why I'm annoyed they led with it in the summary. Flow rates are transient and inevitably drop off.
Success. Don't think it means nothing but agree you would ideally want them to run with it for longer. It could drop off after 2 days or 2 years so there are limits to what this well test can demonstrate - as with all well tests we are left with an amount of ambiguity. Question is does it provide enough confidence to attract investment/partners.
Ssccss, did the company not say that they expected the figures to improve had they continued both flow tests?
11:24
"Since 88e are masters of ambiguity and spin, one can very reasonably assume that they would have taken any possible opportunity to word the RNS more positively."
88E are not unique in building up their prospects, there are NO O& G companies on AIM who do not talk up their prospects, my view is that 88E are pretty clunky in their RNS content, a company that was really adept at spin would not be so clumsy.
That's my point skippy. I don't feel like we have actually learned any useful information that we didn't already know. They got some oil out. We were expecting that because PANR managed it. But as to whether it's commercial or not is completely unknown at this point. There is nothing in the RNS figures to even offer a hint that it might be commercial... And yet the wording by the company is very vague and forward looking. It appears in congruent to me. Every day is a school day.