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.
@08:29 Can't beat a good giggle first thing!
As usual Older, you put me in my place, I don't mind that when I make errors. However when Scot declares the gas as a saleable asset I just pointed out that even PANR thought it was a liability. Nothing more, then of course the figures are wrong according to Scot with my misrepresenting gas amounts. This was a genuine error due to my lack of oil knowledge but a straight admission of liability was all I was looking for.
As for being defensive Scot I wasn't aware that I was, I just thought to correct you regarding liability.
08:32
Breathe, Taximan57, breathe. For goodness sake man, you just posted content which confirms you thought a contingent resource of 1.28bbo was gas rather than liquids. What on earth do you think the 'o' stands for in bbo? Billions of barrels of oil. You then didn't understand what the >5Tcf was referring to.
You're clearly not a bad guy, Taximan57. I "get" being defensive when things haven't gone as hoped for but c'mon......start asking factual questions so you don't (unintentionally in your case) posting nonsensical content.
Taxi
I think you are missing the central point, PANR have costed the reinfection of gas produced, as a by product of oil production
No doubt in their budgets it is a cost, requiring 1 reinjection well per 3 producers, even with this cost the projects are excellent. No return is budgeted from the gas, but there is a possibility that that cost, the gas could become an asset, if the gas pipeline is built, as the gas would then be sold for a modest price giving a bonus income, and the considerable cost of reinjection would no longer be required to the same extent
Scot, at least you confirmed that they did call the gas a liability. "a liability can be turned into an asset". So regardless of who tells you it is now a saleable asset PANR were looking at re-injection gas at a cost until it was decided that it was better to call it a saleable asset. An asset that cannot be sold until it has been lifted and stored or connected to a yet non existent pipeline which I think was about 3-5 years away subject to the plant brigade allowing it. In my eyes that is still a liability as who knows what the price will be in 5 years, and after PANR spend $Ms to bring it on board.
Placing very soon told you to get out two weeks ago
Well, my thought process (from a thread elsewhere) is that clearly 88e has lots of black stuff underground, but insufficient accompanying gas to enable a better flow (as a result of being "downdip").
PANR, on the other hand, has lots of BOTH.
And connected reservoirs.
So the potential for both companies to benefit mutually exists.
07:57
Taximan57 - embarrassingly, that's not quite the knock out post you think it is. I'll give you a helping hand.
1.28bbo is the total contingent resource of saleable (or marketable) liquids awarded to PANR by NSAI and Lee Keeling.
>5Tcf is the contingent resource of gas in PANR's Kodiak (BFF Lower) awarded by NSAI.
PANR has never described their saleable liquids (oil/condensate/NGLs) as a liability. You're trying to be smart but you've completely misunderstood PANR's business model.
PANR's development plan would require 1 injection well to be drilled per three production wells. *If*, and I repeat if, the proposed gas pipeline goes ahead, then the requirement for c.500 injection wells within PANR's development plan disappears.
This will save PANR up to US$7bn of capex, which instantly improves the NPV of their project. Vitally it also improves massively the IRR of the project, which in turn makes it a more attractive option for external investment.
When the PANR Exec Chairman said "a liability can be turned into an asset" he was describing a scenario where PANR's associated ***gas*** would be sold into a new gas pipeline (thus becoming an asset) rather than being re-injected into the formation (at a cost, thus a liability).
Really, Taximan57?
PS Saleable liquids/marketable liquids is the term used for the combination of light oil/condensates/NGLs.
Scot, did PANR not describe their 1.28bbo as a liability? How did you manage to change it to "saleable liquids'? Can you be more explicit please ;)
07:34
Hi GrumpyScouser - I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. Which party has "insufficient gas" and which party "has incredible amounts of it"?
PANR has 1.28bbo contingent resource of saleable liquids and >5Tcf of gas. 88E has plenty of gas but the producability of liquids and thus commerciality of their downdip location is under serious doubt.
I fully appreciate you're trying to be be constructive but I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here? Can you be more explicit please? TIA
One neighbour has insufficient gas, the other has incredible amounts of it.
They're already working closely together as both companies have stated.
Seems to me there's a logical next step.