Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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.
Looks like my link to the Schlumberger web page (at the start of this thread) which is publicly available was deleted for some weird reason. So if anyone wants an education about oil wet sands vs water wet. That's where to go. I think it will pay to be aware of this info going forward.
GS
Ddraig,
;-)
16.04 - Drama queen meets LA Law....great
......forgot to add just one final point...... perhaps you would ask your Labrador to post his view ;-)
IF you are qualified, you might want to confirm what those qualifications are, particularly in relation to the issues you contend are at hand. IF you are practising, I'm sure the Law Society will be keenly interested on whatever it is you PURPORT to be on such forums as this as ,clearly, you appear to be offering advice.
No half measures.
Over to you.
Some good stuff today. In particular-
10.33 tony - My guess would be 50 to 90p after lab results and re-appraisal of what we have. Maybe a retrace after that until the rumours of takeovers or FOs kick in. Some media coverage or social media hype would of course assist. Who knows what the SP could be with a Prudoe Bay type announcement. The mind boggles.
Also I was very appreciative of the debate regarding the spuds and other items, especially tony 11.48, cbaron 13.20, Bynari 14.32 and 15.05 Ddraig.
Surely this is the music we need to hear? Always happy to discuss stuff that affects the progress of the company.
All friends now I hope.
Have a nice weekend folks.
GS
Oh dear... Another week close way under the target price of 90p.... I wonder what facts we got wrong....
Maybe next week ;-)
it's difficult to know where to start on your stuff, cbaron, as your asinine dissimulation comes so naturally. i'll be brief . it is clear you know virtually nothing about defamation, rules of evidence ( burden of proof and such like), so it would have been better for all of us had you not started opining as if you did. i have given the board an entirely accurate read on why at least one part of the recent posting (the so-called deleted post) was defamatory and would be actionable as such if the available plaintiff/s chose to pursue it and on the court procedures available to discover the true identity behind mischievous handles. this is pertinent to the serious discussion ongoing about the deliberately misleading statements on this board by a certain poster (which discussion has been far from pointless). my labrador could guess that i'm qualified to provide these reads but if you or anyone wants to query any specific legal points i have made, please feel free and i will answer them
14.32 - For my understanding of the challenge of oil wet and water wet reservoirs relates to polarity/electrical charge. oil and water don't mix for this reason. Therefore the oil around the water based pore throat will be repelled if you use a drill fluid of a similar polarity as water therefore for this to flow you be looking to use a drill fluid with a similar polarity to oil. Whilst its unusual and may costs a little more (the fluid and also the specialist company required) I don't see this being an unsurmountable problem...
Aleric,
I did not look to find flaws in any argument against the perpetrators of these terrible deeds, merely pointed out the burden of evidence and proof, which would include a causal link. I don't hear any cries of foul from the grievously harmed. Perhaps you might want to take out an action on their behalf. Good luck!
I'm not a lawyer, barrack room or otherwise, just pointing out what I believe would reasonably be necessary for a successful action. That you should refer to me as a barrack room lawyer, when you are the one quoting the law is not a little ironic.
This is a pointless conversation and serves to perpetuate a situation that I believe should have been laid to rest some days ago.
An ambulance full of low hanging fruit is an interesting concept. Are you an ambulance driver or a fruit picker? Perhaps you might be more adept at one or other or both than advising on the finer points of libel and defamation. ;-)
just to add further & on the subject...
Theta West/BFF are conventional, highly productive reservoir. SMD similarly likely to be highly productive. The Kuparuk elsewhere in Alaska seems to be water wet and easy to produce. In Talitha, it seems to be oil-wet and can be producible but simply requires a different approach. If you put diesel in your gasoline tank, your car will not work but that does not mean your car is useless - it just means you used the wrong fuel. Similarly, if you do not “insult” the formation by using water-based fluids for drilling and completion and you use the right production strategy you can profitably extract lots of oil.
Telemachus
quick addendum having just read Scot's post regarding the 'deleted post'. seems now we have a freely given admission from its author as to what it said. so if there are any ambulance chasers out there, to mix my metaphors, that's one bit of very low hanging legal fruit!
ah cbaron, there you are again. first while i have no particular pride of authorship in my previous post, it was nonetheless from my own hand. of course all cases require evidence and that shouldn't prove too difficult in this imagined case. after that i'm afraid you go off the rails a bit. the case here would be brought by one or more of GB founders. the fact that Bob R is also a director of Panr just makes his defamation more insidious. and no need for loss or damage, just likelihood of serious harm to his reputation. given the nature of the statement made and its implications, establishing likelihood of such harm would hardly be problematic. as to the statement itself, it was clearly published and read by who knows how many 3rd parties (and there are easily enough witnesses to that. it being subsequently deleted therefore would only be a minor hindrance. quite possibly an order for its discovery could be obtained against lse.)
what's the point of all this - well you said 'malicious falsehood' was 'very dramatic', so i'm answering you - this was a slamdunk libel. believe it or not a number of successful cases have been brought against abusers of social media platforms. the question i can't fathom here is why, down in the barrack room, you're quite so interested in finding flaws in the case against this guy? mind you on the evidence so far, he would be well advised not to hire you!
Tony,
For me the SP is dependant on
1. provable
2. quantifiable
3. extractable
In relation to 1, I feel certain that the results will take us to this point. As to 2, there have been suggestions that this will be significant and the comparisons with Prudhoe Bay are exciting. As to 3, its about technology and methodologies, which may differ at the different intervals.
Clearly, a flow test will not be able to be carried out until next winter and so the absolute answer to 3 may not be known until then - Bynari's comparison with other fields of similar geology may be the means by which there is sufficient confidence in the forthcoming results as to make a significant difference, even without waiting for the flow test - those better versed in oil exploration may disagree with this and it may just be wishful thinking on my part. I'm happy to be corrected.
So, as to SP 1 + 2 may leave us with a small increase, pending 3.
If 1+2+3, without flow test then a significant re-rate which will depend on sensible NPV using conservative volumes derived from 2. Also depends whether or not a producer steps in with a buy-out bid and that will govern price.
After flow tests, assuming they are successful, then we have an extractable viable resource of high grade oil and the world could be our oyster, especially if volumes any where near comparable with Prudhoe are provable, not forgetting that we are next to TAPS. values will be multiples of where we are now - but just how many?
The downside and a possible re-trace may happen if the results are lukewarm and we need to wait until further proving of the resource next winter, though this seems unlikely based on the information to hand.
Just my own thoughts.
presumably the gas and chemical injection adds to the cost of extraction - what would the order of magnitude of these costs - $2/bbl, $3/bbl - more ?
regards
Bynari,
Great post and an example of the type of information many on here are looking for.
Great webinar which was well attended and highlighted the potential upgrade to prospective resources - applying the "buy on the rumour, sell on the news" principle, I'm not sure how much the pending resource update is going to move the needle in terms of SP unless of course the upgrade is truly massive and the market did truly think it a rumour.
The gold standard is still the flow test which was disappointing. However, the sampling and down whole scanning was extensive and sophisticated with what Industry Insiders are calling a great data set. Will this be able to add anything to the flow test results i.e. "the flow test results were disappointing due to oily potatoes, however, based on similar fields and the results of testing , we expect that flow rates of x could be achieved by doing y which will be investigated further during the next working window"
Any more insights would be appreciated.
Aleric,
All well and good and I'll take your word for the clear cut and paste.
Are you a lawyer?
If you are I'm sure you'll be aware of the need to produce evidence and also of proof of loss or damage.
It appears the evidence has been removed and unless you (personally) are going to commence proceedings - unlikely as it would be difficult to prove damage (evidencing your own loss arising from the 'malicious falsehood' - there is no clear and obvious impact on the company through its share price), I'm not sure where you think this may go, other than to protract the argument here.
Apologies are clearly not going to be given.
my comment this morning, cbaron, was as stated addressing your preceding post . you think 'malicious falsehoods'to be very dramatic? i was going easy as it happens. i can assure you that publishing a statement without justification that GB founders get paid by cheque to participate in criminal action against the company is actionable as libel by those founders. (the fact that the publication is made under a handle or pseudonym on a public forum makes no difference, since there is a well trodden procedure in the High Court through which the real identity of the tortfeasor is ordered to be disclosed. the forum companies tend to consent to such applications quickly, obviatiing the need for,a formal hearing, as they don't want to become co-liable as publishers).
I think were getting closer to a group hug - I think if Ddraig gets put in the sin bin for a couple more days, Scott tempers his passion a little - we're there.
Some great posts from bynari, cbaron, goldstinger and others. Anyone care to hazard a guess on where the SP might go once the updates come out this month?
10.03 - I didn’t mention a lot of people...no agenda.
Just in case you hadn't noticed I've spent time attempting to debunk some of the suggestions about alleged controls arising from the original Sale/Purchase agreement with Great Bear.
The squabbles over all of the misinformation put out about divestment of shares are partly covered in my contributions also.
Were all of those contribution 'pathetic' too?
Given that a lot of the alleged comments and 'malicious falsehoods' (very dramatic) have now been removed from this site by the thought police makes the ongoing squabble doubly futile. Were the matter not being dragged out as it is, it would already have been consigned to history.
Just to clarify who and what were you referring to yesterday at 17.11 when you said "oh for goodness sake will you give it up, it's just like children" ?
delighted for you Ddraig, i'm sure. strange that you don't include JofHoggit's name in your little list, as he was the instigator and principal subject of the recent discussion - any particular reason?
07.11 - Would Appear, Jimbeax, Bynari (Telemachus), myself and Goldstringer have had a very reasonable discussion...appears you Alaric are the one constantly posting pointless conjecture...Whatever makes you 'appy
1.16 - Much appreciated bynari. Glad it means something to the oil guys. I think the science behind wettability is very important, having had scientific experience of this in other applications, not oil industry. If they do everything right, understanding what they have found, I am very confident the results from this well and the whole field can be astonishingly abundant and prosperous for years to come. The scientists may need a little time to absorb the details and plan their approaches but prospective developers will /should know how to maximise flow rates and therefore successful outcomes. PANR skill and support from their partners, labs, scientists is of paramount importance in delivering success for SHs. Good to see the references to known oil zones around the globe as positives. Cheers and good luck all.
GS
Ps - Scott will you say hello to Bob please for me and let me know when you and your mates have bought out Farralon.
'For all of those, like me, who've had enough of the petty squabbles here...' frankly that's just pathetic, cbaron. if these were 'petty squabbles ', i'd be the first to agree with you. but they're not . they result from a deliberate orchestrated attempt to damage the company and certain directors through the posting of malicious falsehoods by bad actors. we should, as investors in Panr, be more than grateful that we have in our midst members who have the knowledge and who take the trouble to speak out against this , debunking the lies one by one . period.