The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
"Newer" computer languages? LOL. Python and R are both thirty years old and JavaSoft ain't a language, it's a wing of a defunct company. I presume you mean Javascript. Converting SOAP to JSON? Sounds intensely boring. Last year I used Python and machine learning to analyse the chemical constituents of 150,000 stars in the Milky Way from H-band spectra of their atmospheres. First and largest analysis of its type. It was part of a project to reconstruct the chemical evolution of our galaxy and inform galaxy formation models. Now THAT'S interesting. Peace.
Unlike you ps200306, I had a very successful and enjoyable computer career.
In the 1980s I designed and developed a software product, which I patented, that is still used today and when I query it on Google I see it gets over 700,000 hits. Not only that but it has a Wikipedia writeup as well and it is now owned and sold by one of the top ten computer companies in the world.
I sold my interests in it before I retired and made a lot of money some of which I invested in this "dog" but which will come good in time. Most of it I put into property for my children who are all now set up in their own homes.
So I don't need a loser like you to suggest that "Now, how about stop being an argumentative chappie and turn your attention to useful endeavours." as I have plenty of endeavours.
As I mentioned, in my lockdown, I have returned to my "youth" and I have been developing software using newer computer languages such as "R", "Python", "JavaSoft" and Visual Studio converting a sports racing system I developed many years ago where the owners of the betting exchange changed their interface from SOAP to JSON. Great fun and keeps me more than interested and, I hope, will make me lots of money when it is up and running once again.
In the meantime, what do you do with yourself? Sit and scratch your navel all day?
I’m not overthinking this, Imo there is no particular affinity to any one location. They have a very good understanding of the asset. Site K, most likely an area where they have done the most extensive analysis, OWC depths, GWC depths, correlation of data, sands and pressures from neighbouring wells. The asset hasn’t changed. This was probably the original marked location for a phase 1 development before TOR got lead astray by the allure of a Chinese 6 well, big money campaign. The consortium partners, Schlumberger in particular will probably have hands eyes on this, and like it. But no doubt they can and probably will drill any of those other sites.
Manyana, you are raving. My diagram has nothing to do with the location of the "K" site? I took it from the survey application submitted to DCCAE for gods sake. If that's not the location of "K" then they have applied for the wrong survey (which I doubt). I merely wanted to show it in relation to the previous A-D sites which is why I started with the picture from last year's application.
You still haven't told us how you imagine K is a "move to the centre". K is in the Barryroe east panel, A and B are in the north and south CENTRE panels.
I absolutely admit to being hazy on the details of the OPL1 option area. The deal with PSE was a 3-year option on 60% ownership, contingent on PVR 100% funding the drilling of a well there. That was in 2015, so the option would have been due to expire two years ago. Obviously PVR have gotten extensions from the gubmint on their own SEL 1/11 area. But presumably they'd need agreement from PSE to extend the option on OPL1, and I haven't seen details of that. If you want to make yourself useful and not a pain in the a$$ you might dig that out for us like a good chap. But I can only assume that a sidetrack from a well in the K location fulfills the requirement. They're hardly going to horizontally drill into someone else's license area -- countries have gone to war over such things!
And yes -- something else I was unaware of: a 2016 evaluation of 400 BCF gas-in-place in this region, in the "upper C-sands". If half of it's recoverable that's about equal to the gas content estimated for the rest of Barryroe (unless the estimate already included that -- I don't know). There was also a suggestion that a vertical well might produce an initial 30 MMCF/day. Not to be sniffed at, but not going to set the world on fire. And I note the same announcement said: "Discussions commenced and technical evaluations ongoing regarding potential development synergies with owners of existing gas production infrastructure". That was four years ago and obviously the sort of guff we got used to in the TO'R era that never came to anything.
Finally, to correct your constant and intentional misquote: I never said there was not enough gas in Barryroe to make it economical. I said it paled into insignificance compared to the oil. And it does.
Now, how about stop being an argumentative chappie and turn your attention to useful endeavours.
Gone to bed, gone to ground or just gone to sleep? No response.
Just for further clarification before I leave this subject it should Providence had the option to buy 60% of that area which is identified as OPL 1 which contains the Barryroe Basel Wealden in 2015 from PSE who were hoping it contained more gas so they could continue the life of Seven Heads.
The deal fell apart and why PSE did not develop it on their own is a mystery. That is why I am surprised that Petronas are not part of the consortium.
You can read about it here.
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/RNS%20-%20Providence%20Secures%20Exclusive%20Option%20Over%20Southern%20Portion%20of%20OPL%201%20-%20FINAL.pdf
You could not resist rising to my bait. Here is what "IT" is.
It was nice of you to supply a diagram to support your claim as to why I was "wrong" but it was the wrong diagram. Yours has nothing to do with the location of "K" It is old hat. I suggest you use instead the presentation given at the AGM and go to slide 28 where you will see that "IT" is the Barryroe Basal Wealden.
They positioned the "K" well as close to the border of their allotted territory so that the whole of the Barryroe Basal Wealden including that which stretches beyond it can be drilled from there because a good deal of the Barryroe Basal Wealden layer extends beyond the Barryroe boundary. That is why "K" is right in the "middle of it" that being the Barryroe Basel Wealden.
That is why they are talking about Barryroe being possibly a gas field with an oil surround rather than an oil field which has gas in it.
They are obviously not as stupid as you think given all your negative comments going back months which I see you have conveniently forgotten. Didn't you say at one time there was not enough gas in Barryroe to make it economical being only a "fraction" of Corrib? Do you still hold that opinion?
Go to slide 28 in the following presentation and grovel. Probably come up with some lame excuse as to why you got it wrong.
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/july_20_agm_presentation_2019_and_operational_update.pdf
He clearly has issues alright. He's miffed that a "failed computer nothing" got to retire twenty years earlier than he did ;-)
Now he insists that "K" is right in the middle of "it" without saying what "it" is. He hasn't a clue. While Manyana's been sucking on sour grapes trying to come up with his pathetic jibes, I've been reading up on the geology of the region.
Kinsale Head and Seven Heads are on regional high points. That's why gas accumulated there. There are two theories as to how it got there. One is that it is biogenic gas from shallow clays. The problem with that theory is that the top seal formed after that process is expected to have finished, so couldn't have formed a successful trap. The other is thermogenic gas from hydrocarbons cooked at depth. That would mean the gas migrated from below some time after it formed from Purbeckian and Toarcian (i.e. Upper and Lower Jurassic) source rocks, with peak gas generation in the Late Cretaceous. There are possibly two migrations -- of oil into the Basal Wealden, and gas by exsolution into the Upper Wealden. That is consistent with the finds at Seven Heads and Barryroe, and with the possibility of a "Deep Kinsale" analog of Barryroe.
What would that mean for Barryroe gas? It would mean it's already been largely extracted from Seven Heads... as I've been trying to explain to our bitter and twisted pal for some time.
Manyana, you clearly have issues. Go and do some yoga or pilates. Try and enjoy life and respect others even if you disagree.
Good to see you make a b**ls of it ps200306.
You are wrong and "K" is right in the middle of it.
Check out your facts before sounding off as usual. If i said "black" you would have to say "white". But what would you expect from a failed computer "nothing".
Good luck.
Site K is not a move to the centre -- the A and B sites are closer to the centre of both Barryroe and Seven Heads. K is on the extreme eastern edge of the license area. I've pasted an image of the sites from last year's survey application, along with my sketch of the K site from this year's. https://i.imgur.com/pAO9BSj.png
What A, B, and K do have in common is proximity to existing Seven Heads gas wells -- so close, in fact, that they'll need permission from PSE Kinsale Energy to manoeuvre inside their 500 metre exclusion zones during the K survey. PVR have said they have no operational plans to finish surveying C and D. I'm going to hazard a guess that the logic is the hydrocarbon charge in Seven Heads must have been come from source rocks underneath. So that's where the deeper Barryroe oil is most likely to be also. It also, to my mind, makes the presence of gas in Barryroe less likely, apart from the associated gas that you would expect.
Surely the reason for "K" is to prove the age old question "“S Barryroe a large oil field with a gas cap, or a large gas field with an oil rim?”
By moving to the centre, this should prove which it is one way or the other.
And since we are now concentrating on gas, hopefully it is mainly a gas field with an oil rim containing 346m barrels of oil. If that is the case, then how much gas is there as the last estimate for the gas in 2012 was not the prime object of the drill.
If they find loads of gas at "K" that will certainly kibosh those Greens.
And for our "separated" brethren you might be pleased to know that the Greens have already thrown a spanner in the government works when at a critical vote the other day two prominent Green(s) did not vote with the government. One abstained and the other voted against. On that basis, if a serious debate comes up you could expect the government to fall as the Greens have no intentions of voting "by the book".