Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
So simple question
Chevron said 100bcf RPS say 179bcf
Shell say 1.24 mm bbls Schlum say 39mm bbls…
Who do you believe?
What did Shell and Chevron get wrong?
RNST has called these dog assets correctly. Fair to play to him.
This is his HUR broke the news on the catastrophic miscalculation of the OWC (and reserves) in the 2017 RPS CPR
“ The Lancaster oil water contact ("OWC") is now estimated to be at 1,330 metres TVDSS, compared to the range of 1,597-1,678 metres TVDSS in the Company's 2017 Competent Person's Report ("2017 CPR"). This shallower OWC is consistent with the observed earlier and higher water production, and more rapid reservoir pressure decline, than was originally anticipated.”
The thing is it’s not my numbers vs RPS and Schlum,
It’s Chevron and Shell vs RPS and Schlum.
So you think they’re smarter than Shell and Chevron???
cloves....are you au fait with the different types of company liquidations?
Selfish
Have you heard of Hurricane and their pre development RPS CPR.., if you did you wouldn’t be quite so ****sure…
RPS CPR OW contact 1600m , actual contact after production info 1300m that’s 300m out, reserves decimated, … so you ask “don’t you trust them” ask a HUR shareholder if they do.
Looking forward to the FEED submission, which Corallian have promised will be with the OGA before the end of this year.
With 2024 being the first date for extraction, I'm looking forward to see how this will determine the course of the share price over the next 3 years.
Got have to say if Total are not interested in acquired Victory then I do not see other players becoming unduly interested. Unless the price is such it becomes basically a fire sale.
OMO as always.
Selfish, if you read even RBDs presentation you’ll know they have a WUT (Water up to) and a GDT (Gas down to) the contact is de facto somewhere between the two, both Chevron and RBD use the same for the mid case…
Get your facts right RNST. RBD did not come up with the figures. The were from CPRs by RPS and Sclumberger. Don't you trust them? Muppet.
A Competent Persons Report (CPR) has recently been completed by RPS Energy Limited (RPS), following the finalisation of both static and dynamic modelling, together with well / network optimisation studies for the development. RPS estimates a total Victory field 2C or best / mid case technically recoverable resource of 179bcf dry gas1.
The Curlew figures came from a Sclumberger Competent Persons Report. Idiot.
If you think Corallian/RBD/RPS is smarter than chevron in calculating reserves then it looks like you’re on a winner.
A bit like they were smarter than Shell on Curlew A after they relinquished…Remember that imminent drilling of the 39mmbbl discovery, after shooting a well site survey, that was quietly forgotten, The one that Shell thought was only 1.24mm bbls…
Or Colter (aka Colter South) a 15mm bbl “discovery” that was was also quietly dropped.
Or WN, the biggest thing since 1973 with now possible recoverable reserves of 8-13 mm bbls of oil gross…(if they can get it to actually flow)
All published numbers not an “I believe” or “I think” eh Heid.
For those who follow form:
Curlew-A : RBD said
“ Curlew-A appraisal well planned for drilling in H2’19 subject to farm- out (well is partially farmed out to date)
• Contingent 2C resource of 39 mm bbl.
Shell in their report 2016 said: 1.24mm bbls.
https://dataogauthority.blob.core.windows.net/external/relinqs/P2058.pdf
Irrelevant persimmon, as is everything you post.
'The gas is underlain by an aquifer however a gas-water contact (GWC) has not been penetrated, a ‘gas down to’ (GDT, 4367
ft TVDSS) only has been determined.'
From the report
"The depth of the GWC is the largest uncertainty with respect to the volumetrics."
GWC gas to water contact
Yes, put that nugget of doubt out there, then don't answer the basic question.
As Cloves said, the situation changed. Total put in a pipeline and infrastructure for their own prospects, and clearly made it clear to Chevron that gas from Victory was not welcome at a price Chevron were prepared to pay. However, Total's prospects proved to be disappointing, so they are are now prepared to take gas from other projects - maybe they'll want to buy Victory themselves, it seems the obvious outcome.
Since Chevron's estimate, Corallian have undertaken further works, and revised gas recoverable figures. Pretty straightforward really. Thanks for showing how good the Victory project is, RNST.
A WIN WIN FOR US ALL!
I’ll let people make their own minds up.
Chevron calculated 100bcf recoverable RBD has 170bcf recoverable.
Interesting comment from SW in today's video:
3m:20s onwards "It didn't get developed decades ago... it was remote and no access to infrastructure.. completely changed now"
Here are the actual facts: This discovery was relinquished by Chevron (in 2018), some 2 years after the infrastructure became available in 2016, so at best that's a slightly misleading statement.
So why didn't Chevron develop it ? Well, you can find their report here, and make your own mind up and see what Chevron thought of the volumes and risks:
https://dataogauthority.blob.core.windows.net/external/relinqs/Jan2019/Chevron_P183_Block_207_1a_Relinquishment_Report_June_2018.pdf
Gas prices in 2018 - For information gas prices in 2018 were above 50p per therm (see here)
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/67BC/production/_120665562_optimised-gas_uk_price-nc.png