Member Info for CaptainSwag

genghis - i thought total costs were $26-$27 per barrel. I would say that would go to $30-$32 on current production. However costs will probably have been saved as a priority with new board and some were already reduced last year from previous year.

I agree with Dive centre - if the company is still around in 2 years time the bonds will have been sorted out. However I think hur will be sold on before then

"Your wishes of an RNS came true, but within days, the conclusion was we need another one"

So if they do some people will only want another and another. Their job is to run the company and produce oil. You could question how much they care about the SP....but ultimately they probably feel it is not in their hands. they release RNS when there is a material change.

probably the next rns will be when they have got a stable near term production rate - in the next week or so.

keepwell - one of the issues is that we do not know what is going on in the background and if they are legally able to buy shares currently. lets say they were in discussion with a buyer...or even their knowledge of spirit negotiations etc etc.

I wished they had got off AIM long time ago

Slift - i will watch with interest. I am not sure about guidance being a certainty or even going to be treated as one . and whatever it says for there will be still people spouting on about water cut/ giant squid etc etc.

I would like to think you are right in that the market will react positively ... guess i am just a bit fed up of watching the SP get hammered illogically in my view at times. As a word of caution i would point out that if you look at the RNS of 29/1/20 where they stated production was above the previous guidance and that they were aiming for 20k look what happened to the SP. was up about 2p close of play.next day was lower than before the news broke.
Hur seems to be the share that keeps giving...giving me grey hairs!

but my fingers are crossed and

slift - i think the market just saw problem when it was down to one well and priced in the worst. Which is fair enough...it was a shocker...

the SP today is less than when that news broke - and we have both wells working and 50% ish more production - plus lincoln approval. So i am not sure the market is reacting according to anything at the moment.

personally with the issues in h1 that you point out - i wonder if they would bother with giving guidance for the year. i am not sure what is gained as it wont convince anyone who wants to doubt it anyway

slift - I just read it that they were down to one well after the interference and therefore the production was going to have a period of substantially lower volumes- well 6 was at 10300 even though they were planning to increase bit by bit.

As such they had to notify that previous guidance was now in doubt and therefore were suspending it. Nothing more than being transparent and notifying the market in a timely fashion

slift....in my opinion 15k was just where they were when they had to announce the OGA decision. I am guessing they are still trying to get towards 20k as they advised edison. Of course as you point out they will be watching the water cut

joe - they havent started an rns with "pleased" since lincoln results...is it change of PR?

have to say i am not a fan of that term at the beginning of an rns - seems to often to be followed by bad news!

slift - i estimated that you had used 6400 for well 7 which i agree was a reasonable assumption. though of course we dont know what proportions they used in reality. they may have tried increasing well 7 and reducing well 6 to try and balance etc etc . as i said i also wonder if the interference didnt end up producing a shed load more water than would have been found otherwise

if i have my rose tinted glasses on i have always assumed/hoped the water cut will get worse as it starts emptying out and will eventually run dry(ish). but i am no oilie.

i agree with your 15k and 57% water cut but I would be more kean on 20k with a max average of 42% water cut limit.

slift ... the average water cut i agree with now you counted days right..lol

however the 60-65% figure is still up for doubt as we know there was interference which could have well increased water cut for that period. once the interference has been dealt with the water cut might go back down to 46% on well 7 where it was before.

branson - the board recently advised that they were aiming for 20k.

my suspicion is they will try and get the max from well 6 and so reduce the average water cut...it flowed 16500 naturally at one stage and 12200 before they had interference...so say they could get towards 15k with esp on well 6 that would only leave 5k needed from well 7 with the higher water cut

slift - ok i see where you are coming from now for the average of 31% . i looked at your maths but as i dont work out water cut from oil produced but total fluids and your days didnt add up to 91 i didnt bother trying to pfaff around on phone.

i make it 29% average on 89 days

which would make water cut from well 7 as 50%

so back to my original
lets say well 6 produces 13484 b of liquid (12000 oil + 11% water 1484 )
then if well 6 produces 6000 b of liquid (3000 oil and 50% water 3000)

that would give an average water cut of 23% - which is a bit more than their previous 21% and still manageable.

your equation

(April 1st - April 22nd) + (April 22nd - May 17th) + (May 17th - June 5th) + (June 5th-June 30th) = (Q2)
(18500*0.26*20) + (16700*x*25) + (10300*0.08*19) + (12,000*0.11*25) = (14300*0.21*91)
Solve for x.

showed only a max watercut of 26%...in first bracket

last rns of 8.7.20 shows an average water cut of 21% - i see nothing about mass balance

can you point out where in any company stuff released it has shown a water cut of 60%??

your maths does not show me that

slift - apologies - you are right the 11% was pre rns....shouldnt rush and do on my phone! in that case there is an argument that the esp might not being increasing the percentage of water cut only the increase in oil which therefore increases the volume of water produced.

your calculation shows a max water cut of percentage of 26% and that is only presumably mostly from well 7 - it is impossible for the average to be higher than the max of one well

slift - i always use company information for my calculations. the increase from 8% to 11% after ESP introduction was in rns.

the previous figure for q2 average is for when the wells were flowing at a higher rate and thee was a higher proportion coming from well 7.....

if you can show me how combining well 7 that has had a max of 30% and well 6 that has a max of 11% can mathematically be averaged at 31% - I would love to know

apologies i calculated the water cut of well 6 at 11% but said 8%..

slift - your assumption is based on a false figure though

how did you get 31% water cut?

well 6 was at 8% for natural flow of 12000. then went to 11% after ESP enabled more oil to be flowed

at present total production is at 15000 with both wells and ESP...I am suspecting that the majority of oil is from well 6 with lower cut 11%..therefore even though well 7 has greater water cut ( the most i have ever seen mentioned is a stable 25-30%) the average will be in between the well 7 figure and nearer the well 6

lets say well 6 produces 13484 b of liquid (12000 oil + 8% water 1484 )
then if well 6 produces 4286 b of liquid (3000 oil and 30% water 1286)

gives 2770 b of water out of 17770 liquid eg just under 16%

There is no way it is anywhere near 31%

slift
water production increased with the reintroduction of well 7
yes it is currently manageable and can accommodate more.
ESP will increase production and hopefully drain out perched water quicker