Member Info for dunderhead

I'm sure I've had it explained to me many times before but can someone remind me of the logic of this excellent "management" team not even communicating at all with RRE, as I believe this to be the case but, could be wrong of course, when they indicated the possibility of taking IOG out (of their misery!) a few years back?

SpA - filtration on one spot in the well - I am not sure I understand this point but I am assuming it is where the well is actually producing and not in cased section whereby saline fluids are somehow ingressing due to poor cement job?
I assume if this is the "permanent" "solution" the team have conducted a risk analysis, that this issue does not spread to other areas of productive well? Good to hear some information though but would really appreciate what you understand as to the word "filtration" as this could mean one thing to you as explained and perhaps mean something different to another person? Thanks very much for your inputs. as normal all IMHO and DYOR.

Spa - are you inferring it's only a dodgy cement job?
That is absolutely the best-case scenario - IMHO - may I ask why you think that?

Surely it was "reportable" in early July or just later regarding the "salinity" problem - as this affected "profitability" - when did they choose to report on that then - ah the 6 monthly report? I'll get me coat.
The reporting (and many other things) here is appalling.
All IMHO, DYOR.

Aligator I am in no way professionally qualified to comment but these are my opinions -

1. Would salinity levels have been pre-assessed prior to, and monitored during, the drilling of the Blythe/Elgood production wells? NO, EXCEPT "NORMAL" (GEOLOGICAL) EXPECTATIONS OF GWC (IE PRE-ASSESSED REFERENCE) If so, and higher salt water levels experienced, why wasn't this dealt with at the time? Is it just an issue of installing desalination equipment or more expansive than that? SEE EARLIER!! HOWEVER YES WATER CONTENT NORMAL UNTIL IT BECOMES UNCONTROLLABLE - ARE YOU NOT HOLDER OF TXP WHERE (EVEN INITIAL ACCEPTABLE) WATER CONTENT RELATIVELY HIGH COMPARED TO NORTH SEA ON SOME OF THE ROYSTON ZONES. Was the high salinity issue present at first production or has it occurred since? WE DON'T KNOW - BUT EXTREMELY UNLIKELY AS THEY (RNS) COMMENTED "STARTED IN JULY" AND WHEN THAT AWFULLY NICE CHAP DID HIS PRESENTATION RECENTLY YOU'D HAVE THOUGHT HE'D HAVE MENTIONED IT THEN HAD THEY KNOWN?
2. Similarly, I am presuming that the geology of the production well on Southwark would have been researched as part of the field development plan and during the production well drilling? Would it have been feasible to identify potential problems areas/depths prior to spudding the production well and/or monitor the well bore during drilling? PROBLEM AREAS - DEPTHS ? ONLY PREVIOUSLY HISTORIC WELL DATA BUT AGAIN AS "THEY" RNS STATE FLUID LOSSES ARE KNOWN IN THAT AREA SO THAT WOULD (SHOULD) HAVE BEEN BUILT INTO DRILL PROGRAMME INCLUDING THE SUPPLY CHAIN FOR POSSIBLE REMEDY GOODS.
ALL IMHO AND DYOR, really interested to hear other opinions!

I've stepped back for the moment from commenting on the mess here however, a couple of points.
1. Like yourself GGG it isn't clear that they are (continuing?) losing fluids in the 12¼" section but if as you and I (optimistically) infer - it is now in the 17" section and drilling "normally" then they do not have to update any further on this issue unless they come across more losses later in well? However there is the nagging doubt that they continue to "suffer" and if that is the case will they update market when "corrected" - as they would also (feel obliged to) have to update regarding GWC / salinity issues and I am not at all optimistic about this latest "issue".
2. I would like to see a monthly update from now - and certainly not "6 monthly" because this water / MEG / salinity (whatever?!) issue started in early July and why did it take this long to become apparent to the motley crew that this was only material in line with the half yearly reporting timelines - a somewhat (un)lucky coincidence?!
Not at all happy here but it seems I am in a minority as the suggested SHAG request came up with around 1% share-holders so whilst I have the luxury of balanced portfolio and other advantages - others may not and I hope their trust is well rewarded!
As ever all IMHO and DYOR.

Happy Denis, truly??! I'm assuming you have a nice mixed balanced portfolio then, because if not, the opportunity costs from elsewhere would be very very unhappily watched, IMHO.

Apologies my reply was to Peakview not Moles and should have made that clearer - although ironically they were both pretty similar!

I think that's a little harsh - they are certainly lower quartile but there have been many many worse "mishaps"!
The issue here and what (I think) rankles potential or current and (recently lost) investors are that they think they have achieved something (really) special.
I'm sure many people have looked at this kind of model in these areas and just shrugged their shoulders and said "meh"! If Southwark comes off and if Blythe etc does create some value for us then they have achieved something - my concerns are that if the price was at original stack of ~45p then this would have got very very sticky so essentially they have been very lucky and as a result of this do not believe the LTIPs should be awarded (based upon an initial TSR criteria compared to peer group) as it creates a "feeling" of greed and reward for under-performance and good luck which probably puts off the "retail" investors.
To date they have talked up a lot about excellent prospects which when drilled have come to err nothing but god love em for trying and hopefully the next two "appraisals" will add real value - ie even if based on original pricing of circa 45p?
As ever all IMHO, still a holder, not reduced any and DYOR!!

Don't disagree mole - let's see what the next update brings - simply as I've said many times before - we need a good experienced (with similar assets) team - for this "model" to work? To date I am not sure, all IMHO and DYOR - hence hopefully something will happen with that regard that changes my view. I also hope the LTIPs are over -ridden by a TSR clause i.e. reduced by 25% for each (lower) quartile their respective share price lands - in comparative company TSR table?
At the end of the day TSR is all that matters to investors - all other measures - effectively feed into that - as an example look at the new LTIP parameters over on PHAR - talk about rewarding crap performance - but the (woke) ESG measures are good - so that's all that matters - and the pigs in trough can continue to feast (for relative under-performance)!
Best of luck all.

Apologies re KIST "non" answer, haven't a clue and doubt it currently but, wtfdik?! He may like the potential gamble?

Moley, I agree re assets and team. I am sure you know my feelings about the management here anyway!
I said absolute worst case losing both fields and would prefer none of course! However the fact the drill went well is not at all related to premature watering out, if indeed that is the case, IMHO.
Best of luck all and as ever DYOR and all IMHO.

To be honest from my uneducated perspective worst case we lose one of Blythe Elgood in totality - would be really bad luck to lose both. More likely (?!) we will have a reduction on combined 2p reserves due to GWC being different from expected - although absolutely I haven't a clue regarding what the issue is - and not sure how much they were truly confident of knowing at time of last RNS - so that could be a load of crap from me!! The Southwark drilling issues are also a bit of a surprise in that they had not planned for such slow drilling due to fluid losses etc (as they themselves state this is not a surprise in this area) and based upon what I read think this is easily surmountable and will only result in delays - unless they think that this phenomena will continue into reservoir(?!) Absolute worst case surely, back track a little and side track?
So I personally don't think these problems are terminal but more indicative of the true risk of trying to develop such potentially "marginal" (IMHO) assets - not they were "unlucky" mole (just part and parcel of such asset types) and I am sure THEY were aware of such risks - just a lot of PI's were not - which was why I always said a share swap at 25p for RRE was generous - at that time!!!
As ever all IMHO and DYOR folks.

W69 BH are not "investors" like "us" they are JV partners hence will be privy to all inside information that IOG "chooses" to share as operator - to be honest probably absolutely everything because BH team "seem" more technically savvy. I personally think this is speculative buying re "Blythe ADV rumours" and of course Gazprom shutting down supply to Europe. If it isn't and for whatever reason there is firm (positive) news on the way - again I will be p***ed off at what looks like some form of leak. As ever all IMHO and DYOR - away at moment due to other issues so will not be able to reply to stupid "oh he wants to get back in" replies etc., lol!!

Tobin a lot of people are getting bothered about COHO simply because it is p*ss simple and for WHATEVER reason this had not happened at all in line with RNS guidance and made worse by Paulfoolery informal statements, which understandably makes them question the validity of Cascadura timelines.
Also the (already tight) cash plus pipelines reimbursements would be gratefully received to help other projects as well surely?!
All IMHO and dyor.

Again also, to reiterate. I am a holder in excess of 1mm shares and have not sold a bean either. This will come good eventually. Best of luck all.

Well why reply in first place then, just filter me but you don't want to do that because I actually know what I'm talking about, LOL.

Yes agree, I am assuming f all has happened with COHO because Paulfoolery did say TXP would be updating developments through social media and a lot of people seem to be in receipt of TXP e mails stating first gas would be RNSD although last COHO RELATED RNS dated 3rd August did state they would RNS later than that (albeit probably only a few days). Hence a lot of nervous small sellers start price weakness as others not willing to gamble based upon other previous experience of verbal b*llocks from Paulfoolery.
All IMHO and DYOR.

Exactly JH so explain to me why normal drilling (fluid loss) issues in this area required an RNS update saying delays expected. You're obviously an expert to so aggressively disagree with my speculative OPINION, so what's yours then??!!
Don't tell me I'm trying to talk the share price down, FFS.
Again as ever all IMHO, DYOR.

Fluid loss is probably just a gunk pill but my inference is that they hadn't got this product (or enough pre ordered) oe something like that which sadly doesn't surprise me with these numpties. Also again some fluid losses should certainly have been built into drill programme as well which further confuses me as to magnitude of slippage here.
All IMHO and dyor.