Member Info for HeidHoncho

Is this a good thing or a bad thing.

Yes, we will now receive 100% of the profit, but we will now also incur 100% of the costs.

I am trying to understand the logic for Nexus to fold their hand, so to speak, if the previous deal in which they were receiving 50% profit for 50% costs was profitable.

Can anyone offer up a credible reason, if this additional 50% is profitable, why Nexus chose to bail out.

Many thanks.

Surely, you cannot do anything with the Mengo without a rig, as you still have the leaking cement plugs above the Djeno to contend with.

Until you have completely, and adequately this time, sealed off any and all potential flow paths for the Djeno to enter the well, there is nothing you can perform utilising the existing wellbore.

IMHO

adoubleuk, no, not night shift, I’m semi retired, in so much as I would only return to the fray if there was a project that really piqued my interest, and I felt that the challenge was sufficiently interesting to me.

For further clarification of my last post, when I said “doesn’t mean that you want to turn the bulb (ESP) on”, I meant for operational/production reasons, it was a given that you would require to “turn it on” as part of the commissioning task, so as to ensure functionality, but upon successful commissioning you could then return the ESP’s to their dormant state.

adoubleuk, I may be wrong, and no doubt it is caused my a lack of clarity in the point I was attempting to put across, but let me clarify if you will.

The point that I was inadequately attempting to get across was, just because you have a dimmer switch (VSD) making sure that is operable doesn’t mean that you want to turn the bulb (ESP) on, it merely means that you are checking that the control function (dimmer switch/VSD) will function in the way that it is intended for whenever you do want to illuminate in a variable manner the bulb at a later date, if and when, at your point of choosing, that you feel there is a need to do so.

Perhaps my latter post on the subject, once I had realised what the rumour was, may further clarify why there may be no cause for concern if the rumour does have any credence.
Just because a control system is being commissioned it is not necessarily a precursor to the item which it is designed to control being deployed, being done so in direct continuation of the commissioning aspect.
i.e. Just because a cruise missile control system is commissioned it is not a sign that the missile is to be imminently launched, it is merely a function check.

I think we are in agreement on the crux of the issue, that being that merely because the VSD is to be commissioned that does not necessarily mean that the ESP’s are to be immediately utilised.
Though I am in agreement that there may be occasion to do so at certain times whenever they want to perhaps induce a response from the reservoir (i.e. induce a level of draw down that natural flow cannot give them, to see what effect that has within the reservoir, or to magnify any effect that may be witnessed at distant wells with gauges deployed so as to identify any connectivity), or as you likely correctly identified, to maintain the current production from both wells when one may be temporarily down for maintenance (be that line pigging, or any other flow assurance maintenance/investigation that may be felt necessary).

But yes, sometimes I can appear to go off on a tangent, but generally speaking it is merely a case of me not being able to get my point across in a coherent manner.

Stand fast, as I was writing that post someone posted that the rumour is that the variable speed drives are rumoured to be commissioned in January.

Were that rumour to be proven to be accurate then I would agree with adoubleuk’s response ...... they have to be commissioned at some time.

The launching system on nuclear submarines require initial commissioning, but that doesn’t then indicate that there is to be an imminent nuclear weapon launch.

IMHO

Reference point 7, and please bear with me as I haven’t seen the original post/document being referred to, but I just cannot fathom out the reference to the ESP VSD’s.

As far as I am aware the ESP’s have not been utilised during production of these wells, at least to date, so why would there be any relevance to the variable speed drives, as they cannot modulate something that isn’t currently in operation.

Surely that’s like using a dimmer switch on a light, when there isn’t a bulb fitted, as that would be futile.

IMHO

joey, PRIM had a 20 to 1 consolidation, it wasn’t achieved through the SPincreasing due to anything positive that the company achieved.

has no one passed comment on the last 7 (at least, I think it was 7, or thereabouts) sell trades all going through not only at the exact same price, but not only that but the trade price being detailed to 5 decimal places.

I cannot remember seeing, if ever, a share price in excess of 1 whole penny being expressed to 5 decimal places before.

Not sure if there is anything that can be inferred from that, but from a historical trend point of view I thought there may be merit in highlighting it, if for no other reason to be entertained by any explanations given for the phenomena .... lol

I also noticed, if the reporting on this site is to be trusted, that there has only been one transaction on NEX in December, and this is following a very discernible trend that has been occurring over the recent past.

whippet, that you have continuously ****ged of the LTH’s, and that might be your undoing if an EGM is called to yet AGAIN request approval to issue a myriad of new shares.

The LTH’s are currently down 95%+ on their initial investments (let’s not forget, you advised them that averaging down is foolish), in point of fact there are likely to be a few that are down nearer 99% down on their initial investment.

Where this is likely to bite YOU in the a55 is IF the approval to issue yet MORE shares is requested then there is an increasing likelihood that this may get voted down, as in doing so the LTH’s would merely lose their remaining 5% or less (a small price to pay to ram one right up the BoD), whereas YOU would have the potential to lose 90% of your investment.

The demographics go against you, especially so that you are likely to garner much support from the LTH’s having done nothing but slate them since you came onboard to achieve your small traders percentage and then to bail out.

You have got locked in with a loss plain and simple, and you may wish to mitigate this loss by bailing out whilst you still have some capital remaining, because as sure as eggs are eggs if you are depending on votes should there be a required further raise it is highly likely the LTH’s will not support it.

IMHO , obviously.

The vessels are the Siem Ruby, Far Sapphire, and Far Sigma.

Not necessarily, but they may RNS when ops (i.e. rig demobed, and vessels off hired) have been completed on this campaign.

It would appear that no one mentioned that the anchor handlers were fixed to demobilise the rig.

The vessels are scheduled to arrive on location circa 13:00 today.

Perhaps worthy of consideration, when referencing the potential for further utilising an existing well bore to perform a side track for instance in wells in a more conventional reservoir, perhaps we should consider why that may not be optimal in a fractured basement reservoir.

The critical consideration in fractured reservoirs is the fracture matrix, and the more fractures that are transversed, and the size (width, length, and depth, i.e. volumetric) of those fractures, and the orientation (by both the orientation of the x axis, and the y axis) of the same, if the production is to be prolific.

In conventional reservoirs (such as a sandstone, for example), the primary considerations are merely two dimensional, depth of producible reservoir sand, and distance in a horizontal plane from the reservoir interception point.

Yes, there are other considerations, such as OWC depth, suitable quantity and location of traps, etc., but they are common to both conventional, and fractured, reservoirs, so I have excluded them from consideration when defining the variables in relation to those aforementioned reservoir types.

So, sidetracking to a potentially more prolific (could be updip, downdip, or going closer/further away from the attic, etc.) part of a conventional reservoir could be achieved by a sidetrack change to well bore heading, or to sidetrack either shallower or deeper to achieve a change to place the wellbore shallower (nearer the attic), or deeper (closer to the OWC, or to explore a different formation deeper down).

However, due to the criticality in a fractured basement of traversing the fractures on a very specific heading, to ensure that the maximum number of previously identified (they have a reasonably good idea of the fracture matrix, they don’t just drill blind) fractures are traversed, you cannot simply change the heading of the sidetrack to achieve success, as a 90 degree change of heading would have you running down between the previously identified fractures instead of traversing them, and unless you intersect these fractures you are merely drilling a wellbore through an impervious (consequently zero porosity, and zero permeability) rock formation.

There may be a benefit of sidetracking shallower if the fractures were full of infill, as may have been seen on the WD well, but in this instance the WW well was drilled towards the attic/crest, so no benefit in sidetracking shallower.

The above reasons are why I believe that wellbore in conventional reservoirs have the potentially benefit from latterly being sidetracked once the reservoir is better known, but why I believe that potential benefit will not benefit from latter re-entry, and why I believe that in a fractured basement reservoir you wouldn’t/couldn’t re-use the wellbore, and you would drill a new one latterly.

All the above is purely IMHO, I anticipate it being ripped to shreds, but perhaps it is the nucleus for a discussion on the subject.

and the lack of any posts from a certain poster, it would appear that 2 millionmug inherited more than shares, he has also inherited a ban.

Only time will tell if it is merely temporary, or if it is a righteous permanent ban.

Just a thought, and I do so love a conspiracy theory, what if .......

Ganfeng raise their direct interest in the SLP to 50%, and then buy out KDNC’s 30% interest in the Sonora JV that we currently have with BCN.

That would then give them the majority interest in the current SLP and allow them to call the shots and dictate the timeline, with BCN then having to take a follow rather than a lead position.

Ganfeng then propose to increase production, and consequently capex, through now wanting to include production from the larger area (i.e. the chunk of the JV that BCN had excluded from the initial plan).

Ganfeng then telling BCN that they would have to pony up their share of this increased capex if they still wanted to maintain their current 70% of their JV holding in the assets not included in the current SLP plan.

Don’t forget, Ganfeng would now be holding a controlling interest in the current SLP, and consequently would control how swiftly, or more importantly slowly, that it would be before BCN could profit from production, or be able to utilise the production for RBL finance.

They could starve BCN out long enough to force them into having to accept an offer that gave Ganfeng a controlling interest over the entire Sonora asset.

I would have to check the terms of the current BCN/KDNC JV areas, but is there not something in the clauses that gives either partner the right of first refusal to purchase each other out if either of the parties was to put their holding up for sale ?
Were that to be the case, unlikely that BCN could prevent the sale of KDNC’s 30% to Ganfeng, as they don’t have the money available to do so.
However, that same clause would prevent BCN from selling their 70% out to one of Ganfeng’s competitors were Ganfeng attempt to starve them out to gain a controlling interest in the whole Sonora enchilada, as the clause would give Ganfeng the first refusal to do so, and BCN’s hands would now be tied.

I think it was wrong for BCN to allow themselves to get themselves into a position where Ganfeng could, with KDNC’s help, give Ganfeng a controlling interest in the current, and primary, SLP, as it will be the key for all that will follow.
Maybe now BCN will rue biting the hand that initially fed them.

The above is just a random musing, and not one that I have spent any time researching, but it may provide the nucleus for a discussion.

Geeeez, can we not just put this to bed by saying, that to an extent all are correct.

Yes, it is more accurate to state that suction piles have been utilised, but equally they are also anchoring points, as this is what anchors the chains to the seabed.

Much ado about nothing, and any further time spent on this subject will merely be an attempt at point scoring.

The Horizon is first and foremost a PSV, though it does have (as do a number of other vessels) a Fi-Fi (firefighting classification).

But it is far from being a vessel primarily designed to be a fire fighting vessel.

http://www.remoyshipping.no/2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NAO-Horizon-Brief-Speck.pdf

Given that it has now gone midnight, read my last post as “what the uncrossing trade was the day before yesterday”, and “sp upon opening yesterday morning”.

Surprised no one noticed what the uncrossing trade was at the close of play yesterday.

It sure as hell was nowhere above 29p, and it gave a clear indication of where the MM’s were going to take the sp upon opening this morning.

Not to mention the coincidence, that were the wells to have been in the U.K. that the minister who was previously in charge of oil & gas issues was the MP Amber Rudd.