Member Info for HeidHoncho

my thoughts keep harping back to the previously outstanding YA debt.

Given that we have not witnessed YA taking us to court for failure to pay this debt, the logical reasons are.
1) we have now cleared the debt, or are keeping up the periodic payments.
or
2) we hold something over YA that is preventing them from chasing repayment of any unpaid debts through the legal system.

If it is 1) then surely that would indicate that we are still generating revenue, and then the question is just how much revenue, as it would require to be as a minimum sufficient to meet the periodic YA payments.

If it is 2), then that would indicate that there may well be a smoking gun, and maybe then that this is being kept under wraps to hit Hope with a combination of sucker punches, when the time is right.

Hey, given the total radio silence, everything is in play until substantiating evidence proves anything to the contrary.

Until such time, this current situation will remain Conspiracy Central, where all us cuckoos and loonies are no less accurate in our wild a55ed theories than the sane and logical thinking members.

As Rowan Atkinson once said in the WW1 edition of Black Adder, whilst the individual had a pencil stuck up each nostril ........ “wibble” ........... aficionados will get it ;-)

I guess we will never know whether it was a typo or not, so anything is just speculation, however, and on topic with regards to the ore/barite topic, you could potentially give consideration to the following.

Correct, if in the reservoir drilling phase there would be no barite in the wellbore fluids, as during this phase it is a light brine.

However, there is the potential, and that’s all that it is, with regards to the line of thought that Scrabster utilised “ore” when they may have meant a dry bulk product such as barite, that it may have been a requirement to uplift a smallish quantity of bulk HEC.

Even in Aberdeen bulk HEC would likely be delivered to the vessel by means of road tanker, as I am not aware (though willing to be corrected if I am wrong) of any quayside bulk silos that store HEC.

Were indeed the Troms Capella to require to uplift a quantity of bulk HEC then there would be no benefit to requiring to sail to Aberdeen to collect it, and it would likely to be as prudent, if not more prudent (depending on urgency), to collect such a product in Scrabster.

But as I said at the outset, bar none we are all only able to speculate, and the only reason that I make mention of the possibility for it to have been HEC is to offer an opinion of what bulk product may have been utilised in the brine system whilst in the reservoir drilling phase, if indeed there is any credence in Scrabster’s utilisation of the term “ore” to identify the uplift of a dry bulk product.

Best not to postulate too much, especially so as it is now historical and bare no impact to what lays ahead in the days to follow, otherwise we may end up proving the urban myth that 2 +2 can indeed equal 5 ...... lmao

I d not necessarily see it as a negative thing if it were found that 401 was merely a life prolonged rather than a cure.

If we take any moral aspect off the table for a moment, and focus on purely the business aspect, what is more fiscally beneficial, finding a cure, or a continued surpresion of progression should the product be continually taken.

Clearly it is the product that requires repeat dosing, as the production of a cure is a one off sale.

All industrial/domestic manufacturing includes for a failure to be built in, as there is limited profitability in producing an ever lasting item, hence the need to maintain a failure mode to drive continual replacement purchases.

From a moral point of view, what is the most timely requirement, the swift roll out of a product that prevents fatality and prolongs life, or continuing the design and testing duration until the nirvana of a cure is found.

skittish, you are correct, my research shows that current thinking about the Vandji is that the porosity and permeability varies greatly, and even within the Vandji at a particular location it can vary significantly over depth.

There is a trend beginning to form that postulates that there are two types of deposit, those being alluvial plains, and braided alluvial channels.

To date, the former has shown to have the poorer reservoir quality, whereas the latter, better quality zones improve in quality the further the location is to the Atlantic hinge.

The following presentation probably explains it better.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2019/51549tukimin/ndx_tukimin.pdf

Personally, if we were to get a CPR prior to the conclusion of the data recovery from the EWT that would be a red flag for me.

That would be akin to attempting to sell your car with only a month left on your MOT.

If you were confident that your car would pass the MOT you would put it through the test, as that would make your car worth more when you went to sell it.

If you knew that the brakes were shot and the underside required welding then you wouldn’t attempt to put it through its MOT, and you would be willing to accept less for your car by attempting to sell it as is.

However, buyers of your car would be wise to such a ruse, and your car may very well go unsold.

Equally, and to substantiate the point that I was making with regards to there being no guaranteed analogue nature purely due to historical geographic proximity, I would draw your attention to a more recent (2016, rather than your link from 2013) paper produced by Gaffney Cline and Associates, entitled “Pre-salt of West Africa, twin or distant relative of Brazil sub-surface”, in which they concluded he following

“It stands to reason that the palaeo-proximity of the two margins yields significant potential for a successful analogue for pre-salt petroleum plays. However, we need to be cautious in the application of this analogue, as the margins are often extremely diverse along-strike. This is particularly noticeable within the Aptian salt basins of West Africa where the thickness and geometry of the evaporite sequence, basement geometries and stratigraphies are highly variable along-strike (Figure 4). Clearly one analogue cannot be uniformly applied to this margin, especially when we consider that the southern Atlantic Ocean opened from south to north (Figure 2), and therefore different depositional environments and rift phases were contemporaneous along the margin.

A possible use of this analogue would therefore be comparison of the areas directly adjacent to each other on the opposing margin. The Campos and Santos basins of Brazil, which have had tremendous recent success in pre-salt carbonate plays were adjacent to the Kwanza and Namibe basins respectively. When these basins are compared however (Figure 5), it is clear that whilst they share similarities, there are also major differences. Notably, the ubiquitous salt is much thicker (~2 km) in the Santos basin, when compared to the distinctly rafted salt geometry of much of the Kwanza basin, which has several implications to the petroleum system. Additionally it is becoming increasingly apparent, from recent well data from West Africa, that whilst the stratigraphic sequence is comparable in both basins, the relatively thick, homogenous microbial carbonate reservoirs of the Santos basin are more complex and spatially limited in the Kwanza basin.”

Bearing out the point that I was attempting to highlight, that although historical geographic proximity leads one to hope that they will be mirror analogues the reality that is being born out is that they are not, as is witnessed in the significantly different salt geometry, which is kilometres thick and geometrically continuous offshore Brazil, but is geometrically very sparse offshore the previously co-joined historical location abutting west Africa.

Although there are connections, they are as connected as a fourth cousin on the mother’s side of the family five times removed, no matter how hard you may wish to promote them being like identical twins.

IMHO

“granitic limestones” ?!?!

Granite is an igneous rock, whereas limestone is a sedimentary rock.

As rock types granite and limestone could not be further apart if they tried.

Limestones form a standard reservoir type, with moderate to medium porosity, with variable permeability.

Granite is non porous, and can only be deemed to be of reservoir quality in very specific circumstances, where tectonic forces cause a fracture matrix to develop and form a fractured basement type scenario.

As to the postulated similarity between west Africa and Brazil purely because they were once wrenched apart from the same land mass, so there is a logical reason to believe that the production rates witnessed in Brazil being achievable in west Africa, that is total balderdash.

If you really must ramp up your investment, at least try to understand geological fact, and attempt to make your ramps believable.

IMHO

subscription promise from the BoD.

Initially, when the open offer was first muted (around the 10th October if memory serves), and in relation to the uptake of under subscribed open offer entitlement, the statement was “Management of the Company (collectively) has indicated an intention to subscribe £250,000 of any shortfall in the Open Offer.”

However, only a few days later, when the prospectus was announced, the position changed from the BoD subscribing to £250,000 of any shortfall in the open offer to them subscribing to £250,000 of any placement (i.e. the accelerated book build).

Now at first glance that might seem unimportant, and just a play on words, but accelerated book builds have a habit of coming at a discount, and although the premise was that the placement would be attempted at 2.0p per share is it credible to believe that this will be achieved ?

After all, if any ii’s wanted to obtain shares at 2.0p they could have achieved that by buying a few shares and then putting in for a stack of excess shares in the open offer.

So it is logical to anticipate that if they want ii’s to now pick up the unsubscribed open offer shares then they will have to sugar the pill by offer of an inducement (discount), so I would not be surprised to see the achieved sp in the accelerated book build to be no higher than 1.9p, and could conceivably be nearer 1.8p.

Were that to ultimately be the case then there are two follow on issues.
The first being that these placement shares are likely to be churned, and as the sp recovers towards the 2.0p range (the price that shareholders bought them in the open offer) these shares will have made the placees circa 10%, and they will start dumping them into the market, which could put a ceiling on the sp just above 2.op for some time, until these placing shares get absorbed.
The second point being, that as the BoD’s commitment is now to take up £250,000 of the placement, and not as earlier announced £250,000 of the open offer, then if the accelerated book build can only generate interest at below 2.0p then the BoD are positioned such that they can pick up shares at a lower price than their existing share holders.

Do you think that this is acceptable, that the BoD expected the share holders to pledge to buy shares in the open offer at 2.0p without knowing that the open offer would be taken up in full, whilst the BoD themselves covered themselves against the risk of not getting 100% uptake in the open offer, and the potential then to have to place the excess at a possible discounted sp in an accelerated book build, and that they would then be able to meet their promised uptake of £250,000 at this potentially lower sp ?

Hpotter, STB 66 and FRB 7 are just the rescue craft from the ERRV the Esvagt Sigma.

They will have absolutely nothing to do with any preparatory anchor handling scope of work, and likely to be conducting the periodic personnel recovery trials that they require to do on a weekly basis.

IMHO

BBN, respectfully suggest that you temper your enthusiasm, and consequently your expectations, with your projected timings for the rig move.

I would suggest that a more realistic duration to complete the move in, once departure of the vessels from Montrose is known, would be akin to the following.

Steaming time from Montrose to current rig location - 15-18 hours.
Arrival on location and performing pre move checks and level 3 HIRA - 4-6 hours
Perform recovery of anchors from current location - 16-24 hours
Transit to Liberator location - 4 hours
Running anchors on Liberator location 18-24 hours

All of the above timings in suitable sea conditions, if any adverse weather/sea states (above 3 metres significant wave height, or 30 knot winds) occur at any point within that period then all bets are off, so to speak.

So, I would suggest that it is likely, though not guaranteed, that subject to suitable weather, the overall duration from the vessels departing port to the rig being moored up on Liberator would be circa 58-76 hours, with 76 hours being a realistic target, and the 58 hours would be an absolute technical limit which is invariably not achieved in reality.

However, subject to everything else going well, primarily the ability to work the PSV immediately upon mooring operations at Liberator being completed, you may be able to reduce the duration from the rig move being complete till the time the well is spudded from your projected 4 days down to 2-3 days.

IMHO

If the narrative that you mention below, is the statement “and 70% interest in additional deposits that will be developed at a later date”, then that statement is vague, and at odds with the statement made in table 16, which states “100% Hastings” deposits.

The “70% interest in additional deposits” does not clearly indicate which deposits that they are referring to, and it could reasonably be assumed that the reference may be in relation to Yangibana North, which if memory serves me is not being immediately developed, as in the initial stage the focus is to be on 100% Hasting’s owned deposit, and the current plan is that Yangibana North will be “developed at a later date”.

Given that the most recent AOU RNS indicates that our equity has dropped from in excess of 5% to just 1% without us being informed, then surely it is understandable why questioning exists when other data is announced that highlights potential other asset changes may have occurred that we haven’t been informed of.

And there is no credibility in a response that if we haven’t been informed about a change then there has been no change, as the recent AOU RNS has proved that philosophy to be questionable.

There may have been inaccuracies/errors in some recent RNS’s, but the easiest/clearest way that can be resolved is for the BoD to clarify what our asset holdings are over all of our current investments.

They should have no problem/issue in performing such a housekeeping exercise, should they ?

Is table 16 correct in the HAS report, as it states that those tenements are 100% Hasting’s.

Have I missed something, like we relinquished our 30% of those tenements back to HAS and the BoD not informing us.

Seems to be a frequent event these days (i.e. AOU equity detailed as being 6.7% on our website, but only 1% on the RNS a couple of days ago), asset changes occurring without we the shareholders being informed on it.

How many other asset changes have we not been informed about ?

It is time that we the shareholders are treated with a bit more respect by the BoD, not to mention them not complying with their corporate obligations to RNS such share price sensitive asset changes in a prompt and accurate manner, should such changes exist/occur.

Geordie, I may be wrong, but I don’t think that you will find that the 197 million barrels are estimated to be recoverable, as in a sandstone reservoir such as this I think you will find that recoverable quantity will be in the 30-35% range.

So you would require to reduce your projected revenues at $60 by a factor of 65-70%, and even then that figure is a projected overall estimated revenue which would not be recoverable in full until the ultimate end of production many years down the road.

That would not be anywhere close to an oil in ground value, nor anywhere close to the value placed on it by any competitor looking to enter into a JV/farm out/asset purchase.

I have found that it is always best to manage our expectations, temper any enthusiasm with an injection of reality, and to be conservative in nature.

IMHO

Chelsea, I would disagree that nobody expected this.

When we as a BB were discussing the issue on the 30th August, with regards to whether the RNS stated that enrolment had begun, or whether it meant the first subject was dosed, I posted the following, as I had felt that everyone’s timeline expectation was overly optimistic regarding the ability to source suitable volunteers.

“Chelsea, with respect, you have been around bio shares for long enough to know how long it can take at times to achieve enrolment.

Especially so if the patient parameters being sought to meet the specific goals/needs/requirements of the trial are complex.

Having said that, I must admit to not having reviewed the patient suitability requirements for this specific trial, nor would I even have a clue as to how readily those could be enrolled even if I were aware of the parameters.

All I have portrayed is that it was not stated that dosing was starting immediately, and postulating that being able to enroll patients of the necessary calibration is not necessarily a slam dunk.

It is not a negative position, it is a balanced realistic position, to reflect expectation.

IMHO”

“Right now I have DST as an option, but I am open to further offers.”

BBN, are you postulating that a DST is currently underway, or that a DST is still to come ?

If it is the former, then the marine logistics support does not bear that out necessarily.
The amount of available deck space required on the rig to perform a DST would require a reasonable quantity of equipment previously on the rig for the drilling phase to be backloaded, and a substantial quantity of equipment (DST tubing, wellbore clean up package, full DST spread including seperators/stock tanks/compressors/deluge spread/etc./etc.) mobilised to the rig.
Ordinarily that would take additional PSV tonnage to be chartered on and ad-hoc basis to support the operation with the additional deck space required to mobilise/de-mobilise the large volumes of equipment required, and there have been no spot hire PSV charters witnessed to support such a proposal.

If it is the latter, then it is contrary to a position that you were promoting over the weekend that the rig move to Liberator is to occur soon, as the permit to locate a rig on Liberator is scheduled to commence (circa towards the end of October, or very early November, I believe you were intimating).

Surely you can see why the messages you are sending out can be confusing, as one moment you are intimating the imminent move of the rig onto Liberator due to the permit to relocate being scheduled for the end of the month (which would be highly unlikely if a DST was not already under way), or that a DST was already under way as the lack of chartering marine logistics support operations does not apparently substantiate that philosophy.

So, can you please clarify whether it is your current belief that a DST phase of operations is indeed under way, or that a DST still has to be performed on Serenity.

As well intended as it may be, none of us are currently in possession of sufficient substantive data to confirm it either way, and that includes myself, so I would respectfully suggest that ALL manage their expectations, and not base their investment decisions on the myriad of unsubstantiated theories that are commonly seen on these type of boards.

IMHO

If indeed there is a geological sidetrack occurring, then it is equally likely that a revised/additional oil discharge permit is required due to the additional potential reservoir footage being drilled.

Part of the oil discharge permitted volumes is based around the projected drill cutting contamination, the contamination being any reservoir hydrocarbons that are in any cuttings.

This would have been projected based on the footage of potential reservoir to be drilled, therefore any potential need to drill an additional reservoir section would generate an additional volume of drill cuttings that would not have been projected for in the original permit.

Without being way more involved in the background surrounding the need for the oil discharge variation that was projected any/all theories being opined are nothing more than guesses, and yes, that means this post also.

Additionally BBN, a point that you are stressing to make just now confuses me, as if my memory serves me correctly is contrary to a position that you were making previously on this Serenity well.

You are promoting now that it is an exploration well, whereas previously my memory recollects that you were quite vehement that this was an appraisal well, and if that is indeed the case then what has now made you perform an about turn on a previously held position.

If my memory fails me, and it was someone else that was taking such a firm stance previously regarding the Serenity well being an appraisal well rather than an exploration well, then please accept my unreserved apology for my error.

All of the above is merely IMHO.

If the flights in question were cancelled relate to flights on the 25th (yesterday) then that would indeed have been cancelled due to adverse sea conditions.

The significant sea state at the rig was above 6 metres throughout yesterday, and all flights are precluded (other than SAR) when the sea state is greater than 6 metre significant wave height (it was previously 7 metres, but that was reduced a few years back).

Current weather at the rig is wind speeds at the helideck level of 51 knots gusting 59 knots, and the significant wave height of a steady 6 metres with a maximum wave height occasionally exceeding 10 metres.

No sense in the Troms Capella being anywhere near the rig right now as there is no chance of working her, so best she just seeks shelter in the lee of the island until such time as the conditions ease at the rig.

There is a massive quantity of equipment that requires to be demobilised from the rig (to make deck space available to conduct a DST), and DST equipment mobilised to the rig.

This would ordinarily require an additional PSV to be taken on an ad-hoc spot hire charter to facilitate, as the logistics demands are too great to be contended by witty just the utilisation of the term charter PSV, and there are currently no enquiries on behalf of I3 on the market for a spot hire vessel.

Is the discussion regarding there to be a DST to be performed based on substantive news, or just hope.

adoubleuk, you mentioned earlier going eastward in Libya where there was a prolific well.

Can I presume that it was offshore, and that it was supported (logistically) either out of Misratah or Benghazi ?

If the former, was it a gas well, or if it was the latter, was it a heavy oil well ?

If so, our paths (although perhaps maybe invisibly, as the mouthpieces for those operations were based in Tripoli) may have crossed previously.