Member Info for HeidHoncho

Might just be me, but the Stage Two plan appears confusing.

Given that the Djeno and Mengo are clearly differentials pressurised then they cannot be talking about co mingling the flows.

And given that there had been no previous plans to produce from both reservoirs from a single well bore then they will not have the equipment available to run a dual bore completion.

The lead time to purchase a dual bore tree would be in excess of 18 months, and that I think would be a best case delivery estimate, as the industry cannot keep up with tree manufacturing demand already.

There is the possibility to perhaps pick up a dual bore tree from an oilfield Steptoe & sons (don’t laugh, they do exist), but given the recent (last 2 years) uplift in demand within the industry the quantity of quality surplus equipment, other than that of old/obsolete equipment, is getting increasingly scarce.
And if we have been talking about risk, then the utilisation of second hand equipment brings it’s own risk with it.

So, rather than clear up a question regarding the forward plan this response has added to the lack of clarity.

I’m sure there must be some corroborating information that we have not been made aware of, but with that information supplied it just doesn’t add up for me I’m afraid to say.

All IMHO you understand.

A question would be how do they regain control of the well if they do enter the Djeno again from this well bore.

They now have “known” trapped pressure below the failed cement plug, so if they drill it out they will likely require to do so with a sufficiently high mud weight to ensure that the trapped pressure when drilled out will not cause an uncontrollable kick.

The potential issue may well be that this high mud weight may cause unrepairable damage to the Mengo reservoir (at least in the vicinity of this particular well bore, if the mud weight required to control the pressure for the Djeno is above the fracture gradient for the Mengo.

So, not only may they lose the ability to produce from the Djeno in this well bore, they are likely to cause irreparable damage in this well bore to then allow them to produce from the Mengo from it.

A few “if’s” in that postulation, as the mud weight required to regain control of the Djeno and the fracture gradient for the Mengo not being known (at least by me in any case), but unquestionably there is clearly a significant risk to not only losing the Djeno in this well bore, but also the Mengo.

IMHO

And if the share price isn’t greater than 5.2p, what then ?

Oh yes, they get issued more shares.

Forward sell at the start of the month, then receive more shares in return at the end of the month.

Sounds exactly like YA’s well trodden route, with the smoke and mirrors of positivity “should” the share price be higher.

Sorry, I just can’t see this as a positive.

Sorry, I had meant to put “investor” into sarcastic parentheses.

kevin, “or the number of shares issued will be lower” ?

What part of “not less” than 106,331,011 shares, yet only “up to” £8.25 million, gives any credible argument that the number of shares ultimately issued will be lower than that already stated ?

You have reviewed that investors previous modus operandi haven’t you.

Kevin, i.e. the way that it is written it looks like spiral financing to me.

The company will receive “up to” £8.25 mill, but the shares issued will be “not less” than the number currently detailed in the RNS if that upper limit of £8.25 mill is to be achieved.

That, along with the phraseology that I have never seen utilised previously regarding an equity sharing agreement, is the cause of a red flag being raised in my view.

It shows on my screen in the black bar at the top of the page.

I know there is more than one investor, I read the same RNS as you did.

My point was the issue of “up to £8.25 million” , allied to the second investor (the first being a fixed number of shares) “will subscribe for not less than 106,331,011 new Ordinary Shares”.

I.e. the maximum raised will be up to 8.25 mill, but the number of shares issued to achieve that may be greater than that already notified.

Additional questio.

If the figure fund raised appears to be fixed, why is the number of shares not ?

“the Investor will subscribe for not less than 106,331,011 new Ordinary Shares”

“Pursuant to the Term Sheet the proceeds of the Subscription will then be applied towards the entry into an equity sharing agreement.”Can someone enlighten me, what is “an equity sharing agreement”, is that just another phrase for the placement of shares, as I have never seen a placement agreed in that manner.

But I think at this point in time I think it would be credible to suggest that they are in a closed period, as I thought the recent trials on 201 had been completed, and likely they are in possession of initial results data.

I am not defending their lack of buying previously, and I think they would have a deterrent for their continuous amateurish placements/dilution were they to have a significant shareholding (especially so if this holding had been personally purchased, not gifted under some pseudo “bonus scheme”).

However, that holding would require to have been procured under a belief that the product would work, and not a knowledge from results that weren’t in the public domain that it DOES work.

I have signed non trading agreements when I have been “inside” previously, so it is not an uncommon practice.
The inability to trade due to being in possession of “inside” information is irksome, but never the less it is the law, and is normally offset by receiving options that can be traded when not “inside”.

It has been clear that I’m far from happy with the BoD, but the statement”If I was a director of this company and I knew what was coming, I would stump (sic) up some cash at these all time low SP’s” is just incredulous.

If a director KNEW what WAS coming, and then purchased shares, they would leave themselves open to claims of insider dealing.

Am I saying that this has’t/wouldn’t happen within the cesspit of AIM, no, but it would take a fool to open themselves up to such a claim/investigation.

IMHO

foresight, I am willing to be corrected, but I don’t think granite has any porosity, what with it being igneous.

Hence the importance of hitting the fractures, as this is where the oil is contained within.

The chance of hitting a fracture that would be representative of the overall fracture matrix, and consequently give indication of a realistic potential reservoir volume, if drilling a solely vertical well is impossible.

Vertical wells in a fractured basement is useful for finding the OWC however, so aiding you calculate vertical reservoir depth.

IMHO

p.s. the Esvagt Don isn’t a supply boat, it is the ERRV, and is the mother vessel for both the DC and the FRB.

DC stands for Daughter Craft, and FRB stands for Fast Rescue Boat, both of which the ERRV (The Esvagt vessel) carry, and deploy for rescue and recovery operations.

Have no fear, they are often deployed for close standby, or training purposes, it does not mean that a rescue mission is underway.

Hence my question, as rhetorical as it may have been.

Therefore, there is no relevance to CT not being loaded out (if indeed it ultimately was, or wasn’t, as there is no verifiable evidence that it was ......... personally, I do not know, but in relation to my point it is mute whether it was or wasn’t) initially as part of the well test package, or not.

And as for LCM in brine, and the total refutation of the same, I would postulate that it is all dependent on the definition of “LCM”.
The wellbore fluids world is forever evolving, and likely in leaps and bounds from the last time his azz kissed a chopper seat, so it would understandable if there was a lack of up to date knowledge on the subject.

My issue is spouting off in a manner of fact, when all that is intended is either in my opinion, or to the best of my knowledge.

aduk, so “Hurricane has used CT on all its DST's”.

Has it ?

Are you stating that as a verifiable fact ?

“tomorrow” ?

That will require to be a hell of a special RNS then !

If is is a dog (though I whole heartedly disagree) then it must be a Cruft’s winning pedigree dog then.

IfI had a dog with a one billion pound price tag I would be breeding from the bugga ...... lol

That should have read stonking, not stinking.

Mind you, on reflection ................