Member Info for JoeSoap

That is just not true, MrV.

Have you read anything today??

Can't get this image of FK playing with his plastic ducks and then putting them all in a row out of my head.

FK said " If you listen to all the recent interviews, Clive states that the full potential of the current MJF Wells is 4000bopd."

However, the Chairman's Statement in the AR says:
"In aggregate the production expected from the six wells drilled on the MJF structure to date is, on a risked basis, in the region of 2,300 bopd."

And that is the crux of the problem imo. The guidance given in the Presentations and videos does not hold water, unlike the wells.

Feb Presentation:
146
Re-complete bottom of well
Re-perforate and flow-test
AR:
It is not yet clear whether well 146 will be capable of production.

Which begs the question of whether any work has been done or not.
There has been no RNS update on MJF, so it would seem not, possibly because they could not find any cash to pursue it..

But 4000...

lol

FK that's funny, ironic even, for you.

It would still be 30years away....

The previous RNS said they had perforated 75m. As this didn't add up to any of the 121m of potential intervals already declared, only some of the interval(s) would have been perforated, would it limit the flow test to 75/121ths of the expected potential and also limit any future CPR to the known and tested?

So are they still trying to perforate all of the intervals to maximise not just the potential, but also their understanding of the well and the area?

I thought that was KAZ...

RE the structural mods.

We know where the AM had been working, we know where it will be working.
We know that the Atlantic is harsher.
We know that green water protection has been added.
We know that the number of anchor chains has been increased.
We have seen the extra strengthening ribs on the turret to handle the expected loads to the extra chains.

Wouldn't want the boat to break away from the secured turret would we?

Bigger risk than wax or water if not reinforced internally??

jimo
joe

Yet another otiose practise?

I would suggest that as it is a constant, it is a discount to prevailing Brent.
The Lancaster CPR has this on page 60:
"RPS recommends that a number of additional discounts be applied to Lancaster crude on top of the
quality discount to allow for discounts relating to a new crude, TAN, and sulphur content. RPS has
applied a total discount to Brent of -$4.5/bbl for Lancaster crude in the first year of production,
followed by a total discount of -$4.0/bbl for all subsequent years. The Lancaster Base Price forecast
in MOD, assuming first oil production in January 2019, is shown in Table 9.3 with Low and High Price
cases for valuation sensitivities."

I would expect all costs of sales to come from revenue, be they for transport or incentive. The BPInt incentive may result in a higher revenue, but the presentation is 'for guidance'.

joe

Couple of quick comments:

Note the date of this is Feb2016. I do not think they are currently working on the Project, unless subbed by the current contractors. At this time the GLA was the current P1368 bit of Lancaster and Lincoln. It predates the Halifax licence and the 7/7z drills and the new GLA and GWA areas.

Noted your 'look' bullet points and they are still valid imo but maybe not so for your conclusion.

jimo
joe

If the 10M trade yesterday was a buy and the MM made a profit on his stock, he would have had to have held that stock on the shelves since end June/early July awaiting this buyer. There was no volume of shares traded below that price yesterday to allow the trade on the day. Total was c16M.

If the 10M trade yesterday was a sell, the MM will want to sell it on at a premium. They could have achieved that by selling at the higher but continually falling SP over the days prior to closing the deal yesterday, with the remaining stock being sold at a lower SP but balanced on their books by the previously higher price.

Their role is to make a market, and a profit!

I think that this overhang is now responsible for the lower SP, as the further lowered BID now collects the stop-losses and shakes out the nervous and gives the MM even more stock to shift, with less than 3M total declared today it could still offer opportunities for knife catchers and bottom feeders. Perhaps they can shift some when the AM moves.

JIMO

What is your considered view?

joe

I think you'll find that they don't give a damn about the website, anyone looking at it following CC's promotional videos push would have seen that BNG was going to drill 145 and 146, whereas they had been drilled by the Nov update.
FK was going to get the 5min pitch link corrected.
Being generous, we could say they are conserving cash ...

I wonder where they got that many to sell at that price?

Maybes the reason the SP has been under pressure the past two days, or not??

Please don't mention bears!

"No volume here at all ..."

Now look what you've done - more RED!

;-)

The RNS included an update on the gas from VOS#1. Jay said that by selling the untreated gas they avoid the upfront capital expense for gas treatment. Is it fair to assume that PANR will fund the pipe/installation as well as "construct separation and dehydration facilities."? Do we know what the 2.5mile pipeline will cost?

Is it fair to assume that the return on the gas will be below market prices because it is untreated and because Enterprise will construct the metering and receiving station at the tie in point to their pipeline.

Why does Jay say "If successful...", what are the perceived risks for PANR with a pipeline?

I think they could have been more forthcoming, it could be a long wait for mid-October.
JIMO

What the company said when they wanted funding:

In particular, the EPS on Lancaster is being carried out to evaluate sustainable and commercial reservoir performance over an extended period, including whether or not the volume of water produced (if any) can be responsibly managed in a cost-effective manner. There is a risk, following the commencement of production of hydrocarbons at Lancaster during the EPS, that there is a greater than anticipated volume of produced water which cannot be managed in a cost effective and operationally responsible manner, and that the level of production from the EPS may be restricted and/or result in a temporary or permanent cessation of production of hydrocarbons from Lancaster. Further, any such curtailment of production at Lancaster as a consequence of significant water production during production operations may have a material adverse effect on the Group's ability to fund and/or proceed with the full field development of Lancaster.

And they have scant new info since.

The Group has contracted with the Bluewater Group for the provision of the FPSO to the Project. Under the terms of the Bluewater EPC Contract, Bluewater will be responsible for the fabrication and delivery of a new mooring system and buoy and the upgrade, hook up, and testing of the FPSO in consideration for a fixed lump sum contract price. The Bluewater Group will also be responsible for the operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the FPSO, and the operation and maintenance of the subsea pipeline on a reimbursable basis pursuant to the terms of the POSA. A Bluewater Group entity has been approved as installation operator for the Project and the Company expects that Bluewater Lancaster Production (UK) Limited will become the installation operator and pipeline operator to the Project following further approvals.

“POSA” the production operations and services agreement dated 23 June 2017 between Bluewater Lancaster Production (UK) Ltd and HGLA
"HGLA" Hurricane GLA Limited

A more informative post by steelwatch followed:
- Bluewater applied for an "Offshore Combustion Installation Permit" for AM on 6 July:

https://itportal.beis.gov.uk/eng/fox/beis/PETS_EXTERNAL_PUBLICATION/main

Select 2018 and then search under the "Production Operation" tab

Note the SAT Start Date.

Coincident with the Oil Discharge Permit SAT Start Date.

7th October 2018.

Who is in the running: where's Revandy's list...

cc I would agree that this used to be the case
"Flawless, i totally agree facts are facts but then you also have lies, damned lies and statistics to contend with ..."

but now you have "misspoke" and all other forms from "to misspeak".

I think there is another too. "To mistype" is surely the twitter or BB equivalent.

As in " They have options going all the way up to the 70p mark. "

;-)