The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
All the information that is available on this document and associated Annex's can be found at the following link:
https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/5c499-energy-security-in-ireland-to-2030/
OilyFred, lety's not end the GKP comparisons, I have posted the following before but it may be of interest to anyone more recently invested, I also include a snippet of my post along with the pertinent link:
Of course, what could be more impressive than putting out there, in the public domain, in advance of any drill result the outcome of that drill, impossible you may say, well GRH has done that on, lets just say a few occaisions, perhaps the most notable being this post about GKP:
https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/gulf-keystone-GKP/share-chat?page=5661&xref=chatnav_i_6_t
As for delays, yes some of these have been within the company's hands, PG has stated as much during the most recent presentation, but a great deal of the delays exeprienced have been outside of Paul's and Lonny's hands, COVID and the war in Ukraine having big impacts, and yet they are still working tirelessly for all investors.
A little off topic, but for those that attended the presentation it was my son that was suitably embarassed by Sarah (thank you) when she requested everyone sing happy birthday for him.
Gudin, the following part of the RNS should be considered:
"Conventional larger 27/8" perforating guns are modelled by a third party to penetrate 25 - 28" into a formation, beyond the zone of formation damage. Sandjet design parameters will be modelled to achieve this minimum objective."
Taking one section out of context is not helpful.
Hi Boukephalas
Below is a link to a 1999 paper with some examples of were successfully used:
https://onepetro.org/DC/article-abstract/14/01/28/108863/Sand-Jet-Perforating-Revisited
Baker Hughes PDF:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwisg9Hr-rmEAxWLV0EAHa9vASI4ChAWegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdam.bakerhughes.com%2Fm%2F2a093eda832cb4f6%2Foriginal%2FIWS-abrasive-perforation-sour-oil-Middle-East-cs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2MPoZDF6ijMYvrFvOAi62W&opi=89978449
SPE International Paper, which includes three examples as case history:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ4qiY_LmEAxXK7LsIHSgjDRU4FBAWegQIERAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthrutubing.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSPE107061%2520-%2520Oriented%2520Perforating%2520Using%2520Abrasive%2520Fluids%2520Through%2520Coiled%2520Tubing.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0h_qpUnCLnnKqccB_eCXU1&opi=89978449
A second SPE paper:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwidh7ie_bmEAxWpU0EAHayOAEE4HhAWegQIExAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthrutubing.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSPE107050%2520-%2520Abrasive%2520Perforating%2520via%2520Coiled%2520Tubing%2520Revisited.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0CV-bwLsp-z4P6peyUhmmo&opi=89978449
A more technical/in-depth document can be read at this link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwisg9Hr-rmEAxWLV0EAHa9vASI4ChAWegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fcontent%2Fpdf%2F10.1007%2Fs12182-010-0009-9.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3aj00LFWMHxNEnTmTPA7wx&opi=89978449
For a bit of perspective it should not be forgotten that Lonny used £50,000 of his own money to buy shares at 9p during a previous placing.
Madman-Rob, A few posters have provided calculations as to what the value of various quantities of gas are, one such calculation was provided by GRH on 11th September 2022 @ 17:39, I've cut the calculation part out of that post out and provided it, along with a link to the original below.
The new presentation...page 7 I think...
tells us that 50 M cfpd would deliver net revenue around 36p per share EVERY year
($159m/380m shares, £1:$1.15).
Yes, that is un-discounted...
but with a 10% discount, that is over £2.20 NPV per share ...
and that’s assuming revenue lasts only for 10 years.
BTW...Page 9 of the presentation takes us to a similar level of share price.
The $1,317m quoted is worth an NPV of around £2 per share (10% discount rate, 380m shares, £1:$1.15, only 10 years duration)
And then look at how conservative these page 9 assumptions are...
For instance ...ONLY 21m of net pay and ONLY 135.75 BCF.
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/grh.../?page=28
Using the above and adjusting for the increased number of shares in issue and with a volume of 109.28 BCF, then, provided my maths is correct this equates to approx £1.09 per share.
Please note that this does not include the approximate 30% increase per BCF as BRV has pointed out from $4.84M/Bcf to $6.345M/Bcf for CNG.
If anyone is able to check my adjusted calculation above it would be much appreciated, thanks.
People are doubting that testing has started becuase previously testing was due to be completed at the end of September and the notification that testing hadn't even started was not published until the 5th October.
Now if certain people showed some level of intellgience they could have come to the logical conclusion that the window of opportunity for the use of the sandjet team and equipment closed around the 5th October, and that is why the RNS was released on that date.
Outside of any natural disaster or extreme event the only other conclusion is an insult to both PG and LB, i.e. they didn't release an RNS sooner through either incompetence or for some nefarious reason.
If the dates are considered;
1) End of August notifictaion that testing would be completed by the end of September - a whole month for unforseen issues to arise, which obviously happened
2) 5th October, notification that testing would start on or before 16th October, provided the wire logging unit was released from its current contract, end of which was 10th October. Just 5 days notification and if its date is not met then an RNS would be released updating a change in timelines.
So, as no RNS has been released then yes testing has started, the only unkowns, as already mentioned by others is how long will testing take, some have said 10 days, no reason to doubt this at this moment in time and if this is the case expect news by the end of the month.
I've just been through an exercise, driven by curiosity, to look at some of the older calculations and valuations provided by 'GRH' and 'thewackmiester' to see what effect the increase in shares has had as well as the updated information within the latest RNS, with the following sentence being particularly pertinent:
"Importantly MOU-3 confirmed the interpretation of the results of the MOU-1 well completed in July 2021 and established a new gas basin covering up to 240 km² in the northwest corner of the Guercif Licence."
Below are links to the two webpages which contain posts which I hope will refresh the memories of those that have been invested for a while and be of value to any newer investors.:
This first link is to a post submitted by 'thewackmeister', look for the 6th post down titled 'A little Calculation'.
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/thewackmiester/?page=11
The second link is to a post by GRH titled 'VOLUMETRICS'
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/grh.../?page=69
It should be noted though that there are many more posts provided by GRH at the above link that I am sure newer investors will find particularly interesting.
One last thing, if you do carry out any calculations to determine possible share price valuations do not forget that there are plenty of caveats to consider which will impact any sale, not least of which are:
1) Net Present Value of cash
2) Tax will have to be paid at some point (10 year tax break)
3) Three main customers, industrial will pay the most but take the smallest quantity, when compared to gas to power and gas to EU
4) If PRD retain stub equity and the associated percentage retained
Factors that can help to increase the value of any sale are:
1) A bidding war were to occur.
2) Oil/condensates discovery, which would be in addition to the current gas discovered
3) Additional discoveries
There are of course other factors that can impact any final valuation but I think that those mentioned above are both the most significant and most likely to occur.
Keith, I just thought it was worth mentioning as:
1) It proves what PG has stated is correct volumes are more important than flow rates, if this were not the case the share price would be a lot higher.
2) Sound managed to get commercial flow rates from their well despite the poor permeability/perosity.
3) It might be possible to use the TE-7 flow rates as a data point to help better understand the potential flow rates that we could see from MOU1, 2 & 4.
When certain factors are considered and compared, PRD is in a completely different league to SOU.
Hi KeithOz, Sound Energy did carry out some flow testing of TE-7, as per the following:
RNS 2nd November 2016:
The Company has now completed TE-7 and perfomed an initial, unstimulated, open hole well test of the first 28% of the gross reservoir interval. After 24 hours of continuous flow with a 32/64 choke, a rate of 8.8 MMscf/d was achieved with strong pressure build up post test. The rate is significantly better than the Company's estimates.
RNS 24th November 2016:
The Company has now completed operations and is pleased to announce that it has achieved a gas flow rate towards the end of the clean up process, post stimulation, of 32 MMscf/d with a flowing tubing head pressure of 230 bar on a choke of 40/64. This rate is significantly above the Company's pre-drill expectations. Based on the clean up phase, the well's potential is predicted by the Company to be significantly above 40 MMscf/d with a 50% drawdown.
RNS 19th January 2017:
The Company has flowed just under 1.0 Bscf from TE-7 over a period of 56 days continuous flow and has now started a final pressure build-up phase. The overall extended test results are consistent with the Company's estimates and confirm the good deliverability of the TAGI reservoir, the horizontal well concept and the Company's view of the significant potential of the field.
It should be noted that there are other ways to obtain finance without having to issue more equity or RBL, one of which was forward selling the gas.
In exchange for an upfront lump sum from customers they would get an agreed discount on an agreed quantity of gas.
I am sure other methods have also been mentioned but I am not sure how likely they would be…
There have been some people on these boards that are upset that GRH, as well as a few others, have built up (for want of a better word) a following, they have created for themselves a certain level of admiration for their knowledge and transparency amongst many other highly valued qualities.
Now in the instance of GRH, not only is his name known but also his address and he himself has highlighted his past successes.
To all those people that complain about GRH's (and other's standing within this community) it is not knowing your inside leg measurement or anything else of the like that is important. However gaining respect through detailing what you have acheieved in the past or simply answering GRH's questions would go quite some way to earning some respect, the level of respect earnt of course being directly correlated to your past successes, or even the fullness of the questions answered that have been posed.
To put things into context no one here is saying that GRH, KeithOz or anyone else is perfect, that of course is completely ludicrous, and if you find fault or failing (which is quite possible) within any of the valuations that have been proposed then everyone would love to know where errors that have been made so that more accurate calculations can be performed on the potential value of the company.
Of course, what could be more impressive than putting out there, in the public domain, in advance of any drill result the outcome of that drill, impossible you may say, well GRH has done that on, lets just say a few occaisions, perhaps the most notable being this post about GKP:
https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/gulf-keystone-GKP/share-chat?page=5661&xref=chatnav_i_6_t
The following quote is taken directly from that GKP post:
"The technology works by examining physical changes at surface level...
changes in the manner in which vegetation performs when subjected to the constant barrage of chemical 'soup' emanating from the upward migration of hydrocarbons
(MICRO seepage...NOT please to be confused with seeps that are visible to the naked eye)...
and the effects upon the cementation of rocks where no such vegetation exists"
Now another point to note is that KeithOz mentioned HSSI, to which no one has asked what that acronym means (perhaps everyone knows), or its relevance, or even responded, so to help you out carjcarj you might want to take a look at the PDF at the following link, in particular pages 10 & 11:
https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/bbooks/2017/08_Aug/Docket/2017-020_274-02_Hewitt/2017-020_20170912.1_RespondentsExhibits.pdf
Hopefully the above information is of value to anyone trying to get theior head around what is going on and to those who critique the work that has been carried out without backing up why they are so critical. Those critical individuals should, hopefully understand, at least in part, why they are asked to back up their claims, answer questions that have been posed, or Foxtrot Oscar.
Not sure what happened there...
still in location at MOU2, PG and Lonny will want to mobilise it at the last possible minute to minimise costs.
It should also be remebered that the lab work had not been completed at the time of the presentation last week and Lonny and Paul did not have a timeframe for the analysis to completed
My thoughts are that it is possible but very unlikely due the the leadtimes involved in getting hold of the various ingredients to make up the mud needed to get through the problematic bit of geology at MOU2.
Although there is cloud cover on the image I would have though that the rig was still in loca
Porters/MEM
As per my last message, the lab work on the sample taken from MOU2 has not yet been completed. Apparently it is quite a complex activity, the result will be that a custom/bespoke mud will be used.
Just for clarity:
Various comments have been raised re the Sunday Roast: PG and LB are extremely busy, there was and still is a great deal of interest in the Guercif licence. The bottom line is that PG and LB were having their time wasted by the offers that they received. I suspect this is what caused PG to go to the broker, the broker's suggestion was to go on the Sunday roast, where PG could then put out some valuation figures to stop the time wasting.
A few points I picked up on from last night:
MOU2 mud, not all testing/analysis has been completed on the sample sent to the lab, this is quite a complex activity, the results of which will guide the creation of a custom/bespoke mud for MOU2. No timeframe was given for the lab to complete the analysis so they cannot put MOU2 on the latest timeline.
No charges for the rig until mobilisation to MOU3.
Sandjet equipment is in Europe and will take four days to be delivered to site.
The piece of equipment stuck in Tunisian customs' is the coiled tubing, IIRC.
If there is any slippage of the current timeline this will be measured in days.
There are a couple of issues with getting started on CNG delivery:
- CNG trailers to transport the gas are on long lead times.
- apparently there is a whole raft of bureaucracy and regulations that has to be delt with in order to be able to start transporting CNG by truck, however the lead time mentioned above will be what controls when the initial deliveries can begin.
My take from the Sunday roast (SR) is that as others have stated PG agreed that it was a big mistake and would not be doing one again. However, it did get a point across and that was there was a lot of interest in the Guercif licence area and dealing with all of this interest was taking up too much of Paul's and Lonny's time, they were both getting frustrated with the offers that were being received so Paul put out a figure in the SR to stop the offers they deemed unacceptable. If a suitable offer had come in then they would have exited Morocco.