Member Info for LayLadyLay

in4cedros - "Way back in 1954 saw the drilling of the deepest land well on the peninsula, Apex Cedros4 ( ACD4) to 16,155’and found 30’ of Lengua light oil/ condensate at 13,000’"

"I don’t think there are many takers for LayLadyLay’s favourite drill Apex 560"

My quote is taken from official records not Speculators blog.

"In 1954 Apex Oilfield Ltd drilled the deepest well on land, located at Fyzabad Well No. 560 drilled to 16,155 feet."

Emily - where have I suggested drilling offshore? I was merely exposing in4cedros comparison of Soldado North with SWP. He often refers to Soldado North as some kind of benchmark but fails to mention to those who may not know that he is referencing an offshore area.

Onshore v Offshore

Soldado North is not a good comparison to what can be expected at SWP IMHO and Ithe numbers quoted by in4cedros are unlikely to be achieved onshore in Trinidad even if a good reservoir can be located. I expect oil to be found at levels similar to Goudron but at depth I have my doubts and feel that there will likely be a high water content as was discovered by the deep drill at Fyzabad in 1954.

"Apex (Trinidad) Oilfields Limited drilled well No. 560 in the Fyzabad area to a depth of
16,115 feet in 204 days, a new depth record for the Colony. The cretaceous was not reached by
this well. No production was obtained from Oligocene and the well was finally completed in the
Cruse sands."

While offshore operations cost significantly more, they also produce much more oil per day. Because of the lower production, many onshore oil operations involve many wells in one location — sometimes hundreds over a large area. This allows the company to retrieve enough oil to satisfy demand

Deepwater wells have the capacity to produce over 50,000 barrels of oil each day. One well can often access a large reservoir. This greater productivity means offshore drilling sites often have significantly fewer wells with a wider reach than onshore drilling areas.

Offshore wells tend to produce at the same high volume for 10 to 20 years, which can mean tens of millions to hundreds of millions of barrels before the well is done. While the cost to build the wells is much higher, the greater output over time means deepwater wells often see greater profit margins in the end. The payout is higher because the wells produce more oil each day, and the payout continues over a longer period.

in4cedros - "there are plenty of prolific onshore oil fields - the Saudis are probably more likely to end up with oil than water when they go drilling!"

Really! I was working for BP/Gulf Oil in Kuwait for 8 years and I never realised that. So that gem leads you to speculate that because huge oil finds have been made thousands of miles away then SWP is 'likely' to be the same. You should have told Texaco/Chevron this years ago and maybe they wouldn't have abandoned Goudron for pastures new.

By the way in4cedros, you constantly refer to those posters who have an alternative view to you as trolls whilst being oblivious to your own feverish trolling both here and on advfn. I will say you certainly put in a lot of effort for someone who claims to be a retail investor.

in4cedros - " if ultimate deep drilling of SWP is remotely similar to say Soldado North with average 15,000 bopd over 50 years then CERP will, in my opinion also, be trading in 'the hundreds of millions ' "

That's a very big IF in4cedros and you forget to mention to the unresearched that Soldado North is many miles offshore and there is nowhere on the mainland producing anything more than a relative dribble of oil. So whilst your statement has basis in fiction it has to be considered to be an unlikely outcome.

If the government wants to make a success of the new upstream focused Petrotrin one of the issues it will need to address is the impact of Supplemental Petroleum Tax (SPT) on investment in the oil sector. It will be difficult to attract the necessary capital investment unless this long outstanding issue is resolved.

The Energy Chamber continues to advocate for many of the same issues that have plagued the sector from year to year and has not seen much movement on them. In the past, we’ve written on the need for taking hard decisions and making firm commitments, and while this is mentioned in many of the budget speeches, many issues remain unresolved.

Increasing production in both the oil and gas sectors in Trinidad needs to be addressed urgently and a revised fiscal regime needs to be completed for the sector. While some changes were made last year, specifically increases to royalty payments for gas, the government has not unveiled the complete review of the fiscal policy regarding the energy sector.

One area in particular is the review of the Supplemental Petroleum Tax (SPT) system. It would seem that the Government is focused on reform of the gas sector and the oil producers have been pushed to a lower level of priority.

According to the Petroleum Economist, “Oil and gas company executives remain wary of new investment give the recent history of low prices: one executive of an independent oil company was reported as saying “no one wants to do anything that does not work at $50/b”

This is the exact figure where the structure of SPT in Trinidad & Tobago is most problematic. Oil companies in Trinidad & Tobago are in a negative cash flow situation when prices are in the low fifties, only returning to positive cash flows when prices are in the sixty-dollar region. Because companies are running scenarios on fifty-dollar oil before making investment decisions, addressing the issue of how SPT is calculated and payable, is crucial to attracting investment into the traditional oil sector.

The IMF developed recommendations for oil and gas taxation more than one year ago, including the restructuring of SPT. The only action that has been taken based on the IMF recommendations has been to increase some royalties on natural gas. It is unclear why the Government has failed to act on the IMF recommendations relating to the oil sector and there has been no dialogue with the industry on this issue. The lack of action and dialogue reduces investor confidence.

The Energy Chamber urges the government to bring to conclusion this issue affecting the sector. This will go a long way in bolstering investor confidence in the oil sector.

https://energynow.tt/blog/lack-of-progress-on-spt-reform-is-hampering-investment-in-the-oil-sector

in4cedros - I notice you have stopped mentioning your mythical 'sweet spot' for oil prices as POO is in the dreaded $50-$60 price range. SPT is often talked about as a hindrance to investment but there seems to be no appetite in government to make changes that would be favourable to companies such as CERP. I suspect that the reason for this is simply that the government needs high taxation in order to try and balance its books.

Just a reminder that SPT kicks in at $50/b and is levied on revenue not profit.

in4cedros - If you view the medias on the CERP website you'll see that Goudron wells need frequent attention to keep up production"

Indeed they do and at what cost? Take another look at the first 5 minutes of the AGM media presentation where Leo mentions that when they had 3 rigs at Goudron in an attempt to try and boost production. When they ran through the numbers it became apparent that the cost of chasing production wiped out any revenue they achieved. It's a problem that Goudron has always suffered from with the rate of decline meaning that constant well interventions are required otherwise production dries up very quickly. I liken it to a cat chasing its tail.

limopeter - "no brainer"

I'm sure in4cedros would agree with you.

I think you are doing a great job in4cedros. You have been talking this share down for as long as I can remember. It seems that prospective investors run a mile after reading your rampy nonsense. Don't you think it's odd that the Columbus website still says "Mr Koot is a Dutch national, currently residing in the UK" when his residency was changed to Portugal at Companies House on 22nd November 2018?

Don't panic they will get it right eventually.

chutes01 on advfn commented on TAQA. It make an interesting read.

"NP2, The Taqa contract was 4 ex Shell rigs at cost of £400 Mio, yes only 6 staff started but they naturally inherited the others and the production, this came with massive, yes massive, de-comm costs which they still have not touched, koot was moved on in the end. Im in with cerp, but let's see how he does, he presents well as he's a showman, but is there much substance behind it all to turn a profir here and cut a few decent oilfield deals ? do you know ? Time will tell, but rather buy at 3p than 7p eh ?"

This is how I imagine 'arry sees himself. However, unlike the right honourable gentleman, he doesn't believe that voices must be heard; quite the contrary in fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4v7wddN-Wg

in4cedros - I see that Petersalkeld has filtered you as you are the prime source of the sea of red. Have you booked your flight to Lisbon yet for a tête-à-tête with the boss?

Whether the Prime Minister’s televised appearance this past week was an address to the nation or a paid political broadcast, we can agree that Dr Rowley laid out his perspective on the state of the economy, carefully placing all the blame on whom he felt was the cause of our current position and spent some of the spare time telling us of current and intended projects.

While the PM shared his views on the contributing factors to the downturn and the steps Government has taken to arrest the challenges, any mention of an economic plan was starkly absent.

The PM addressed Petrotrin and the positives that came out of Government’s decision. However, the issue of funding the $2.9 billion payout to Petrotrin workers was never dealt with. Where did that money come from? Was it taken from recurrent expenditure or was a bond taken out? How is the bullet payment on the Petrotrin bond (US$850 million) that is due this year to be paid?

It does appear that some debt has been re-scheduled and there will be new debt to finance some of the projects. What is Government’s position about the debt to GDP ratio? Is the IMF’s guide of 60 per cent debt to GDP a limit that should not be crossed?

With the increasing unemployment that the PM has acknowledged, what are the likely effects on inequality and poverty? What are the negative welfare effects that are being addressed? Are there specific policy initiatives to address these? What is the policy position on worker training and education, or even incentives for entrepreneurship and small business development against the back drop of job losses and increased unemployment?

There are many countries, most recently Ghana, that are establishing financial stability councils and even developing legislation in order to anchor fiscal discipline and prudence in the management of the economy. These will also ensure that the fiscal balance is maintained at a sustainable level, the management of risks in a prudent manner to achieve efficiency, effectiveness and value for money in public expenditure and will also monitor the performance of the government budget with regards to compliance and targets. Should this not be something to actively pursue?

These represent just a few issues that have either not been addressed or have been intentionally excluded from the conversation. They should be included in the national dialogue going forward.

https://newsday.co.tt/2019/01/17/pms-report-raises-more-questions-than-answers/

Slow news day 'arry? I'm sure the next 3 months will fly by then you can get back to spamming the board.

If you're unsure what role Companies House plays in the great scheme of things I suggest you watch this short video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Buwhup42E

in4 - Ross " It seems you are attempting to discredit LK over the weather issue which suits you NOW as you are in hate mode but you won't be able to join LayLadyLay in future cos you will have to argue the weather doesn't impact CERP production."

To be clear in4cedros, I didn't say that the weather impacted production. I simply referred to CERP saying it did. To refresh your memory before your version overrides my actual words, this is what I said yesterday.

"I mentioned the floods at the time they happened and was greeted by a barrage of abuse. These are the same floods that are now being blamed for lower than expected production."

I have an open mind on the issue but wonder why CERP is apparently planning it's first foray into the SWP at the start of the wet season this year? Heavy rain between June and November is not uncommon and last year's weather could repeat itself.

TC64 - I mentioned the floods at the time they happened and was greeted by a barrage of abuse. These are the same floods that are now being blamed for lower than expected production. Was I scaremongering as some of you claimed or simply reporting fact; fact which has been confirmed by CERP in the Q4/2018 update.

Information is key to successful investing. The wet season in Trinidad is June to November so you should bear that in mind as it is not an unusual occurence to have heavy rain and floods, albeit not always as severe as occurred in 2018.

When is CERP planning it's first foray into the SWP? Is the wet season the optimum time to start drilling? Only time will tell but it's up to you to DYOR.

"Technical work, using external specialists, is continuing to mature the optimal drilling locations for the South West Peninsula ("SWP") exploration programme, with commencement of drilling activities still planned for mid-2019 onwards."

No further discussion is warranted in4cedros. Whether or not that scenario is likely to occur is irrelevant. It's not difficult to upscale your discussion criteria to monthly barrels in line with how the IPSC is worded. There can then be no possibility of miscalculation and everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.

in4cedros - " they are tier 3 over 151 bopd in respect of Goudron IPSC, subject to other per barrel charges and a share of not barrel related costs - all in the CPR segment you posted recently.

I seem to remember you had a problem converting monthly to daily but I didn't realise you believed that information you posted on here was tosh - you should explain yourself, if you are able!"

I am happy to do just that in4cedros. The IPSC refers to monthly barrels not daily. It was you who attempted to convert the IPSC wording from monthly to daily barrels. Your doing this is at best misleading.

As a reminder, the First tranche oil (1,221 bbl/month) is given directly to Petrotrin and LGO received $9/bbl as a handling fee. The base NORR is applicable to all production beyond the first tranche up to 4,590 bbl per month. The enhanced NORR is applicable to all production beyond the base. Therefore all oil produced above 4,590 bbl per month is what you would call tier 3 in terms of netbacks.

Now suppose that for whatever reason production at Goudron in any month was equivalent to exactly 4,590 bbl but on one day in that month 551 bbls were produced. According to your methodology there would be 400 bbls revenue at tier 3 for that day. In fact there would be no barrels at tier 3 in the entire month. I find it hard to reconcile why you chose to change the IPSC calculation from monthly to daily and perhaps you should explain why you did that and to what end?