The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Bit of fun, spotted this and though of PRD’s engagement with a UAE entity. In this case it’s Kazakhstan state owned gas entity courting UAE players for investment in development of gas assets. Just demonstrates the climate we’re in where the pool of possible candidate for JV/buyout is as deep as ever.
“According to statements from the company, Qazaqgaz has signed memoranda of cooperation with two United Arab Emirates-based companies, Petromal and Dragon Oil, seeking their participation in Qazaqgaz-led exploration and development of new gas assets in Kazakhstan.
The memorandum with Petromal also calls for the companies to consider jointly building a gas processing plant in the country.
Petromal is an oil and gas production arm of UAE’s privately owned National Holding that also operates ventures in real estate, industrial products, food and agricultural products, and trading and retail.”
JHenry, are you seriously saying that once all information is presented in an upside success case for MOU-2 that you expect the share price to be 15-16p?
I think both your figures are conservative. If the well fails to produce gas then we’re at 2p. If it finds gas and flows as per expectation I don’t see 15p.
I do think there could be a moment where a very matter of fact total depth RNS could be mistaken by the market as bad news. Think Keithoz previously aired a very similar view that all data will be presented in one go after analysis and testing. I don’t hold out hope of the LWD being shared with the TD RNS.
Any of the satellite watchers know how far the wellpad is from the highway? Can the drill site be seen from the road? I can currently buy a flight £60 return from Stansted to Fez. 2 hours drive up to Guercif. Anyone fancy a flare watch minibreak? Minimum contribution is a good pair of binoculars.
I’m not one of the ‘big 3’ geo experts, but I do think it is necessary to highlight the difference between two points in the CPR that may have created some confusion on COS.
Early in the document there is a chance of commercial success given as 25%. This links to Gas to Power development and CPR concedes chances for CNG are much less risky.
Then on page 23 we are presented with a solely geological assessment of risk for MOU4 (MOU2). This is where we get the 27% figure. I am pretty certain that elements of this assessment have been de risked by the further well analysis that post dates the CPR (permeability and porosity etc).
The key question for the Geo guys to address is to dismantle that geo assessment with what is now known. Nigel is not wrong that it is there in the doc, even if outdated.
Adon you’ve touched on something I’ve thought about when others have talked about flare, would appreciate the input of posters who are knowledgeable on drilling.
My layman’s understanding was that the drilling mud/fluid is used to counteract formation pressure and keep hydrocarbons ‘in place’ . I would have thought that if you had volumes of gas to flare WHILST drilling then something had gone badly wrong. Can anyone shed any light on that?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9oEJnrvXeBM
May be of interest to some, interview with Hoegh LNG CEO ref Europe’s LNG scenario. For those not aware they are our partner on Mag Mell for provision of the FSRU units.
Now there’s an idea Sheephatch!
Joking aside thanks also to those across LSE and Twitter taking the time to share their insights. As per GRH note ref CV of Caterham, standing back and understanding even a small portion of the knowledge and skills invested here, it can not fail to make one think.
Hbob, even in a moderate success case, I’d be able to change pace of life and go back to my passion of joinery and furniture making. I’m wondering if my first commission could be 2 x teak sedan chairs?
Hi Caterham, not disputing anything you’re saying. Presume it is correct to state that logs + wireline don’t give you sufficient data on flow rates etc to declare commerciality? So if you want to present one package with all data then the last activity would be the rigless test programme? If I was sitting in PG’s shoes here and now I would want to make my first release of any technical information totally unambiguous.
Hi Keith, HMatt, thinking about this further along with the history of PRD drilling RNS, the release of NO preliminary information apart from TD reached can only be a deliberate strategy, and from my side a positive one. The reason I view it positively is that if I were PG I would be politely asking ‘partner’ for consistency in the messaging on successful find. I refer to the Chariot RNS where OHNYM gave its unequivocal backing on the validity and importance of the discovery. Knowing what we know about Morocco and some previous embarrassment about announcing discoveries, OHNYM aren’t going to pin their colours to the mast on initial results.
To me this indicates expectation of a success case, and one ‘motherload’ RNS with OHNYM backing. Also allows manoeuvrability if privately the results are known to exceed expectation - eg announcement that field would be immediately developed as tieback to international export.
Hello Keith, you’ve mentioned a couple of times that you expect the next comms to include some initial results. How do you come to that conclusion? For me the RNS is unequivocal in stating that next update will be total depth, BEFORE any wireline logging.
If what we hope (and some seem to know) is there, then eventually the habit of unclear/vague RNS statements won’t matter. I do completely understand the grievances of some in the meantime though with the constant chopping and changing.
Good day Nigel. Whilst sometimes your style leaves me with a little indigestion, I’ve kept you on board as a literate contrarian viewpoint (as opposed to using the filter on some other shipmates who seem incapable of typing here in a way that gives me any confidence they’re not either plain simple or on opioids). Nonetheless I find it a bizarre message and time for your assertion. Can you elaborate? X
Could be of interest to some https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/africa/ep-africa/466789/newmed-morocco-western-sahara/
Absolutely. I have three areas I look for in maintaining my physical view of BB contributions:
1) Does poster contribute genuine research or substantial insight into the investment?
2) Does poster make me smile occasionally even if rest should be considered pinch of salt?
3) Does poster offer contrarian view, however well or ill educated? (Both are useful)
On this basis I currently have S82 and Ford on filter. Nothing personal except severely lacking in those objective criteria. Lots of green boxes in recent days, although I am totally unsure why anyone would pursue Fordy as anything other than real, unless they are suggesting that person has borrowed a complete identity unbeknown to the real owner.
Jimmy,
It’s just stylistics/wording, I believe you’ve misinterpreted GRH intent.
“ Yes
I could be wrong this time
15% chance I reckon”
15% chance of being wrong. Ties in with his ‘then’ opinion that there was 85% cos covering geo/tech/commercial risks
Lovely stuff Jimmy, thanks very much.
You’re a prize pudding Seffy, what a needlessly inflammatory and pointless contribution this morning… there’s plenty of experts on here alright, your skill seems to be maintaining a startlingly consistent blend of sycophancy and pomposity anytime your fingers touch a keyboard - not sure I could replicate if I tried. Impressive stuff.