Member Info for Madpunter

Oil Price forecast 2025 and 2050
By 2025, the average price of a barrel of Brent crude oil will rise to $85.70/b (in 2017 dollars, which removes the effect of inflation). By 2030, world demand will drive oil prices to $92.82/b. By 2040, prices will be $106.08/b (again in 2017 dollars). By then, the cheap sources of oil will have been exhausted, making it more expensive to extract oil. By 2050, oil prices will be $113.56/b, according to Table 12 of the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook's Reference Tables. The EIA has lowered its price estimates from 2017, reflecting the stability of the shale oil market.
https://www.thebalance.com/oil-price-forecast-3306219
While a lot can happen to alter the price of oil, hence the recent volatility in the market, diminishing cheaper oil reserves bodes well for FRR's cheap sweet crude.

FRR's sweet crude of 41.5 API would be to the right of Brent and WTI on the chart in the link below. In fact only the Algerian Sahara Blend and the Malaysia Tapis are of higher quality looking at the chart. Top quality oil that can be extracted for less than $12/bbl, no wonder the super majors are interested.
https://www.energyandcapital.com/resources/brent-vs-wti-crude-oil-what-is-the-difference/17

The interesting point in the link below is the Comparative Cost of Production Table, where only Saudi Arabia produces some of it's oil cheaper @ $10/bbl - $25/bbl, than the less than $12/bbl costs for FRR.
Comparative cost of production
In this table, which is based on the Scotiabank Equity Research and Scotiabank Economics report that was published 28 November 2014,[2] economist Mohr compares the cost of cumulative crude oil production in the fall of 2014.

Plays Cost of production fall 2014
Saudi Arabia US$10–25 per barrel
Montney Oil Alberta and British Columbia US$46
Saskatchewan Bakken US$47
Eagle Ford, USA Shale+ $40–6 US$50 (+ Liquids-rich Eagle Ford plays, assuming natural gas prices of US$3.80 per mmbtu)
Lloyd & Seal Conventional Heavy, AB US$50
Conventional Light, Alberta and Saskatchewan US$58.50
Nebraska USA Shale US$58.50
SAGD Bitumen Alberta US$65
North Dakota Bakken, Shale US$54–79
Permian Basin, TX Shale US$59–82
Oil sands legacy projects US$53
Oil sands mining and infrastructure new projects US$90
This analysis "excludes "'up-front' costs (initial land acquisition, seismic and infrastructure costs): treats 'up-front' costs as 'sunk'. Rough estimate of 'up-front' costs = US$5–10 per barrel, though wide regional differences exist. Includes royalties, which are more advantageous in Alberta and Saskatchewan." The Weighted average of US$60-61 includes existing Integrated Oil Sands at C$53 per barrel."[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canadian_Select

Western Canada Select Crude API 19 - 22 and 2.8 - 3.5% Sulphur. It's more like tar, hence it's 'commonly referred to as bitumen' quote in the link below. The interesting point in the link is the Comparative Cost of Production Table, where only Saudi Arabia produces some of it's oil cheaper @ $10/bbl - $25/bbl, than the less than $12/bbl costs for FRR.
Comparative cost of production
In this table, which is based on the Scotiabank Equity Research and Scotiabank Economics report that was published 28 November 2014,[2] economist Mohr compares the cost of cumulative crude oil production in the fall of 2014.

Plays Cost of production fall 2014
Saudi Arabia US$10–25 per barrel
Montney Oil Alberta and British Columbia US$46
Saskatchewan Bakken US$47
Eagle Ford, USA Shale+ $40–6 US$50 (+ Liquids-rich Eagle Ford plays, assuming natural gas prices of US$3.80 per mmbtu)
Lloyd & Seal Conventional Heavy, AB US$50
Conventional Light, Alberta and Saskatchewan US$58.50
Nebraska USA Shale US$58.50
SAGD Bitumen Alberta US$65
North Dakota Bakken, Shale US$54–79
Permian Basin, TX Shale US$59–82
Oil sands legacy projects US$53
Oil sands mining and infrastructure new projects US$90
This analysis "excludes "'up-front' costs (initial land acquisition, seismic and infrastructure costs): treats 'up-front' costs as 'sunk'. Rough estimate of 'up-front' costs = US$5–10 per barrel, though wide regional differences exist. Includes royalties, which are more advantageous in Alberta and Saskatchewan." The Weighted average of US$60-61 includes existing Integrated Oil Sands at C$53 per barrel."[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canadian_Select

canny it's easy to see why the CEO's goals are aligned when looking down these lists.
Zaza Mamulaishvilli Shareholding
Trade Date Action Notifier Price Currency Amount Holding
08-May-18 Buy Zaza Mamulaishvilli 0.48 GBX 10,000,000 1,040,259,226
08-May-18 Buy Zaza Mamulaishvilli 0.49 GBX 16,000,000 1,040,259,226
04-Oct-1 Buy Zaza Mamulaishvili 0.58 GBX 172,413,793 1,014,259,226
25-Aug-17 Placing Zaza Mamulaishvili 0.1 GBX 216,203,088 841,845,433
27-Jul-15 Buy Zaza Mamulaishvili 0.8 GBX 11,079,417 82,532,443
18-Jun-15 Notification of Holding Zaza Mamulaishvili 0 0 71,453,026

Steve C. Nicandros Shareholding
Trade Date Action Notifier Price Currency Amount Holding
25-Aug-17 Placing Steve C Nicandros 0.1 GBX 40,207,168 1710901096
27-Jul-15 Buy Steve C Nicandros 0.8 GBX 11,079,417 200564530
12-Nov-12 Buy Steve C Nicandros 0.5 GBX 6,252,857 189485113
12-Nov-12 Buy Steve C Nicandros 0.49 GBX 2,250,000 189485113
09-Nov-12 Buy Steve C Nicandros 0.49 GBX 4,250,000 189485113
14-Feb-12 Buy Steve C Nicandros 1.07 GBX 1,230,000 159493473
29-Nov-11 Buy Steve C Nicandros 1.11 GBX 235,000 158263473
29-Nov-11 Buy Steve C Nicandros 1.01 GBX 915,000 158263473
04-Nov-11 Buy Steve C Nicandros 1.4 GBX 446,000 0
02-Oct-09 Transfer Steve C Nicandros 0 1,068,750 0
18-Sep-09 Placing Steve C Nicandros 10.3 GBX 3,565,675 0
19-Dec-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 25 GBX 100,000 0
03-Sep-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 66 GBX 15,000 0
02-Sep-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 68 GBX 10,000 0
11-Jul-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 94.5 GBX 60,000 0
09-Jul-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 93 GBX 40,000 0
23-Oct-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 1.98 CAD 10,000 0
15-Oct-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 78 GBX 10,000 0
28-Sep-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 75 GBX 25,000 0
28-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 82 GBX 25,000 0
20-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 83 GBX 25,000 0
18-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 81 GBX 40,000 0
15-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 78.5 GBX 10,000 0
12-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 78.9 GBX 50,000 0
06-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 81 GBX 25,000 0
05-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 81 GBX 25,000 0
06-Oct-06 Buy Steve Nicandros 60 GBX 25,000 0
25-Sep-06 Buy Steve Nicandros 77 GBX 50,000 0
21-Sep-06 Buy Steve Nicandros 50 GBX 100,000 0
03-May-06 Buy Steve Nicandros 124 GBX 50,000 0
10-Jan-06 options Steve Nicandros 0.03 USD 1,859,585 0
10-Jan-06 options Steve Nicandros 1 USD 50,000 0

ma5k - On the daily the 200MA @ 0.4194p, is converging with the 50MA @ 0.3895p and the 50MA is looking to overtake the 200MA within two weeks IMHO . The Share price has been above the 200MA since the 30th October and there's an engulfing bullish reversal on the 8th November.

Zib - Especially when the punter's a bit mad.

FRR's sweet crude of 41.5 API would be to the right of Brent and WTI on the chart in the link below. In fact only the Algerian Sahara Blend and the Malaysia Tapis are of higher quality looking at the chart. Top quality oil that can be extracted for less than $12/bbl, no wonder the super majors are interested.
https://www.energyandcapital.com/resources/brent-vs-wti-crude-oil-what-is-the-difference/17

Mole I missed the PSA tweet, therefore your probably right regarding the eastern section. But I'm still convinced it is FRR's oil sold in the GOGC auctions.

Mole there's no indication, only speculation about the Basin Edge etc. Regarding the current oil sales, as no flow rates have been released, then maybe GOGC weren't privy to all the information under the NDA. There's also the different costs for the oil and gas and whether they are recovered separately. Not all costs have been signed off by GOGC. There are three areas where GOGC and FRR could have been in disagreement. Furthermore, the lack of another trainload for auction fits the theory regarding increased production due to productivity testing.

1onic if the previous selling arrangement was still in place, then my theory is wrong and a reconfirmation of that deal would not be giving out any new information. The sub judice would not be relevant or the NDA, as the amounts sold under the previous agreements were not available. The interim and annual results were the only indication of oil sales, other than a very dated 220bopd from 31st January 2012 RNS.

I also emailed GOGC to ask if they are auctioning FRR's oil and posted the following to a Yellow Jersey subject heading:-
Does FRR sell it's oil via the GOGC auctions?
No reply from either. If FRR was selling it's oil the same way outlined in a previous RNS, with Trafigura via train to Batumi, then why not answer with a reference to that RNS?

Thanks 1onic, Zib and Kenco. 1onic they have no reason to come knocking, as all my theories use information in the public domain by trial and elimination, as more information becomes available. For example, my theory on the cancelled trades changed as new information became available, from a share swop with ExxonMobil, to a baited trap for YA and finishing with a trap for Hope/Outrider by way of entrapping YA.

IMHO the oil recently auctioned by the GOGC is from FRR. Zaza stated 3 trainloads of oil and there have been 3 trainloads auctioned. Just because they are listed for auction on the GOGC website doesn't mean that Trafigura isn't still conducting the sale and transportation. Alternatively, the reason for a change to GOGC auctioning FRR's oil maybe due to the arbitration about the cost recovery pool. Assuming I'm right about the increased production, GOGC might have been disputing the figures. Then as a way of appeasing them, FRR agreed to the oil auctions by GOGC. FRR would be unable to RNS this information due to the NDA, but it would explain Zaza's comment about 'a sledge hammer to crack a nut'.
List of recent auctions with the amount of light crude.
11th April 2017 for 4,500t
20th September 2017 for 4,500t
13th March 2018 for 4,500t
10th September 2018 for 5,000t
1st October 2018 for 5,000t listed on 20th September
22nd October 2018 for 9,000t listed on 13th October
http://www.gogc.ge/uploads/other/1/1185.pdf
http://www.gogc.ge/uploads/other/1/1226.pdf
http://www.gogc.ge/uploads/other/1/1260.pdf
http://www.gogc.ge/uploads/other/1/1370.pdf
http://www.gogc.ge/uploads/other/1/1379.pdf
http://www.gogc.ge/uploads/other/1/1382.pdf
Assuming that the auctions are advertised around 10 days prior to auction (using the dates the last two auctions were listed), then if the next train is filled at the same rate, there should have been one advertised 21 days after the 13th October = 3rd November. No new auction has been listed yet, despite almost a month since the last listing. Prior to these three trainloads the auctions were roughly 6 months apart and FRR was selling twice each year (once in each of the half year accounts). Why would production increase from 5,000t to 9,000t? The change to productivity testing could explain the increase, where the choke could be opened allowing unrestricted flow, followed by fully closing the well. This creates a pulse allowing data measurements to be collected from the reservoir.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4d2/d236dcd461181b957acc499f9cb4722740e6.pdf
9,000t oil = 69,390kbbls for oil of 41.5 API (7.71bbls/t)
https://www.platts.com/IM.Platts.Content/MethodologyReferences/ConversionTables/Images/CCSS1015_Energy_Industry_Conversions_LRG.pdf
If the well bore for T39 is opened up then 8 x 529bopd = 4232bopd (as 529bopd was for a choke of 8/64", although the equation is not linear as there are other variables). At a rate of over 4,000bopd + T45, Dino and the Zone 9's, even with fully closing T39 to create pulses, then there's ample time to fill the trainload.

Apologies bugsy-b had already posted the article.

Posted by EyesonHawk2 on ii :-
https://www.ii.co.uk/discussion/t/iranian-sanctions-georgia/1145559

Also FRR has very good quality sweet crude, with recovery costs of under $12/bbl. See last but one post in the link below :-
http://www.lse.co.uk/view-general-chat-thread.asp?forum=commodities-and-mining&thread=41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322&page=2

Dulwichman - IMHO my post from the 4th November (copied below), highlights why we are likely to see a deal sooner rather than later.
If ExxonMobil were to purchase Block 12 before the end of the tax year, a year with a windfall from the rising POO, then surely the following applies.
The new tax law also permits used property to be eligible for the full expensing provision. This change may impact merger and acquisition transactions by motivating buyers to structure deals as actual or deemed asset acquisitions rather than stock acquisitions. This is accomplished by enabling the buyer to immediately deduct a significant portion of the purchase price and generate NOLs in the year of purchase to offset future taxable income.
https://www.mossadams.com/articles/2018/february/tax-law-implications-for-oil-and-gas-companies
Furthermore, any expenditure on Tangible Property can only be fully deducted until the start of 2023, after which it declines by 20% per annum. IMHO the clock is ticking.

Laks is celebrating Diwalhi.
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Diwalhi

ToT's post from September 7th is copied below. There was also an earlier post (which I can't find) about fears of a placement, and how the Niko funding was being used to demonstrate that alternative funding is now available.
Enjoying this thread with some great contributions leading to ‘group think’, but could I just throw one more thought into the mix? According to this article:https://postanalyst.com/2018/08/08/hedge-funds-now-own-54-of-exxon-mobil-corporation-xom/ 11 three major hedge funds now own a very significant percentage of Exxon’s stock. This will give them ready access to one to one discussions with management.

It therefore occurs to me that one of these funds might be front running the show for Exxon. Doing it that way means that they won’t have to make any filings to the SEC, with the hedge fund just getting a fee for services rendered and a back to back deal to ensure that it’s stake gets transferred to Exxon when key milestones have been met. If so we shouldn’t have to wait long for a revised agreement to be announced.

All in my very humble opinion of course.

Tot

Mole - There was a good post by one of the respected posters on ii, which at the time of the Niko Hedge Fund announcement made a lot of sense (I think it was ToT). There was a lot of speculation at the time about a placement (probably started by TW et al) and with major Hedge Funds virtually controlling ExxonMobil, they could have been asked to finance Niko. If this was the case, then the Hedge Fund involvement, assuming ExxonMobil is close to negotiating a deal with FRR, may now be irrelevant.