Member Info for Madpunter

Testing the 200MA. Laks you may need some new targets soon.

Mole while I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph, it will be nice to get my position back into the blue, while waiting for the true value. Even though I do look at the charts, the fear of missing out made me ignore them, as FRR is a once in a lifetime prospect IMHO. I'm sure that their will be lots of holders here, who will enjoy the growth of FRR a lot more, when they're back in front.

LordLash - ma5k's chart which I have re-posted below shows the downtrend and the 200MA currently @ 0.43 when closed above should signal the end of the downtrend. I agree with Kalan on that inference.
http://www.ma5k.com/trading/charts/FRR_18-09-29.jpg

Spurs fans can't be too happy if their team have to go the corner flag against 10 man Cardiff. It was never a red card, yellow yes.Once Cardiff get a win, they will be alright, same as when they couldn't find the net in the first games, Psychological barriers to overcome.

Laks - Resistance at 0.39 broken and now being back tested. The 200MA @ 0.43 next target IMHO.

Puddy - 53p is only 0.549% of the valuation of 18KMMbbls of oil and 202TCF of gas and Zaza said the super majors are looking at the data and think we have more hydrocarbons (whether that refers to just Tarabani or Block 12 as a whole is unknown).

53p and my post below at 16:32 explains the reasons why and gives the calculations.

FinnFCR - I agree. You might like my previous valuation :-
18kMMbbls oil and 202TCF (at the same recoverable rates as the figures in the CPR = 2.9kMMbbls and 140TCF) . If this is converted to oil equivalent (1TCF = 170MMbbls oil) = 2.9 + 26.7 = 29.6kMMbbls. With an oil price of $75/bbl = $2002.5bn.
Typical takeover amounts for O + G companies are 1 - 3%. As the numbers are so huge, it would have to be a consortium (we have two majors interested remember) and the 1% would likely be the top limit. Therefore, with 1% = $20bn, which equates to a share price of 98p. If a JV/farmout, then I would look at 0.1% = $2bn, which equates to 9.8p. If FRR were to go into field production alone borrowing the money, then £500m market cap. is achievable + $440m recoverable expenditure is roughly $1bn. Hence, why IMHO $2bn is the figure for a JV/farmout.
IMHO a figure somewhere in the middle of the range is most likely for a buyout of Block 12. Therefore, halfway between $2bn and $20bn is $11bn, which equates to a share price of 53.5p ($11bn = £8.44bn @ current rate of $1 = £0.7675).
Remember, I have used a very conservative value of just over 0.5% of the value of the recoverable hydrocarbons. When takeovers are considered, factors that give higher valuations are low costs per barrel; infrastructure in place; market in place; proven resources and fields already in production. BP recently bought 4.6kMMbbls for $10.5bn and FRR has almost 6.5 times as much. The costs for the BP acquisition are well under $50/bbl, whereas for FRR it is under $12/bbl. There are pipelines running through Block 12, with the nearest to Tarabani only 18km away. There's a ready market in place connected to the pipelines. Production apart from the very low zone 9, is only just starting for FRR. Tthe resources are being proven by the current EWT's, plus the seismics and the proven geology of the Kura Basin and Maykop formation. Therefore, IMHO taking everything into consideration, half a percent of the recoverable value is very conservative and not utter tosh.
I am assuming the resource of 4.6kMMbbls of oil BP bought is the amount recoverable, as I haven't found a breakdown for the resource.
FRR has 6.5 times as much recoverable hydrocarbons and 4 times as much profit per barrel, which equates to 26 times as much profit. BP's acquisition is already flowing at 190kbbls/d and is a proven resource. IMHO $11bn for 26 times as much profit, than a resource for $10.5bn with the field already developed, is a good deal.

I forgot the link :-
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4d2/d236dcd461181b957acc499f9cb4722740e6.pdf

Freeatlast - See my post at 21:01 last night. There are different types of testing. The EWT is to enable FRR and the two super majors to calculate reservoir size, decline curve, flow rates and permeability, both horizontal and vertical, which will give production from the continuous flow of oil. Productivity testing requires transient pressure changes through varying choke sizes and stopping and starting the flow to check if there's an homogeneous formation or low permeability zones. I'm quite new to this type of testing, but from my reading it implies that the productivity testing will result in possibly less oil being produced during testing, which might be why we will need Niko after the descriptive testing changes to productivity testing. Perhaps someone who has worked in this field can enlighten us.

cannyscot2 - Iv'e copied the relevant part of my post from the 27th September below :-
The oil from T39 is 41.5 API, which converted to specific gravity = 0.8179. The oil up for auction is 0.810 - 0.845.
Copied from the link in bugsy-b's post :-
Georgian Light:
Density: 0.810-0.8450 gm/cm3 at 20 Co
Sulphur content: max 0.3%
Water content: max 1%
https://www.easycalculation.com/physics/classical-physics/specific-gravity-oil.php
The oil density fits. The temperature will have an effect on the density, hence the range quoted by GOGC.

ThanksTsbs, StarRage and Davethebrave54 and anyone else that recommends the post.

An interesting read for anyone who wants more in depth information on the subject :-
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4d2/d236dcd461181b957acc499f9cb4722740e6.pdf

Yes. Sounds like a good idea.

Lordlash - Apology accepted and sorry if my reply seemed heavy handed in any way. Posters have been ranting about no flow rates for an age on here and when I spend quite some time working out possible flows there's no interest.
bedex - No if your referring to the Building Society, yes if your referring to the name sometimes given to Wales.

the lower time-frame. This would also give give the 1000bbls/d by the year end stated by Zaza.
Are any of my facts wrong? Are any of my calculations wrong? If you you disagree with any of my assumptions please enlighten me to which ones so that we can discuss. Just to make make a comment about crazy valuations is a weak argument.

Lordlash - Your post as a reply to my flow rate calculation implies that the calculation is crazy.
Lets look at the facts first.
Zaza stated 3 trainloads and 4 to 6 weeks to fill a trainload. Also stated in a previous podcast 1000bbls/d by the end of the year and T39 gas increasing.
FRR twitter picture shows a trainload being inspected on 25th June.
bugsy-b's post on 25th September had the link from GOGC about the two trainloads for auction on 10th September and 1st October. Each trainload contains 5000t light crude, which is 30,000bbls using the lowest conversion factor of 6 (6 - 8 is the conversion factor based upon density). Therefore, 90,000bbls for the 3 trainloads.
T45 started testing on the 8th April and had stable flows of 270bbls/d.
Dino-2 started testing on the 18th May and had stable flows of 315bbls/d.
T39 started EWT on the 4th July and unstimulated flows of 529bbls/d ( 8/64" choke) and 250bbls/d ( 6/64" choke).
Zone 9 wells have been producing around 130bbls/d resulting in 1 trainload about every six months.
Assumptions :-
154 days of oil flow to fill the 3 trains. We know that 2 trainloads were up for auction by bugsy-b's post on the 25th September, with the first ready by the 10th September. Therefore, I have assumed that both were filled by the 10th, which gives 154 days from the T45 start (but they could have still been filling the second up to the 25th).
Zone 9 wells 130bbls/d for for 154 days = 20,020bbls.
T39 still flowing at 250bbls/d as the gas is increasing, which for 68 days from 4th July = 17,000bbls.

90,000bbls - (20,020 + 17,000)bbls = 52,980bbls is required from T45 and Dino-2.
We know that if there was no decline in the flow rates of T45 and Dino-2, then T45 flowed for 40 days and both together for the remaining 114 days. This gives 270bbls/d x 40 = 10,800bbls and (270 + 315)bbls/d x 114 = 66,690bbls. Therefore, the total from T45 and Dino-2 without decline would be (10,800 + 66,690)bbls = 77,490bbls.
The difference between the figure without decline and what is required from T45 and Dino-2 can then be used to show the percentage that the flow rates have declined for the total amounts.
(77,490 - 52,980)bbls = 24,519bbls, which is a 31.63% decline.
Applying the same percentage decline to the initial flows for T45 and Dino-2 will then give the average flow for the wells. Therefore, T45 = 185bbls/d and Dino-2 = 215bbls/d. As most decline will be early in the EWT, the graphs are usually an exponential decline shape, with the average fairly close to the final flow rates. Therefore, I have assumed T45 = 170bbls/d and Dino-2 = 215bbls/d.
T45 + Dino-2 + T39 + Zone 9's = (170 + 200 + 250 + 130)bbls/d = 750bbls/d.
At 750bbls/d it would take 40 days to fill a train, which is just under 6 weeks, the upper time-frame Zaza stated. If T39's testing is complete at 6/64" choke and the choke is opened to 8/64" = 529bbls/d and the total becomes 1029bbls/d, which would fill a train in 29 days, 1 day over 4 weeks,

Zaza stated 4 to 6 weeks to fill a trainload, Therefore I will assume three train loads by 10th September 2018 (one for auction on 10th, one for auction on the 1st October and one from June seen in the Titter photos).That gives a total of 154 days from the start of T45 on the 8th April. Assuming 30,000bbls for each train load of light oil = 90,000bbls.
I have read somewhere 130bbls/d for the zone 9 wells x 154 days = 20,020bbls.
I will assume that T39 flows at 250bbls/d as the gas was increasing (Zaza podcast) x 68 days (from 4th July) = 17,000bbls.
Therefore, 90,000bbls - (20,020 + 17,000)bbls = 52,980bbls to come from T45 and Dino-2.
If T45 and Dino-2 flow without decline = 270bbls/d + 315bbls/d = 585bbls/d x 114 days = 66,690bbls.
Then T45 flowing without decline for the remaining 40 days (Dino-2 starte testing on 18th May) = 270bbls/d x 40 days = 10,800bbls.
The total for T45 and Dino-2 without decline is 66,690bbls + 10,800bbls = 77,490bbls.
If we deduct the 52,980bbls expected = 24,510bbls, which is 31.63% less than the flow rates without decline.
Therefore, deducting 31.63% of the flow rates gives average flow rates over the 154 days of 215bbls/d for Dino-2 and 185bbls/d for T45. As most of the decline will be near the start, I am going to estimate final flows of 200bbls/d for Dino-2 and 170bbls/d, for T45.
If my assumptions are correct, then FRR would have oil revenue around mid August, 25th October and 14th November for each trainload.
30,000bbls x $75/bbl = $2.25m for each trainload.
T45 + Dino-2 + T39 + Zone 9's = (170 + 200 + 250 + 130)bbls/d = 750bbls/d.
Add Niko at the same rate for zone 19 as T39 = 1000bbls/d by the end of the year if Niko is still drilled.
At 750bbls/d it would take 40 days to fill a train, which is just under 6 weeks.
Open the choke on T39 to 8/64" = 529bbls/d and the total becomes 1029bbls/d, which would fill a train in 29 days, 1 day over 4 weeks. Zaza said 4 to 6 weeks for a trainload, so perhaps they are starting to test T39 at 8/64" flowing 529bbls/d.

No problem CF73.
At 750bbls/d it would take 40 days to fill a train, which is just under 6 weeks.
Open the choke on T39 to 8/64" = 529bbls/d and the total becomes 1029bbls/d, which would fill a train in 29 days, 1 day over 4 weeks. Zaza said 4 to 6 weeks for a trainload, so perhaps they are starting to test T39 at 8/64" flowing 529bbls/d.

5,000t light crude x 6 = 30,000bbls (conversion rates are between 6 and 8 depending upon the density, so I have used the lower estimate).
That should be 'Twitter photos'.