Member Info for nmike

Pique991

FWIW. I called COPL and was surprised to get through to CEO

- As you suspect re- 2nd BH deal, said he did not see it coming...sounded genuine but folk can/will decide if BS or not.

- Urged him to make a formal statement but he said lawyers advised against, I think, as he was part of the deal.

- He urged me (and another affected shareholders), to report to FCA and Alberta Securities Commission (inquiries@asc.ca)

- I did and attached Blackstout's text from 2-3 days ago (which he thought was a good post).

(apologies Blackstout, should have asked your permission first...hope you don't mind ?)

- He said Canada takes market abuse seriously and ASC may act if UK causes market distortion there.

- Checked Mr. Google and 'wrong-uns' do jail time in Canada for securities offences....would he risk that ?

- Maybe RCMP has one more free warrant for any such 'wrong-uns'...

- For the believers, he repeated GGS and latest reservoir model give increased confidence in BFSU...

- Considers Anavio 'solid' despite reduction + at least 1 particular BH...time will tell...obviously, can't disclose BH's selling.

- Would not discuss JV and RBL..no surprise...again, for believers, the more COPL/JV look at F1, the more compelling

- Asked if RBL could to solve BH problem but was told Re-Fi being worked and other things in play influencing the decision, whatever that means.

I have a question for any securities savvy folk. Is it normal for a broker to call a client/BH to ask if client/BH wants to sell ?

All FWIW.....please don't shoot the messenger !

KeithOz,

My query re- conventional coring/RSWC is quite genuine.

Expln. teams I've worked with would have requested core during appraisal phase...incl. Amoco/Arco/BHP/BP.

Your own experience and/or knowledge of PRD may be quite different ?...PG may be satisfied with e-log data alone and place lesser value on core data hence my query. I hope you find it a valid query regardless of apparent timing ?

KeithOz / Caterham 7,

Strangely odd, as a Driller, to ask why no appraisal, conventional core(s) cut in either MOU-2, -3 or -4 ?

Is because conventional core or rotary sidewall cores would have been just as prone as SWC ?

And/or because elevated MW's (due to gas/over-pressured gas and/or borehole instability due to drilling fluid type/rheological properties), would have made poroperm results meaningless ?

Well Inj. % '21 MF Production Profile Date

34-14 22-23V 21% decline slowed (stopped ?)May '23

23-14 22-23V 21% decline stopped May '22

Coplholer,
FWIW...probabilistic and deterministic 'hocus-pocus' not my 'bailiwick' but the number(s) you seek are in the full report.
F1 probabilistic as no existing production; normally a starting OOIP (no risking) and the low-med-high cases after 'processing'. If high case ~700mmbbls then starting OOIP could be multiples of that. You could ask COPL CEO?
F2 and Dakota deterministic as produced and RS has already 'processed' these at Cole Creek.
RS used smaller acreages for prospect estimation. If RS is constrained by Handbook Rules then OOIP would be higher if COPL acreages were valid in practice. Another question perhaps ?

HeresHopin,
FWIW...one way to get $MM5.3...$MM19.7 plus 13% (yr1) + plus 13% (yr2) = $MM 25.15 (rounds to $MM25.2)...maybe ?

gold001,
Re- production...do you recall 21-35H 'blowdown' last November and the production response thereafter ?
What do you think is likely to happen to the wells being 'blown-down' presently ?....

Coplholer,
Not sure if you consider FTSE 100 'blue chip' housebuilder Barratt representative of general investing but...
1 Apr '21 794p remained above 700p until 8 Sep '21....COPL (suspended 38p)
1 Jul '22 454p....COPL 16p....respective drops 43% (or 35% @700p) v 58%
....so, not a short-run thing, BDEV profits rose (not fell), profit/unit rose and house price inflation still +10%...go figure !

Coplholer,
Cost recovery usually applies to Capex and Opex but its application is jurisdiction specific.
Internet has useful 'expert' explanations and specific examples....first article I found had a case of "50% of total production" i.e. Operator takes 50% of revenue and pays royalties/tax on remaining 50%. Regulators adjust % during boom/bust cycles to either attract investment or maximise its 'take'...as I said, I don't know what Chesapeake/Atomic/COPL terms are....

Coplholer,
In part, yes but only to ask if 'cost recovery' was in your calculation ? Yes, COPL must fund Capex but if Regulator approves, the Government royalty/tax is zero until Capex 'rebated'.
COPL may have deferred oil plant upgrade to meet your growth request ? Although expected to give a better return, it can't afford it presently....maybe the same with 9x BFU wells' delay from '21 ?...COPL CEO looking to get 'best bang for your buck'....or, however many everyone else kicks-in !

gold001 (per Coplholer earlier),
If Wyoming is like other places, are you factoring BFU related 'cost recovery' on approved Capex spend (development wells/gas plant etc) i.e. no tax/royalty payments until rebated ?...COPL still has to 'front-up' with all the funds...

Coplholer,
I do not know what the case is for Wyoming but usually Operators can 'cost recover' approved capex 100% against production revenue and generally related Government tax is not paid until that sum has been fully cost recovered...a bit like amortizing upfront...does that impact your financials ?

wwal17 & Coplholer,
WOGCC, Sundries, SWP details all NOI's...scroll down to 21-35H Nov '21 and compare text with latest NOI's...
...it is the planned ('emergency') measure for this situation and only an issue here as Governments no longer allow Operators to flare without approval as (a) wastes valuable national gas resource (b) controls 'unexpected' green-house emissions. One might expect, after latest blowdowns, those wells' production to follow a similar pattern to 21-35H...

wwal17 "There lots of tosh written on here, to be fair, everything worthwhile now has been said"....I doff my hat to you sir !
...you could well be right about my comments as 40yrs O&G experience doubtless pales into insignificance to yours and that your investing experience and insight gives you an assurance level I can only dream of....
...note to self...."don't use/share your technical experience and simply rely on "other" folk who just know better".......

Coplholer,
FWIW, this time, COPL tried the intermediate step of reducing injection compared to Nov '21 21-35H 'blowdown' for the same elevated pressure issue. The advantage would have been flaring less gas and no need to mobilise HP separator. Worth a try but did not work. So, back to 21-35H procedure.

oops...Jacob not Jackman....another well somewhere else

Stas20,
Jackman well was the one referenced by Tiburn.
I think the point Tiburn is making is more to do with horizontal.v.vertical well potential performance as it is generally independent of reservoir formation/type and location but, for sure, all actual production rates need to be put in context.
One other thing being discussed is lateral length. It is not generally a linear outcome that longer laterals yield proportionately higher rates. Longer length does indeed open more potential reservoir to flow but flow generally comes from the better quality reservoir wherever that is.

Tiburn,
FWIW, JACOB FEDERAL 1-42-73-9H may well have produced peak 1805boepd. However, it is worth noting:-
Jan 2021 first full month of production 33,738bo (1088bopd) and Jan 2022 4,956bo (160bopd). Average production for 2021 was 424bopd.
The decline rates are significant and should be expected unless secondary recovery can be implemented from the 'get-go'

Coplholer,
You seem to reference an historical sp and mcap 'pair' as the benchmark of value and use that to reason later sp-mcap pairs...
May I ask if you also calculated/estimated your own actual BFU-CC asset value and how that correlated to the sp-mcap 'pairs' you reference ?
- Do you run discounted cash flow (DCF) and then apply an additional Market discount or somesuch ?
- Do you use your own input criteria and/or accept Ryder-Scott's April 2021 input data ?...bit like someone helping with your homework and, even better as, they give you the answers too ! As a dumb Driller, I could only use RS's data....calculations may still be flawed but final answer within 1% of RS i.e. NPV10 $MM173 versus RS $MM174....'blind luck' ?
In Apr '21, COPL had ~148B shares £/$ 1.37. So, 2P reserve NPV10 $MM174 'fair' value criterion would imply sp 0.86p (86p post-consolidation).
If 'Mr. Market 'fair' value sp' was 38p, say, that would imply an additional 'Market discount factor' of ~56%....at that time....
So, what has happened to BFU-CC asset and COPL since ?...exclude discovery 100%...for now
- (Positive) Price of oil forecast revised upwards....how much NPV impact ?
- (Positive) COPL WI increased to 85%...how much impact ?
- (Negative) Extra $MM28 Capex for (unexpected) gas and oil plant upgrade during 2022/23 ?
- (Negative) Reduced '22 production from '21 forecast...how much impact ?
- (No impact) 19x BFU wells ($MM44), are already included in RS Apr '21 NPV, agreed ?
- anything else ?
Yes, DCF's are like opinions (and 'a'-holes ?), right ?...everybody has one !...but, hopefully, the 'rough' value and certainly whether positive or negative should be clear, right ?
FWIW, my RS '22 POO case, keeping all else the same, showed NPV10 $MM232. Although not the same as COPL-RS end of year '21 NPV10 $MM258 it seems encouraging as (a) ~$MM50 higher than original $MM174 (b) ~$MM30 lower than COPL-RS suggesting RS made additional changes upside changes ....
It seems more like 2x placings @20p have 'set the tone', to date, and influence Mr. Market more than asset value (as only short-long PI's given no 'real' institutional investors yet)....
Clearly, COPL must restore the planned inclining production trend to meet NPV assumptions regardless of sp-to-value 'conundrum'....

But, returning to your sp-valuation assessment....
- If you previously agreed with ~56% Market discount to RS 'Apr '21 valuation i.e. 38p 'fair' for 90p 'calculated' then applying the current RS Dec '21 value for projected share base with warrants++, say 250m shares, is ~36p i.e. £/$1.26 NPV10 $MM258 / 250MM shares less 56%)....yet you say 16-20p is 'fair'...are you saying the asset has actually diminished/lost value overall (despite POO and likely Cuda), and/or Mr. Market has rightly increased its discount factor to 76% ?...if you said 30p was 'fair' originally then today it should be 29p (all else being equal)....I might be the weakest link but what's the mis

Coplholer,
As you say, we shall see.
I'm expecting an overall OOIP for each horizon and within that a reserve/resource split. It may well 'jive' with COPL but OOIP is of limited value
I doubt RS classifies anything much beyond the known/revised production areas as reserves...the rest is resources.

Pity BFU isn't being revised/revealed....Investor Presentation shows previous westerly bounding fault to have been removed. The fault had puzzled me, even as a Driller, given tops at 41-18V. Plus, COPL's drilling plan includes wells around 14-30V with Shannon pre-drill ~5500ft. Why do this if Shannon was not in communication ? If so, BFU is somewhat bigger...interestingly Atomic had planned a well SW of 14-30V where COPL has a proposed 2022 well....maybe we have to wait to see if they actually drill it and/or Apr '23 annual reserve update ?

Copholer,
Hard to see why RS would not confirm reserves (resources only ?)....
Cole Creek has producing wells from Dakota and Frontier and which has produced for decades.
+ Valentine-1 produced >100k bbls Frontier.
+ BFU 14-30V has produced from Dakota
+ COPL schematic in Investor Relations p24 shows CC Dakota produced from outside 'closure'...if RS agrees this means larger reserves...
..."if truth offends"... if you're saying H&P has the proprietary data then possibly its view has merit but if not, 'the truth' is you and I have as much idea...does H&P have the data ?