Member Info for NoEasy

Rk,

Personally I can see the point others have made in that Art should concentrate on one thing at a time. I remember I made the same comment a couple of years ago when Art announced they had been awarded onshore Block PT5-B in Mozambique. Looking back I couldn't really argue, I had read the prospectus and Art has made clear at every opportunity that by investing in COPL I was investing in this,

'The Company’s management has many years of exploration experience and seeks to leverage its technical expertise in various oil and gas regions around the world. The Company therefore also continues actively to seek out and appraise other exploration and development prospects in sub-Saharan Africa, including in particular offshore Nigeria.'

Despite having OPL 226 the strategy was to continue seeking out other opportunities (note the last four words re possible involvement in the marginal fields). If I was buying into COPL I was buying into that strategy unless I was in for short term.

Additionally, and I know things haven't gone, up until now at least, as we planned for OPL 226, but the idea of having something to immediately move onto is a sound one for me. When the drill with ExxonMobil was a duster the company had OPL 226 to move onto and could have quickly made up lost ground but for whatever went on.

Ps. Not a fan of Mozambique's political situation and I wouldn't be surprised if that languishes for quite some time.

The two legs of the pre-qualification are technical ability and finance. The reason some of these marginal fields have remained undeveloped from their previous farm-out in 2002-3 by the government is because they went to indigenous entities that simply did not have one, both or either of those requisites. We would certainly pass on the technical side and another joint partner would assist on the finance side. Be interesting to see if names are put against fileds and whether that would throw an insight into who could approach who to make a joint bid.

Thanks Jiving. Be good if the announcement is a public announcement rather than just one to the interested parties concerned.

From the below the application fee for each field is £4k it seems. If an applicant passes the pre-qualification first stage then a £6k bid processing fee becomes payable plus the £115k you previously mentioned for all the data etc.
https://nairametrics.com/2020/06/03/oil-gas-dpr-announces-2020-marginal-field-licensing-round/

Bit more idle reading:
https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/oil-gas-electricity/952366/analysing-the-2020-marginal-fields-bid-round

If Shorecan have decided to throw their hand in my money would be on it being with at least one other party to cover signature costs. The government have put it down as a 6 month process but you can see the leeway built in already with regards what happens if a signature payment isn't made on time. They 'may' do this or they 'may' do that. I reckon we could extend the timeline until we're producing.

Not found anything that points either way as to whether they are going make the pre-qualification results on the licences public, you find anything Jiving?

Well done Arthur. Good to see shareholders being given a timely and positive update. A week Monday it is.

Did we just lose a lot of posts?

The important one from Jiving posted on Tuesday:

'I asked IR in London whether the 35 days mentioned in the Essar Settlement Agreement of 4 June was 'calendar days' or 'working days'. The answer back is quite clear & straightforward: "Confirming that the timeline is 35 calendar days."

A similar dispute between partners was resolved involving a Nigerian OPL the extension to the licence was given 6 days later by the DPR. That too involved a change to the amount of shares a party held and that party had also instigated legal proceedings against the government which it dropped. So no love lost between that operator and the government I would guess but still got their extension in extremely quick fashion from that same government. Based upon that fact then my money is on there being no problem with the DPR providing an extension within 35 days.

Similarly I see no problem in this agreement being fully executed. The hard work was done in negotiating the terms between partners, it was a seismic shift, total annihilation of the contract reached in 2016 so no half-hearted talks. Everyone will have left that meeting with a roadmap clearly laying out what was happening with OPL 226 hence there being no time laid down for further negotiations and only 35 days for the legal stuff.

Still game on and we are still, as we are sat here, very much within our 35 day timeline.

I don't believe the criticism he has received will bother him at all, the personal insults well that could be a different matter. He should be fully focused on the fun part now if things are coming to pass. He, like us, has waited long enough for this.

We will be nowt other than fleas on a bears arse, occasionally irritating but nothing a dose of forward momentum won't cure.

We may get more detail on the established figure, it will have been agreed between partners as part of the legal work, for historical sunk costs to confirm what we would pay for the extra 10% should the drilling cough up what we expect.

Also interesting to see what terms are on the PSC, any extra payment for renewal in addition to the performance bond and who is responsible for any such payment. Details also on when the PB will be paid if it isn't at the time of the granting of the extension.

Might have more than one RNS if details around drilling timescales, rig engagement, site survey etc are known. Given the apparent speed of the move from court filing to resolution it is hard to think part of the agreement will not include responsibilities for Essar M to achieve regarding timelines.

Given the crucial dispute resolution announcement was intraday I think there will be quite a few keeping a close eye on this for the next few days.

Cleared that up nicely Jiving, thanks for doing that.

I've no doubt that there's absolutely no confusion whatsoever between the partners as to when the 35 days is up. You don't sit down at a table and have an agreement that stipulates 35 days without everyone saying what that means in terms of an end date. For me it's more likely than not that Art has chosen to use '35 days' rather than give the agreed date. Now if that is the case I don't blame him (although it could be he is simply hoping we can all count).

He has consistently ended up crying wolf even if that wasn't his intention nor his fault(?). Why would he not give out an actual date? Once bitten and all that. He did go incommunicado for nigh on a year because he was being constantly criticised for not meeting targets, his view if I remember correctly.

If things take a couple of weeks longer than the 10th he can still, for once, say he has met his timescale.

Still expect it this week though.

You are right Jiving it is 13 years since the last exploration licensing round. This round is more important though as it is for 'marginal fields' i.e. where a discovery has already been made as opposed to a general licence. Last round for these was in 2002/2003 so they don't come around often. If AM is going for another licence somewhere in the world it would be good if it is one on which oil has already been located.

It's the part of that that they spent of geology and seismic work, some $30m that most interests me Bladderman. The Essar 2012/13 3D seismic used different data to the 2001 Solgas 3D and over a different area I believe. It was re-interpreted by COPL in 2016 using up to date techniques (inversion) and given the data from other surrounding fields and the drill logs that they bought for the previous drills on OPL 226 they could match the geology to the seismic. Geology is low risk (their words not mine) to this drill and the ability to accurately identify the differentials between gas, water and oil greatly amplified. They have already worked out the Solgas Noa-1 drill wasn't optimally placed and they are going to offset against that data for the drill.

The seismic put together with the Solgas discovery drill paints a great picture here. I can see why Art is so confident and also why the 7200' and 8000' zones have a very real chance of holding substantial amounts of oil in place.

We're not alone CawCaw only one block has advanced to production since the 2000 – 2007 licensing rounds, well at least that was true as of 2019.

Interestingly the first marginal oil field licences for 18 years have just come up for grabs (57 of them). Registration of interest has just this minute closed. Given Art continues to state Shorecan are on the look out for further projects I wouldn't be surprised if they throw in for one knowing the process can be dragged out (despite the government's own timeline). May co-incide with revenue here.

'Just marching to the orders of his investors and partners. Which is weirdly a relief.'

Best quote of the year CawCaw, made me laugh which is no easy thing:-)

I agree Yacht, I don't think Art will have much say in exactly when the news comes out. If it is just paperwork and no further negotiations between parties as the line, 'finalising definitive documentation and completing the transactions', suggests then all looks good. From what I have seen elsewhere and its inclusion in the 35 day timeline I also feel that the PSC is sorted.

Good post Jiving. The only thing that negates the PSC or extension angle is the bit about , 'The funds received by the Company from the Placing will cover general working capital ..'.

In the scheme of things in a very short space of time we now have much that we didn't have with cash in the bank, dispute settled, funding for first drill so a substantial amount of derisking going on here.

My old stomping ground Bruntsfield Sparkz.

Best city in the world Oil_Beast. Dalmahoy and Morningside. You're having a rough time of it there I see:-))

Not if he/she/they forward sold their first lot MrN. Could have made 50% on that lot and then jumped back in here for a second lot. Ending up with the same number of shares but only costing them £250k instead of £500k. Makes sense to me particularly given the circumstances of the placings.