Member Info for Penguins

Brocal,

surely you've been around long enough to realise that the definition of buy and sell is not accurate.

When the SP spread dropped to 1.2 to 1.25 the real spread for most of the time was 1.232 to 1.247 plus or minus a few thousandths of a penny so sells were recorded as buys.

The reverse was true from about 10:50 this morning when the advertised spread was 1.25 to 1.3 when a lot of buys were recorded as sells with the spread really around 1.253 to 1.265 again plus or minus a few thousandths of a penny so buys were below the mid and recorded as sells..

Horndean is a developed field some 25 kilometres to the north west of the Lidsey well site, and Angus have no involvement in Horndean or PEDL 326 which surrounds the Lidsey licence, including to the west.

What this lead can be is certainly not shown on the mapping of Lidsey at Top Reservoir in the admission document where the Lidsey structure more or less covers the whole of the PL241 area (page 81 of 209). This map has no separate closure and Lidsey X2 was sidetracked with a total horizontal offset of about 800 metres (which includes the deviated section and horizontal section of the well) from the Lidsey site to the west towards the culmination shown on that map (planning document shows trajectories of the wells, WSCC/008/18/BN).

If I were selling at an agreed price I'd want the SP of the shares I get to be low as I'd get more of them and I'd hope the price would go up, or at least not drop any further.

If the Angs SP had been 8p they would have got half the number of shares.....

So DOR might be desperate for cash but the timing vs Angs SP is not an indication of that.

Hilarious,

It appears that stating facts, eg that the HH-1 ewt application had 10 HGV movements a day (and oil tanker movements if any usually 2 or less) and has apparently never delivered 2,200 barrels in a day vs the Dunsfold 5, and that not only oil tankers are used during an ewt towards the count of HGVS is negative.

But are you saying that 5 2 way movements is an overestimate?

Nobody knows how the Kimmeridge will behave at Dunsfold, the Portland however is gas and the map is 'new' and significantly different from previous maping.

If you are aware of what happened at Colter (English Channel well in 98/11 which was drilled the wrong side of the bounding fault - they are now drilling a sidetrack to reach the proposed target) maybe the proposed sidetrack is insurance in case the new map is wrong and they have to deviate elsewhere to find gas in the Portland.

Incessant ramping has meant that the expectations of 'investors' has far outstripped the reality in the RNSs and may have harmed the SP. Keeping to reasonable estimates and challenging projections based only on very positive outcomes is what I call reality, not negativety

Anyway flight to catch, speak soon.........

Wizard,

To a put a little brake on your enthusiasm the HH-1 ewt planning application had up to 10 2 way HGV movements per day stated in the Final Transport Statement, and when have we actually seen more than 2 or maybe 3 tankers in a day, even after a weekend.

Tankers aren't the only HGVs required during an ewt.

Sting,

I think your PMSL at the end of the post I originally commented on rather negates your reply, however.........

You have no idea how badly UKOG performed during their BB test, although the installation of the 'production completion' followed by its removed and the necessity for a sidetrack we do know about, nor fully what has really been going on at HH - eg the sudden change from testing the KL4 to testing the KL3 and mysterious workovers not commented on.

In case no one can be bothered to look back at my post you are supposedly commenting on here it is:

Sting,

I suppose UKOG covered itself in glory ramping BB and then producing............well nothing of any significance.

With 2 horizontal wells to drill and complete to prove the Portland, and more importantly the Kimmeridge play works (at least at HH) I'd not laugh at anybody else's problems.

Sting,

I suppose UKOG covered itself in glory ramping BB and then producing............well nothing of any significance.

With 2 horizontal wells to drill and complete to prove the Portland, and more importantly the Kimmeridge play works (at least at HH) I'd not laugh at anybody else's problems.

Rodders,

Exactly, wait for the CPR, I think I mention it twice.

Wizard,

I'm not on the thread of your post - although you are quoting figures that I would dispute.

So I'm not posting about the price oil gets when it is produced but the valuation put on the reserves.

The 10mmbbls recoverable from the Portland was from an interview and was based on 3 producers and 2 injectors. Until the Portland CPR is released the difference that having only 2 producers and 1 injector will make to estimates of recoverable oil isn't known but it would be expected to be less.

Recoverable per Kimmeridge well has consistently been quoted as 1mmbbls but this needs to be confirmed by CPR also.

If these indicative figures are scaled to the current plan this gives a gross recoverable oil of about 10mmbbls so with a net indirect licence interest of about 50% to UKOG that's currently of about 5 mmbbls.

This gives a NPV(?) of about £90m using a high end NPV(?) SS gave of £18 per barrel.

Even if these recoverable volumes are confirmed no company would pay that for HH as the cost would be now and the value only realised over 20 years.

Additional sites targeting the Kimmeridge,when drilled and proven, may add to this but the other attempts so far have all had issues that may (or may not) be resolved and so far only HH has flowed meaningful amounts of oil.

As far as drilling HH-1z and HH-2 is concerned whether you understand it or not these wells are agreed work programme for the extension of the licence (in the JOA - obligation work) and if Tellurian fail to pay their way they are in default and will not have the luxury of paying the 11 times penalty, other provisions apply.

As this would result in being removed from the licence it's unlikely (though not impossible) they will allow this to happen as they would not be able to sell their interest etc as it would be taken off them.

Rodders,

You need to understand the difference between sole risking and an agreed 'carry'.

The Tellurian/Magellan costs of the ewt etc are being paid for by HHDL as it was agreed in the Farm in as 'payment' for 65% of the licence.

Neither you nor I know if in the Farm in agreement Tellurian/Magellan get their share of the oil or not.

It isn't the Farm in agreement which has the sole risking peaty it's the JOA (Joint Operating Agreement).

Rodders,

ha ha, that was a (n excellant) TV show - ie also not real.

Maybe one day Rodders it will be real (and a holographic tool will be in existence), and we will all be rich - you more than most if the SP recovers..........

Rodders,

that 'holographic' tech (I'm assuming you are referring to the paper referenced by JTTALV) is still in the research stage (note the web address starts 'researchgate' - there isn't a 'tool' you could put down a well to record a 'holographic survey'.

So you think they are conducting a holographic survey (I note it's to do with recording multiphase flow so given 2 in your list maybe they are!)

Of course holography can be used for any 3 dimensional imaging of appropriate data.

Zoom,

you are funny,

Hologram images........

Are you confusing 'Holistic' in the Apex blurb with 'Holography'.

Oh Rodders.

so sweet you spend so much time replying to a post you haven't properly read.

I said:- 'to advise/work on etc. a new completion for HH-'1, which is fair comment as that's what they do, and I used the word 'might' which doesn't rule out that they 'might' be there for drilling.

If you read my post you will find I include 3, 4, and 5 anyway in that if they choose to drill HH-1z first they would have to take the pump off ('and if (as seems to happen) they drill HH-1z first then the pump would be removed for the drilling.'), and 3 & 4 would require 'new completions'.

But I didn't go into a list of reasons for taking the pump off (ie didn't mention 1& 2) - as I was questioning zoom's belief it was for overall [sic].

.....................and yet again you are making up opinions for me.

Zoom,

I sometimes wonder at your posts.

Holographic Survey? No such thing. The logs samples etc that Apex will need should have already been run.

By definition the horizontal wells will be distant from where the HH-1 well is so any extra logs (and those already acquired) will only detail the immediate surroundings of the HH-1 well anyway

As for avoiding water it's already there (see the Nutech April 2015 report, Saturation Water (SW) about 50%) - maybe the matrix at HH is tighter than at Brockham or perhaps more likely Brockham has gone through an open fault which is below seismiic resolution that is acting as a conduit for water - on an image log it might just look like an open fracture.

Why does taking the pump off (and overhauling it? - who said that anyway, UKOG, HHDL?) have anything to do with a rig arriving.

If they drill HH-2 first, as previously RNS'd, they should have (and would need) complete access to HH-1 for many reasons if they continue to produce oil, and if (as seems to happen) they drill HH-1z first then the pump would be removed for the drilling.

Also Moorhouse Drilling & Completions might be there to advise/work on etc. a new completion for HH-1 (it says it on the tin) - they don't only manage drilling.

Rodders

you really do have a problem - where have I even suggested that I don't want these and any other wells drilled, nor a timetable for them except those suggested by UKOG/HHDL/SS - indeed if you read one of my posts DHC was delighted that I copied the bit about the wells being drilled sooner rather than later.

I still stand by my opinion that announcing hiring Apex one day and then apparently (according to you) preparing to drill a horizontal into either reservoir in my opinion seems odd.

You (and many others) are living the fantasy that anyone who has a contrary view is a environmental campaigner or shorter, and then you make up an opinion for them.

Rodders,

You should read my post

I was commenting that having just contracted Apex who are experts at helping with horizontal well location etc. (holistic understanding of the reservoir units....blah, blah blah, yawn) it seems a bit premature to be drilling a horizontal well now.

I think your 'investment' here has affected your judgement regarding what comprises fair comment.

Rodders,

But UKOG has in an RNS stated which horizontal would be first.

RNS 18/10/2018:

'The first future horizontal production well, HH-2, for which planning and Environment Agency consents are in place, is planned to be drilled in early 2019.'

Though they don't specify the order in the Gantt Chart (apologies I thought they did) they do state in the asterixed remark below it : HH-2 & HH-1z drilling may be accelerated to Q1 2019 dependent on rig availability, and they do generally quote the wells in that order.

...........which also suggests HH-2 will be first.

We shall see, 50/50 phone a friend - though I know which order I would place my bet on.