Member Info for pijoe1212

The lancs CPR presents NPV's for the EPS based on various forward oil prices and discount factors. i would suggest we look to be currently on the "high" oil price case. NPV10 is declared at $736M (and i would suggest most II's would look at the NPV10). given the number of shares plus conv bond shares, the current effective mcap is $1647M. so the market is either pricing in higher oil prices during the EPS time frame (which seams unlikely when you look at other producing oilers, many of whom have EV's below the NPV10 of thier oil) or is pricing in part of the upside value of 2C all ready. while i accept IFD's could be considered by hur, the stated business objective is a sale is one form or the other. in other words the numbers clearly show there is a bid premium in the current mcap....

wellwell - "Gosh I do sound like PIjoe don't I? Who'd have thought given the stick I gave him back in the day when he was being what I perceived as negative." that made me chuckle!

once again a wonderful post from you. perhaps you should post on the ukog bb you look very well qualified.

in response to your post of 23:47.

interesting recollection you have of the sipp run private BB to which you sent me a link to join!

i would be (slightly) interested to know what line i have crossed.

in response to your post 00:52

i have been posting on the UKOG BB since prior to the Gatwick Gusher RNS in early 2015. having worked on oil extraction in oil extraction in the weald since the mid '80's i have a level of interest.

in response to your post 23:31

wellwell made a series of posts yesterday evening making a number of valid points (comparison to ukog BB only positive comments allowed / risk of water break through etc). you then called wellwell a fraud.

i posted at in response to your comment. i remain of the view that wellwell made valid points.

in response your your post of 00:25:

you claim i have been privy to a private matter in confidence and i have betrayed that confidence. i am not aware i have been made privy to any private matter in confidence or otherwise. or are you referring to me concluding your private forum is a hotbed of confirmation bias?

Difference between hh and bb- why the Kimm flowed at hh but not at bb.

1. Hh kimm has local fracturing of the kimm significantly greater than bb ( natural frack job over and above regional fracturing.

2. Localised pressure support at hh present due to hh specific trapping mechanism

We know it is not anything to do with cementing ( cpr and admission doc makes this clear even if the rns’s at the time says overwise). We also know the drilling fluids have little impact ( as above)

Any other ideas? If not then that does not look good for wider Weald kimm- Without fracking.

Interesting..what else can provide pressure support?

I had not picked up on the bb side track being closer to fault.

So the absence of cores at hh precludes direct comparison to bb..

The issue everyone should be asking themselves is why Kimm at hh flowed but did not at bb.

I subscribe to the view the difference lies in the faulting which is at hh but not at bb. I subscribe to the theorem the faulting resulted in far more Kimm fracturing at hh and that is why it flowed and bb did not. If this is the case then the chance of Kimm being commercial at hh remains unknown at this stage, but would massively impact the wider commerciality of the Kimm in the Weald. There are other faults of course in the Weald but the play would be much more limited and difficult to judge prior to a drill at each fault location. Of course if the theory is correct then the flow tests will establish connected effective volume... ( a simple summary is the faulting movement has acted like a natural localised frack job!)

Would be interested to read any other rational possibilities.

thks for your comment. i equally enjoy rational debate. agreement does not need to be reached - we can each maintain our respective positions but airing different views is what this BB should be about.

ricfle has a way of putting things that is very direct. i have found this to be the case for some years. but make no mistake i have found him to be wrong only very very infrequently. he asks valid questions on here but very few reasoned responses result.

Of course many large power gen turbines run off regasified lng. They are running on gas not lng! The lng has to be regasified. I am not aware that lng tankers have regasiffication units on board. Anyway enough from me on that subject.

Thing is, you think the Kerosene line from Fawley can be used by Ukog. If you read 5l and the rest you would realise it can not be and that would improve your understanding of the companies prospects and future that you are putting your ( i am sure) hard earned cash into.

Malkster..pipe down you say? We are talking about pipes ...why not google api5l / api20e/ api521 and join in? Then you could pipe up and down?

Slightly more o/t(!!)..last time I worked on an sipm scheme there was a conflict between vesssl spec ( flat faced flanges) and pipeline spec (rf flanges) - I heard it remained many years later. You come across this?

Ok ... got it now- not one I have been involved with, but I get why the QA/ qc would be ott. On 521- I lead the team looking into zeron100 ( and other duplex steel) fatigue . Major problem with a Woodside scheme in early 90’s. managed to identify and prevent a catastrophic failure on t block ( compressor recycle fatigue resulting from single stage commissioning orifce plate in place of multi stage valve- choked flow).....soo very close to piper 2...

What’s 20? 521 was one I had a hand in 😀😀25 years ago..

I have been told the line is not api5l compliant - it pre dates...minor detail!

So the few tweaks as you call it - big cork in the airport end and loads of road tankers to gtw / lhr (I heard a rumour lhr was getting more planes?). At the other end (Fawley) I think the pipe is at the end of the process trains..can the cracker run reverse or should the tweaks include a full refinery rr-pipe? Do you think Lloyd’s will be ok with non-crude rated pipe work by the way?

Evening...all calm here in the south...hope the new golf sticks work...!!

How much oil per day can a pipeline transport? Say a small one like 6”? The Portland is expected (cpr) st some 300bls per well prior to decline in second year and 3 wells max.

How much would the Kimm need to produce to justify the massive cap ex of a new pipeline to a refinery? How long would planning take? Would the Portland still be producing (assuming all is as per the cpr?) by the time the consent was in place and your pipeline constructed? I think it would not be.

So your pipeline is for the Kimm production- um bb gives real confidence on thst flow does it not? Cough cough..

Hi cindy....I also posted on Ctag stating the view it was a ****e investment. I think I have been proven correct.