Member Info for pijoe1212

i have two peeps on filter ..heid and some other complete moron idiot

i am very disappointed not to get a mention from the fool on ukog twitter. he calls me a tree hugging swampy....perhaps i need to post more on the ukog bb..that cpr was truly poor!

mary..TC is a canny bloke..everything i know leads me to the conclusion he is playing for a win (big!). i agree the scott option looks more than promising. it may be a small co, but what other small oiler has not only a Tc but a colin P also?! i agree about LTH comments (while i have very low average, i did buy some at 120p and did not sell). meanwhile i leave these in my long term pot..(by the way there is a BB on lse which runs a "share pick of the year comp" - pmg was mine for this year..)

chessman - sorry how rude of me. thks also!

thks for feedback

mick-b. the liner was steel not concrete, and he was not the operator. as posted before i know the chairman from almost 30 years ago (he was top flight then) but i do not know jay (other than by prior rep). the point to me was the play was technically difficult but appeared to be in safe hands. a bit like rds drilling in the arctic some 3 years back...that resulted in a $3bn write-off.

the gov tender was for upto 100Mw. the co has just raised c.�4.6M which they hope will result in a gas to power capacity of 2Mw..is the disconnect not clear to see between what is posted far too often here and the reality? debt etc is talked about often..vendor finance for generators is fine..but the gas has to be provided and proven to be able to be provided. what the heck is the repeated comments about solar all about by the way?

i wish genuinely wish you well and that clearly means tlou doing well!

thks for comments..i will read the aim rules later and see what current rules are, but i think it applies only from operating to investment company change?

have you had the same thought i have - regarding the apparent lack of OGA EWT approval and the comments in the cpr about early water flood..MER applies onshore as well as offshore and the decline rates are steep..may be a red herring?

i agree with the comments about so many peeps loosing money on aim. i have lost loads also (panr has been by far my worst!), but backed a few winners also. so happy overall. but as most know i stick to one sector and try to understand each investment case in all aspects i can. different strategy to most here (?), but it works for me so far in a mainly rising macro environment...oil price..but thats why i invested in the first place!

well that was a day of mainly small ups and downs..or in my case downs! my crystal ball predicts incoming rns on msmn..can the bod and nomad get even simple things correct?!

being as i have a cynical view of life, i can only contemplate if a regular supply of pies from hur towers has reduced. funnily enough i know others who think the same

in the RNS.."Subject to results, the planned pods could provide sufficient gas for the first 2 MW of power generation from the Lesedi project. " surprised there has not been more comment about this.

mary..look at the NPV of the netback (post nexan charges)...but we dont know the volumes /charges / timing / cap ex..in fact anything tangible to model anything at this stage related to NPV valuations! what one can do is to look at the 2p (and perhaps some of the 2c?) and work on the basis asset sales deals are done at $5 (was $4 in the oil price low point) to $12 per bl 2P. i would take $5 as base, then discount this for risk (chance of happening). then compare this to the oil EV (Mcap - minus the cash + the "value" of the gas (but on about $2/ $3 / boe 2P)). i see the current "risk" the market is pricing in as only a 10 to 20% chance of GPA being monitized. clearly as a holder i think this is far to low a valuation point.

i think you may find that hur has 2p certified reserves of 37M bls but has resources far in excess of that. ....

the point was so that peeps like me can find the CPR! link went to a funny title pdf but cpr was there! two other points to note - the effective date was 1st jan 2018 (so the techy work was reported by that date i assume) and second the purpose is very clear - stated to be part of the documentation for a re-listing process on aim. does this not mean that suspension has to occur prior to prospectus issue? and given this change is in the public domain via RNS, then what triggers the suspension? genuine questions to peeps who know the answer.

just been looking at some of the CPR (will need to review further when i have more time). the portland 2p/2c is limited by the single well - each well is asssumed to be in contact with oip of 10m bls. so to get the 2C converted into 2p would take more wells. i assume (but may not be correct) this would need different well sites. what it does give is markers on page 40 to view any future rns about portland flow rates - simple to understand table of predicted decline rates (but will the rns have the clarity to review against this table?! water flood option - only 1950ft down..so interesting "planning battle" required? and its needed early in production life so can not produce for long before implemented if they want to recover the potential. 2p case is 350bls declining to 260bls year 2..so with two more wells, say 12 & 24 months later..could get to peak of 800bls per day from the portland....so at at $60/ bl netback on 100% uptime would not pay the co overhead costs (forget the cap ex to drill and get consents etc) even for the first year before it declines further. really is *hit or bust on the LTO.

welcome to this BB. your posts (on LF) have been of much interest to many of us regulars on this bb, as i am sure you are aware. i am sure all look forward to your comments as matters move forward.

this cpr confirms ukog is a binary play (as you have stated) on the kimm lto flowing. the rest of the 2p / 2c / prospective can not justify the mcap (or anything close to it). given the BB result (no flow) and the HH short term test (some flow) it will be interesting to watch. the risk here looks very one sided.