Member Info for pijoe1212

the point i was making earlier is the dual closure process. the IA is expected soon (RNS to be issued i am sure)..but even then the transaction is not closed ..only agreed to be closed by all direct parties ...which is then subject to further conditions one of which is minister consent..too many risks for me at the current time (but risk assessment is a personnel judgement process)

a detail..but an important one in nigeria..it was consent to proceed with an application..not an application..i do not know if the application has been made at this point in time, but the clause 9.3 clearly states after IA sign-off. i am sure however the IA will have been changed in various ways given the complexity of the deal so i would not draw any firm conclusions at this point in time (unless it has been confirmed in rns's since).

clause 7.4 in fact proves my earlier comment to be wrong (tech close in parallel with minister approval). it has always been sequential.

your post 10:15 is good and nice to read measured comment - agreeing to disagree on the level of risk is no bad thing!

when we drill, we do it in the expectation of finding something. i think wizard125 your head is very safe as there would clearly be no expectation....

robberyrob. i think i have made it clear i do see an opportunity following completion, but the risks on the deal remain. i think i am also correct to say (pls zen / aga correct this if i am wrong), the original deal (prospectus) timeline had minister approval at the same time as deal "tech close", but more recent guidance has "tech close" then minister signoff after. it is only at the point of minster sign-off the assets become savp's. i also recall words about progressing both in parallel (which is what you would expect), but guidance remains sequential not parallel. if you look at the issues copl have and lek have on obtaining minister sign-off as examples i would suggest minister signoff can not taken as "just a formality".

thorpedo.."the key thing at HH is to see if we can sustain flow over a sustained period of time. thats why we are doing it for 30 to 40 days".

so what does "it" mean? defines the "sustained period of time" or defines the testing period for each resi?

i think he means the former and you the latter.

pboo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc_cj-Aba_Y

about 2:45 into the interview...

i quoted fact

i said a few days ago about bond holders "some will have obtained temporary risk committee clearance to hold equity for say 6 or 9 or 12 months based on the companies timelines". do not forget most bond investors have mandates that mean they can not hold equity other than in specific and abnormal situations and then often with a duty to reduce equity exposure asap.
i would also note that even if this goes against what has been agreed with the co and the co is aware, then AK and co would do nothing as it will be to these same bondholders the co will look to in the future when debt is looking to be raised..

So Day 43 as you say and no indication extended flow testing has started in the Portland. I here partners talking about 30 to 40 days of continuous flow. On that basis kimm would not start prior to day 73 at best....hence my comment...I would put to you that after bb, it is essential the Portland is commercial (as the kimm has a very big question mark over it). Hence they are doing everything they can. We will see..

Thing is Pboo, if the pump was not sufficiently large for the existing perf zone, then why perf more of the Portland at the same time as changing the pump? I would suggest looking at flow rates only will never take you understanding what is happening- it is all about pressure and pressure recovery. I would also note the time they are spending on the Portland- why are they going so slowly? Anyone would think they are not worried if the do not have the time let to test the kimm!

Willow...I would expect gcse physics students to post a more competent response than that! I am sorry but you are way out of your depth in my view.

Um...so they did the max flow rate tests then shut in the well...why? If as proposed by posters here it was to perf additional Portland zones then why did they do this after the max flow rate tests? If it is the case then I assume they will repeat the max flow rate tests? ( you don’t think it was a slow rate of down hole pressure recovery after the testing do you?)

So given you know so much about the oil game and well testing to be more specific, please could you advise me what data is more important than establishing a stable flow rate over an extended time period? Not rocket science?!

I can only assume the last tanker was so long ago that no one can remember!

Most extended well tests flow oil and it needs removing from site..what are they doing?

can someone tell me when the last tankers was seen leaving site (oil not waste)..and how long as the "big pump" been in operation?

thks

zengas etal..your point is accepted.
what is interesting it is two II's at what would appear (on face value) to be at the opposite end of the spectrum! do not get me wrong..if (when?) 7e deal completes than this should be a good investment (so long as one trusts the bod not to do another deal....).

i would agree. on the basis the piece is written (min commercial quants)..i would agree 2C that can become 2P. in my view hur has sufficient cpr'ed resource in place without further cpr being a requirement for any major..of course potential purchasers extend beyond majors but i struggle to see any material move without at least one major and likely more like 3 or 4 on a full asset basis. for example i could envisage kero by the way staying involved even on a full sale basis

good luck on getting sorted..can not have been nice for anyone locked into positions (even if nothing has happened over the duration).

sorry for the flippant comment- but your posts do indicate there are key elements of investment case assessment that you need to read up on and understand...the book "naked trader " was mentioned by aduk - i would agree it is very good and easy to read and enjoy.

Fwiw - I would seriously doubt there are any paid derampers or rampers on this board simply some who are wary of the risks nature can unexpectedly represent and others who have considered those risks and elected to remain invested as the potential reward is commensurate with the risk being taken.

Then there is Ifonly1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
while i am very sure there are paid rampers on these BB' (aberdeenman was in effect exposed and the Beaufort issues also implicated such), there is just no way a near £1bn mcap co can be moved based on posts on this or any other BB. as you say there are a range of views and long may that remain the case.

on the last part - what can one add!....other than he / she makes posts that could otherwise be considered moronic look half sane..