Member Info for pijoe1212

My post yesterday was in no way sarcastic.

no problem at all! anyway its all about being competitive right up until the year end. (can AA win it 3 yrs on the trot?!).LOL

you really do have a problem on the EQ front dont you. i have no opinion on the IQ side due to limited evidence to progress a view through to opinion.

I have posted here and elsewhere I am expecting news q2 on finance( not expecting final details!) and have also posted I expect q1 fid. given timescale for eis q2 sounds more likely. My info is not inside but is well informed by the opinions of others ( not these bb�s!).

Thks regardless by the way....

Hi gs I think Pmg should be about plus 18%?

i agree the recent changes in us production (which is light oil) over the last say 10nyrs has increased the relative value of condi (more refineries geared up to take it). but condi is not the same..api is only one of many considerations. i do not agree the development plan is robust however. until the field is properly apraised there is no development plan, only an outline concept based on assumptions the apraisial drilling will confirm (or change). in the fullness of time i am sure the asset will be valuable, but its value is only realised if funding is obtained to apriase and then develope. it is the risk balance of that occuring which to me is the issue (as it always is with discovered but undeveloped resource). owning 100% does little to move that risk balance.

"I tend to disagree,my reason is that when in business and you are struggling to sell something ..." my point is...whats the point when there are no buyers (2015 to 2017)? fresh crisp newly minted marketing material carries more wieght in my view. i am sure we will find out in the fullness of time (either by farm out or lack of one!) but the other piont i made yesterday was the condi lead in new basin. this is again seeking evidence to support a view. my view is condi is not as attractive as oil and in my view the absence of condi lead assists my understanding of the likelyhood of farmout and hence investment risk. there are plenty of examples in mature basins where the development process is oil..then condi.. then gas..As an example the first condi development in nigeria was OSO in c.1988..i know this as i was part of a EPIC bid team to deliver it! it was long after oil had ramped to over 1mmbls/ day..it is only in far more recent times gas has been developed (other than associated gas) in nigeria, and then it has been onshore. in most basins it is normal to find oil and gas (and by default condi!) or just condi and gas..it depends how well cooked the source is! i know several in the industry (e.g. fiona ..ex coo of rkh for example, and her fellow non-exc dirs also) had the view south fak basin was "gassy"..i.e. over cooked for oil.. so far as rkh and SL is concerned..i have a view.."watch this space"!

i would put to you a view (note : a view is not the same as an opinion (an opinion is a view formed then tested against an evidence base)..the oil price was low untill Q3/q4 last year..farmout market was dead..since then oil price has risen and hence farmout market is slowly coming back to life (and as importantly if not more so for bor, it looks like SL is now firmly movng forward)..so the BOD of BOR have "kick started" the new farmout process with a well respected 3rd party report. to me that makes sence, but i do not have the evidence base to test that view.

i hope assisted not offended..no offence intended..(i save that for the odd udog post)

has been asked. in dort i do not know as fact, but i can illustrate from my day job work. i am asked to prepare and issue reports as a specialist all the time (it is my job to offer opinion - i am a consultant on engineering matters!). the level of my assessment and reports range from simple letters "i have read the correspondance and documentary evidence..and am of the opinoin abc" through to expert witness reports for court & arbitration hearings. in between these are a range of report types. the letter is cheap (!) and the expert report is expensive (!!)- perhaps a ratio of 1:25 is a fair starting point. to me the CPR is the equal of an expert report - the primary duty is not to the client but (in my case) the court. i have to be 100% clear all the time on that point - the truth is the only consideration. for a CPR it is people other than the Client who will rely on it (i.e. investors and funders) in the same way. so every statement in a CPR (or one of my expert reports) of opinion is backed by reason and evidence. that includes evidence that would not nessisaryly be useful in supporting my conclussions (few matters are black and white). in my simple letters i would only outline reason for my opinion (which may even be as simple as "based on the contract and correspondance you have provided for review, i consider..." so i think the reference to access to the models..well data etc to me implies something between the two. i suspect it means GCA have taken the inhouse modeling etc largely at face value rather than re-model and question each aspect. so it is not a study investors can rely on in the same way as a CPR but that does not make it worthless.(pleanty of aim oilers issue total garbage which this is not worth the paper it is written on..(ukog rns anyone?)). now that i know it is not a CPR, then i think it is a "marketing doc" to progress farmout. as posted yesterday if it was in response to a specific farmout potential deal (esp to a finace backer) it would have been a full CPR in my view . the next question is of couse why a study rather than a cpr? in my view that is simple - cost! hope that is useful. (gus - look up confirmation bias..it is a very useful (essential?) concept in investing)

by the way - did we meet at the fogl agm 2015 (about may / june i recall?)

sent e-mail to simon Hudson yesterday evening: "Hi Simon Is the CPR referred to in the bor rns available? I cannot find it on the website? If not available, can you confirm the Darwin west prospect has a Cpr�ed COS of 81% or 0.81%- I think the rns is a little unclear (or is it me?!)" as always a fast and crisp response back from simon, which i am sure he would not mind me sharing: "This was a �Technical Evaluation�, not a CPR. The actual report is not on the web site. The chance of success is 81% (or 0.81 as reports now use)."

only..point taken (just seemed comments drifting towards the "dead cert" side of posting!!) char of course has two drills on now ...but i concur with phoebus guyana is "glowing" currently..so gets my expo sector investment cash..

you possed the question earlier- why do a cpr now? i would respond. a major as a farmin partner does not need a cpr - they would do the assessment in house (but the cpr does no harm). a non-major does not have the same inhouse resources and a finance partner very little in house. so spending cash tends to indicate no major sniffing. it could indicate interest subject to cpr or cpr undertaken as no interest in farm in based on inhouse presented data. the cpr is interesting (i would concur with rpoodle on GCA status- top notch) for three reasons: prospective cos - seams very high..i can not recall seeing such in cpr previously for an undrilled prospect..but the phraseology was interesting (is the full cpr on the website..not had chance to look) FLNG is clearly not on the cards the remaining resource is condi and not large for such a cap ex intensive process scheme (lpg & condi & gas reinjection)..but well count is low so may be overall it is ok. but it is condi and i have still not identified any condi lead scheme as an offshore basin opener

While I have very high hopes for eco ( best option for risk to return in the pure expo plays) I would make comment on prior comments. 4 to 6 km is not far in the world of basin expo, you still need to find the oil! If you look at history it was either shell or bp who gave up acreage which enterprise quickly grabbed and drill and found nelson field. Within sight of forties I recall! So looking good but by no means a dead cert - no expo drill is. as for comparisons to udog..what comparison? Nuog not much better. Nearest is chariot in my view...

tried to post detailed comments earlier..lse system prevented! in short (as work to do!)..your calc accepted -68% not 80%..so watch that Mcap to dilution against the Npv. GL

just back from a work trip and saw your request for further comment. some of the points have been addressed by others. before making my comments i would note i have held significant positions in iog in the past and know the storey well over the last 3 years. i currently dont hold and have not for some time..but i follow .. the new loan (are the prior ones also?) subject to rolled up interest which can also be converted. i think the % LOG can end up with is higher than 62%..not done the detailed calc (drawdowns are limited per month etc)..but at libor+9% it will rack up..thats say (inc prior loans)upto 80% of the equity (happy if someone whats to do the calc as the info is all in rns's). so my point is the npv was some �320M from memory..but only c.20% could accure to iog shareholders. thats only 3 times the current mcaps and many oilers are trading at 50% of documented npv. thats why i say keep an eye on the mcap... i would also note the management changes..first perter young goes (off the board)..then independent non-exec..now mark R (moving to non-exec)..leaving the LOG nominated directors and the "new man" (is he an LOG injection into the team?). now one could say nothing is wrong with this ..just default of circumstances..but it gives me cause to stop and think. i would also note the comments about LOG not converting..of course they will not..why would they? while they hold the cln's they also hold 100% of the assets as security (which would fall away on conversion). but anyone who thinks they will not convert at some point in the future is simply wrong..they are hard nosed businessmen putting up equity capital..while libor+9% sounds good, it is not ever close to the return such investors seek and obtain. to address the potential comments..i am not "deramping" and i do not short..the above are my views for what that is worth.

um..so LOG now hold cln's to take 62% of the co at any time. not sure they will anytime soon, but holders need to be thinking about this when looking at the MCap.

my post earlier this morning asking rift to stop trying to ramp copl on this BB got deleted! copl is a dog with fleas but no licence and no funding!