Member Info for RNSTranslator

Well explain to me why my figures are incorrect then…
260000 x 0.4 x (70-12) P90 net revenue dollars.
560000 x 0.4 x (70-12) P50 net revenue dollars.
Life of field for the current reservoir.
Huff as much as you like but that’s the fact, unless you change the recoverable figures or the oil price.

I just see the stuff the company publishes..don’t you?

Fraid not.
Do the calculation yourself…

Total Field revenues net to UJO are in the Proven case £4.53mm (not per year but in Total)
Total Field Revenues net to UJO are in the Probable case £9.75mm (ditto)

AimCasino: £7,749,575 Not sure what that number relates to?
For the current Wressle reservoir we have 260,000 bbls "proven" (90% chance) and 560,000 bbls Probable (50% chance).
at $70 per bbls and "life of field" opex at $12/bbl.
Total Field revenues net to UJO are in the Proven case £4.53mm (not per year but in Total)
Total Field Revenues net to UJO are in the Probable case £9.75mm (ditto)
This is for the life of the field based on the recoverable reserves they have published.
Regardless of the flow rate to start there is only so much to be recovered.
From this they will need to pay for the next well to access the Pen*stone Flags - which flowed at the following rates:

"The latest test has confirmed the presence of an oil column below the gas zone in the *****tone Flags, albeit in tighter sandstones. To date the well has successfully flowed hydrocarbons from four discrete intervals, with the *****tone Flags delivering a facilities restricted gas flowrate of 1.7 mmcfd, plus an aggregate 89 bopd..."

Is deer
Page 5 - 2/3 of the way down the right hand side.
Now can you confirm that 1.04 + 1.04 is 2.08 or do you need a calculator…

From the Annual Report: - In June 2020, the Company acquired a further 12.5% interest from Humber Oil & Gas Limited (“Humber”) in PEDLs 180 and 182 containing the Wressle development project for an initial cash consideration of £500,000 with a deferred cash consideration element of £1,040,000 payable to Calmar LP, appointees of Celtique Energie Petroleum Limited …

Is deer
Yes they paid Humber but they also took on the liability for their £1.04mm too. That makes £2.08mm.
It might help if you read the Annual Report or the RNS from the time rather than keep digging yourself into a hole…

"Also 1.04m due to Calmar LP for wressle 12.5%."
Its £2.08mm, since they bought out Humber...best keep up.

"Wressle has surprised even the management. it is a star with years of potential and income to reap from it."
No it has 260,000 bbls recoverable, 50% probability of 560,000 bbls, not my numbers the numbers from the Companies involved... simple fact...

Sandal
What you fail to recognise is that Wressle only has 260k bbls of proven reserves in this reservoir.
The oft quoted figure is 560k bbls, which is the 2P or P50 case. 50% chance that its less than this number, 50% chance its higher. Whilst it's good for early cash flow to get high rates, it does mean that the field has a shorter life and the decline is greater. So at least theoretically (but not in reality) producing at 844bbls/day means the proven reserves will be produced in
10 months, and the probable reserves in less than 2 years. Of course reality is that the field flow rate will decline along with the pressure and thus take longer. But it does put into context the lifetime cashflow profile for the field..this is not a long term asset throwing off material cash for a long period...
The question then is the production from the other reservoir, the cost to drill a well for that, and what that one will flow at, as well as how do they deal with the gas...
Unless the new CPR changes the recoverable numbers, which it may, it's too soon to suggest that this is some kind of long term cash cow for the company...

Gwynny
And how long will the field last at 844 instantaneous barrels. Per day? (Yes it’s a trick question)

TakeAimMiss:
“ Tom and BMD were loving this last year.
Now we are getting leaks and lies”
Whilst I’m no fan of the crook and winnifroth..
They’ve leaked information that so far seems to have been broadly correct , placings, failing to flow etc . Seems to me you like them if it’s positive but not if it’s negative.
Perhaps they’re just grandstanding with undisclosed information whether that’s good or bad…of course it does beg the question of whether they use it before releasing it..

“Trust in what David plans here, he is growing a fantastic company.” But he’s not growing the share price is he… that’s what matters to shareholders. Otherwise it’s just Executive Onanism…

Hi Campers
Before you all wet yourselves in delight, notice the “instantaneous” flow rates… try finding that in another RNS.
“ Instantaneous Flow Rate at a delivery point means a flow rate measured over the shortest period of time over which the meter is capable of measuring a flow rate;”
Not to be confused with sustainable flow rates, hence the clarification later - “ ….before defining a plateau production rate, matching the well behaviour to the permanent facilities, long term operational objectives and prudent reservoir management.”
Tells you all you need to know…this is a headline release to support the placing… the actual field delivery rate is yet to be defined (and approved by OGA).

I’m aware who posted the original illiterate nonsense..,
Mirasol commented and McNumby responded to that.
Please try to keep up, your starting to look like you’re aimlessly flailing about…

Takeaimmiss
This is what Mcnumby posted, this is what I responded to..
“ Mirasol, if you can't understand it, how do you know it was done by a ramper?”
Perhaps read the full thread before mouthing off…

Selfish it’s obviously an illiterate ramper..there’s a clue right at the beginning
“ This is a Best Buy….”
You are a bit touchy this evening…not going to plan eh!

Deemule
That’s a year old…
And your point is??

Selfish
So you think the fact that one of the Directors was the CoSec and Produced the accounts and financial statements for the company from which they bought the asset is not worthy of a mention ? Which side of the table was Godson on the sellers or the buyers?
It would have simply been good governance to clarify this at the time of the transaction whether it was technicalky related party transaction or not… don’t you think?