Member Info for RNSTranslator

Morganna you do talk ****e..
give me a reason why the CEO would deliberately destroy shareholder value?
How is he the "slave" of the Board??
Are you seriously suggesting that because he was unemployed that he took the job for the pay and to pleasure himself by deliberately screwing the shareholders at the behest of the rest of the Board... keep taking the tablets.

"Maris is not sufficiently independent to do a fair CPR here."
He didn't do the CPR you wally ERCE did.

Those figures don't look bad, however those are numbers based on a scenario of actually undertaking the work programme described, NOT a result of any already agreed and funded work programme. Even CA, in their last rant asked the question can Her undertake the work programme without the Bondholders approval... "Chief Executive responded to say that they had been advised to "be engaging with the bond holders"" So there you have it ,their legal advice is to engage with Bondholders. These folks are not going to ignore legal advice given the repetitional hole they've already dug for themselves. So those numbers are probably accurate but if you cant undertake the activity to develop them then its just that, numbers....

"Bondholders should sack all of them to take the company forward." - Really??
Firstly they simply cannot do this unless they become majority shareholders, if in the unlikely situation they did become majority shareholders then don't expect them to have actually paid for the shares, and you'll discover you've been diluted up the ying yang. The warning signs have been there since last September.. how many times do you need to read in an RNS the warning of potential nil value for shareholders to realise that this is a likely outcome. The shareholders have lost control over the company and its future is in the hands of the Bondholders. CA may huff and puff, and claim there's oil under the oil water contact, but it seems a reputable CPR has not agreed with that rather odd ball theory.

without upto date production info its hard to say. But on a "do nothing" basis its probably a year or less.
But its not a simple answer: Depends on water cut/oil price/cost savings to keep it cashflow positive at lower rates.
There is the lease on the AM to consider, the bondholders will also need to be kept happy, and that depends on whether they are content to be paid back or use the current situation to take a bigger slice of the remaining pie.

"That’s because Mark Abbott is an intelligent man. Smart people like him make complicated things sound simple and easy for everyone to understand. " well Mr I , he missed the mark with you I guess... you still don't understand.

What he actually said...and I can see you want to express it in your own way is that "salt reacts with the rock", its not salt and its not in fractures, its the chemical reaction and mud filtrate that has clogged the pore spaces - skin. A proppant squeeze is exactly the same as hydraulic fracking its just a smaller scale operation to limit the fracture propagation to within 15-25m from the borehole. The fracking fluids are the same, its just that the volume is less.. thats why they need approval on their plans to manage and limit the fracture propagation - thats what they're waiting for.

So Mr I...
Nothing I said is at odds with what MA said..my comment was primarily about your own assertion that "They are going to use high pressured water to clean the fractures so it flows properly." where did he say that the fractures were full of salt?... nope didn't say that did he, There are no fractures, thats what the PS is for... you just made it up...and then I went on to describe skin damage and the methods they have said they will use to overcome it. .
He was trying to describe for the layman skin damage...something he's repeatedly mentioned as the cause of the low flow rate... go here if you want to read what that is: https://petrowiki.spe.org/Formation_damage

“T hey are going to use high pressured water to clean the fractures so it flows properly. I assume they hoped that by running it naturally the salt would disintegrate as a matter of course (like turning on an old tap) ”
This is of course nonsense, and also speaks to the lack of knowledge of the person talking to the CLG.
The original issue was that the drilling fluid (mud) used to help drill the well flowed into the reservoir and reduced the natural permeability of the formation (that is their judgement -the so called skin issue). Drilling mud usually consists of water, bentonite, barium sulphate, calcium carbonate and hematite (iron oxide). The initial view was that by reperforating the formation they could create a direct connection With the undamaged formation beyond the zone with skin damage. This appears not to have overcome the issue, either because invasion is deeper than they expected or the formation is just not capable of naturally delivering at the rate they have calculated (500). They realised this might be the case so the backup plan was a prop squeeze, essentially creating fractures in the formation which are then held open by the ceramic beads, and it is thus that they hope will allow greater production rates as this penetrates further and more widely than the perf guns could. So if the issue is really skin then this should work to increase the flow rate closer to what the formation can naturally deliver. If of course the formation can only naturally deliver 100-120 bbls per day then other than a short term flush then it won’t deliver the 500 per day. Neither we nor the company knows which of these is actually the case, (although the former skin issue is probably the best bet). The 500 per day was simply a calculation based on estimates of porosity and permeability together with measured formation pressures not something that has been actually measured.

DA
The kitchen sinking was done by management with appropriate advice from their own advisors, any CPR will be done by competent specialists based on the data they are given and the expected forward price curve to determine potentially recoverable volumes based on the water cut profile and the costs of whatever intervention is economically attractive. It may be better that the current state of play, but equally it may confirm what has already been “sinked” and it could theoretically be worse if the water cut isn’t behaving as expected...I don’t know which, and neither do you. But to suggest it’s only going to get better is an overstatement of the reality.
. the bond holders have the company by the nuts and they won’t stop squeezing until they get their money back, and if we’re unlucky, and then some...
yet to see a bond holder screwed and shareholders to come away with something. If the bond holders loses money then you can guarantee the shareholders will have lost everything.

I don't think Perrenco are in the frame.. I understand they're currently looking to exit their UK gas basin position, and I presume that would include their Dimmlington gas receiving Terminal.

Now then Heid, you need to focus on answering the questions or fully presenting the facts.
Yes they have a 57m column , oil sample cuttings and a calculated STOOIP of 24mm bbls.
The bit you didn't add was that there was no permeable reservoir.... without which the 24mm bbls IN PLACE is just that a calculation based the estimated (but unproven) presence of fractures or permeability. So even if the sidetrack has fractures and permeability (which wasn't present in the original well) then it might then have 24mm bbls in place. It doesn't actually currently exist...

"Although the Dinantian is not considered to be the primary target, should there be effective permeability, or the presence of fractures within this section, there is the possibility of a further commercially viable play being present within the Biscathorpe licence area that would add considerable resource upside over and above the principal Westphalian target."

So Heid, have I missed something about your Dinantian research ...??

A Different Angle
“ A worse than expected CPR will be a significant game changer here, especially with Brent price now sitting at ~$64 and potentially rising which makes HUR valuation (fast growing net-cash, vast West of Shetland acreage/assets/licenses/ongoing operations, tax credits....etc...) an absolute joke of a market cap today, time to smell the coffee....DYOR.

Heid; Just to save everyone the suspense of waiting for your reply about the Total 2007 report :
This is what they said:
A review of available data suggests that there is currently no production from Dinantian carbonates in the area shown on Figure 1.1. The only historical production from the Dinantian carbonates was onshore UK at the following discoveries (Figure 1.4):
Eakring/Duke’s Wood 1939. Oil column extends into Dinantian with limited, local production of up to 50 tons/day.
Plungar 1953. 3-7m column in the Dinantian limestone, minor production. Nocton-2 1944. Produced briefly from Dinantian limestone at 3 tons/day declining as water production increased.
Nettleham-1 1982. Karstified top Dinantian carbonates which flowed at 12.9 bopd.
Hardstoft 1918. A total of 26,000barrels was recovered over a 25 year period at a typical rate of 8-10 bopd.

So what is it that excites you about the Dinantian?

"Firstly Graham Bull never gave up on it. "
Heid; Mr Bull also has (or had) a free carried Royalty interest in Biscathorpe.. yes its all disclosed in UJO's RNs's.
Now tell us about the Dinantian Heid what exactly have you learned?

yes Heid... its always "I believe" isn't it.
Why do you believe?, give us all some solid reasoned arguments rather than simply "I believe"
Some folks believe the earth is flat and that Bill Gates is trying to microchip everyone on the planet.. trouble is when asked to explain they just say "I believe"
I believe you're talking horse sh*t, does that make it true?

Heid
How many large oil and gas companies have bought into onshore UK oil and gas fields in the UK in the last 10 or even 20 years outside of those who piled in for the fracking for shale gas debacle. (Total, Ineos and Centrica) all of whom have quietly left their failed investments behind.
BP, no
Shell: no
Exxon: No
Equinor; Never done onshore UK
Chevron: as above
Total: Fracking investment then left
Centrica: as above (Via Cuadrilla) then left
Ineos: as above
If you are so certain, explain why any of these companies would become involved in, what in their terms may be a minor onshore gas or oil field in the UK? The politics and bad press from the swampy's and the anti fossil fuel brigade means it's just not worth their while.
Why will the Majors support the small oil companies?
The only credible buyer, if indeed it is as big as they suggest is Ineos as a cheap gas supply for Saltend.
You say this stuff but you quickly move an when asked to substantiate your assertions...
So answer the questions... with reasoned arguments rather than just talking horses*it.

Thats a whole new level of delusion from Heid.
Chevron: Mkt Cap $200 Billion , 50,000 employees. Daily prod; 800,000 bbls/day.
Union Jack: Mkt Cap: £33million, 3 ? employees, Daily prod, not currently disclosed (probably about 60-70)

Mind you he may have a point - UJO are way ahead in the "profitability" and "shareholder friendly" CEO pay stakes -
Chevron 2020 loss of $5.5bn - CEO average annual salary $20mm
UJO 2020 loss of £885k - CEO annual Salary £160k

On the debonair CEO stakes, still some progress needed from UJO.
"Dave" https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FjgJoG1sgck/maxresdefault.jpg
"Mike" https://ceoroundtable.heart.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Chevron-Michael_Wirth_2020.jpg

NVG:
"Are you implying that not everyone in life plays with a straight bat?"
I'm simply suggesting that RNS's are crafted to portray the upside whilst minimising discussion of the downside. This isn't about life in general, (although that seems to be where you'd like to drag the debate).... its simply done to keep what you regard as the "Mug Punters" fat and happy. Of course someone like yourself understands exactly what they're not telling you don't you, because you employ folks to tell you the stuff you don't understand about oil and gas. Did they also tell you the share price would go up on a successful test (hardly rocket science that one) but also it would go up "an F of a lot" on an unsuccessful test.. which is I think what you've suggested. Perhaps you've employed the wrong folks.

Uggy. Don’t think they (or any other small cap oiler) actually outright lie. It’s more subtle than that, they simply don’t give you all the necessary facts to make an informed decision, and to present the Information in a positive light.
It’s a grey area between being factual but incomplete and outright misleading .