Member Info for RNSTranslator

GP you are of course correct. Although I've already been in trouble for confusing some folks with technical waffle so I tried to simplify.
The iGas Oil and Gas assets are already developed and flowing, proven flowing oil is worth much more than undeveloped contingents resources. Their reserves are of course spread over a multitude of fields and that reduces the efficiency of the operation. The CPR doesn't state a value for Contingent resources of 30mm boe. so that is not included in the NPV's but is by definition included in the shareprice. WN will of course be classed as contingent resources until a fully funded development plan is approved by the OGA at which point they will become Proven Reserves. So you are right I was comparing proven reserves of flowing oil and gas with contingent resources with potential contingent resources... pointing that out is probably a step to far for some...

2 sets of figures used by the most pessimistic person here - still can’t value WN at less than £36,000,000 net to UJO, that’s it I’m topping up, thanks RNST x
You need to be clear when you suggest thats some kind of minimum valuation, Thats a potential valuation in a SUCCESSFUL TESTING outcome, it could of course be more depending on recoverable volumes signed off by the CPR which will be the key use for the test data. Of course the testing hasn't happened yet and if one or both of the wells show pressure decline then that value is probably a significant over estimate.

The oil or condensate, its not yet been determined, will probably free flow, but they've not published pressure data so thats just a guess on my part.
This is a carbonate reservoir and so the usual form is to acidize ahead of testing to dissolve rock and enhance effective porosity. Fracks are allowed, albeit low volume fracks or mini-fracks as they used to be called.
They're now called a "proppant squeeze", and indeed this is whats going to happen at Wressle to try and get to the 500
bbls/day. These tend to be used to solve local issues around the wellbore where there is a good reservoir beyond the local issue. In carbonates, it can be used for the same purpose. I don't think it would be used in a situation to generally increase productivity as its effect further away from the well is limited.

Mr Investment,
as you well know the WN figures to date are for IN PLACE oil and gas.
The numbers from the IGas CPR are recoverable numbers NOT in place numbers.
They have never published recoverable figures because they are unable to calculate this until the wells have been tested.

And therein is the i stumbling block surely - No its a measure of what investors value oil AND Gas in the UK onshore.

OK so you're saying the gas isn't worth billions, what about the oil? These values are for Gas AND oil, although in iGas's case its balanced towards oil production.

For those interested in understanding (best ignore if you're a believer/promoter)
Look at the iGas CPR which has just been released, and whilst there is no direct read through to UJO or RBD as there are no common assets, it does give a sense of market valuations of resources and NPVs.
For iGas they have proven onshore UK reserves that are currently producing, oil prices are a bit out of date as its a 31 Dec effective date, current prices will simply increase the Value/Cashflows and NPVs.
Figs are:
Reserves 12-21mm boe Proven producing.
Gross revenues from proved reserves $938mm to $1.1bn
NPV10 of Proven Reserves $243-291mm
Contingent Resources 30 mm boe not valued by CPR.
So thats 42-51 mm boe of proven and undeveloped resources.
An NPV of $291mm plus the unstated contingent resource value.
Market Cap £33mm Debt £20mm so Enterprise Value is £50mm.
So for £50mm you get 42-51 mm boe of producing and established and some yet to be developed oil/gas.
So the market is valuing producing UK onshore oil gas at about £1 per boe.
If someone wanted to buy this lot it'd probably an easy takeover at 35-36p or £1.30 a boe.
Talk of billions of dollars for WN is fanciful...
before the usual suspects start bleating...these numbers are not mine they are from a well respected CPR evaluator D&M.
Uncomfortable truths.

Hi GP
Looked at the Gas CPR, and whilst there is no direct read through to UJO as there are no common assets, it does give a sense of market valuations vs resources and NPV.
For iGas they obviously have proven reserves that are currently producing, also as you say the prices are a bit out of date.
Figs are:
Reserves 12-21mm Proven
Gross revenues $938mm to $1.1bn
NPV10 of Proven Reserves $243-291mm
Contingent Resources 30 mm bbls not valued by CPR.
So thats 42-51 mm boe of proven and undeveloped resources.
An NPV of $291mm plus the unstated contingent resource value.
Market Cap £33mm Debt £20mm so Enterprise Value is £50mm.
So for £50mm you get 42-51 mm boe of producing and established but to be produced oil/gas.
So the market is valuing producing UK onshore oil gas at about £1 per boe.
If someone wanted to buy this it'd probably an easy takeover at 35-36p or £1.30 a boe.
So Talk of a £Billion for WN is perhaps a little overstated...

"RNS 26nov 2020 near the bottom UJO expect 200 barrels a day net for them selves OK it is not a dead cert but it got to be close otherwise they would be lying on a official Doc over hyping by 10 to 1"
the word EXPECT is the get out of jail card, and it doesn't have to be close and it wouldn't be lying because its only a reasonable EXPECTATION...it might well be that it does flow eventually at that rate but if it doesn't they've done nothing wrong.

For everyones benefit Gwywyn heres what the 22 Oct 2015 release said:
As previously reported, flow rates from the Ashover Grit measured in the initial testing phase (80 barrels of oil per day ("bopd")) were affected by localised near well bore formation damage (high "Skin" factor) and so are not representative of the flow rates that could be attained from this interval. Reservoir engineering analyses of the well test pressure and production data indicates that initial production rates in excess of 500bopd could be anticipated if the effects of the "Skin" can be successfully countered."
So it flowed at 80 barrels per day, as I said.
It is ANTICIPATED to flow at 500 bbls/day, but it isn't is it.
Firstly they would have said if it was- silence.
Thats at least 2 tankers per day not 1 every few days.
They have said they will be undertaking a proppant squeeze, which was the back up plan if it didn't flow at 500 on free flow.
So I fail to see the point you are trying tome...

"your opinion as useless asyour handle you call yourself as translator well read rns 0359D and it only mensions one the pit you keep harping on about if all wells connected adds another 200 barrels a day you find Ashgrove run at 500 are you weeping yet. I could find others but then you will not believe it so why bother."
All wells?, theres only one well which is producing from the Ashover, so they are connected doesn't make sense.
We haven't found that the Ashover runs at 500 a day have we?
Sorry I'm not weeping..

"why mainly UJO and RBD, aren't there other equally worthy O&G punters you could save from imminent bankruptcy ?"
Well to save you the time, these are the companies I've also posted about.
EDR
EOG
UJO
RBD
HUR
i3E
ADL
IOG
TRP
JOG

"when we were trying to have a grown up conversation about value ?"
I have been, but you don't seem to want to, is your preference for mocking sarcasm holding you back?

"a few unsuspecting mug punters" an interesting take on some of your fellow investors.

so:
I'm not a day trader,
I don't get paid to post here
I'm not daft, at least not in respect of Oil and Gas, other stuff maybe !
You still struggle to understand why I'm here..because you can't envisage that anyone does anything other than for monetary gain or to take advantage of someone else, and that is probably a function of your own belief system - look up "projection psychology" in google.
So I will try to give a fuller explanation: I do invest from time to time in small cap oil, usually in volume, and on balance mostly through placings although I also buy in the market. Of course liquidity in many of these shares limits the ability to acquire or close out your position . The basis of my investment in this simple, buy when the risk/reward is stacked in your favour, but you need to understand the REAL risk, not the sunlit uplands they promote . Small cap oilers almost by definition oversell their product, they need an exciting story to attract capital and so the game is to sell the upside potential whilst minimising the perception of risk/downside.. in many cases not far different from the proliferation of gambling ads we see on TV, "it could be you".
Whilst the NOMAD is charged with protecting the market (not the company), the broker and the NOMAD are usually one and the same, different obligations same company.
Since the Regal scandal 15 or so years ago, the regs have tightened up about what you can and cant say and when you have to say it i.e. CPR's and MAR in particular. All releases must be timely and factual and the are scrutinised by the NOMAD ( who is also the broker!) and so the words are very very carefully chosen. Always leave wiggle room in the wording, never be absolutely definitive. Of course they promote the positive and don't mention the negatives unless absolutely necessary (i.e a dry hole becomes "a working hydrocarbon system", its what the punters want, increase the share price TODAY.
I do sometimes get asked for advice for some institutional investors and the question is usually the same..I can read the release ,sound great, but what is it they aren't telling us? Unless you have an idea what the right question to ask is, how as a non expert in the subject are you supposed to find out what is not being said?
So the bottom line - believers/gamblers will always see me as negative by definition because it addresses the other side of the risk /reward equation. Some are simply unconscious victims of confirmation bias..
Ive met folks who've put a significant proportion of their life savings in small cap oilers, one made mutilples of his investment and it changed his life, one did the same (and leveraged it) and went bankrupt, so I see the appeal. I was happy for the first, the latter had more of an impact . Its to address the balance for those who are investors who want to understand the real risks... I don't much care what the promoters say.. its my choice, my Time.

"They've already found stuff, enough stuff that they'll get out of the ground to justify the current price."
This is simply not correct, they may have mapped and got samples that indicate a large volume of oil and gas in place in the ground, but if it cannot be extracted at a commercial rate then that is all it is, oil and gas in the ground. Thats why the test results are critical and whilst you may believe that its guaranteed to flow and demonstrate commerciality at scale, quite simply that is not yet proven, and this is a game of risk evaluation, some folks think the risk of failure here is zero and thats their choice, I happen to think the risk of failing to achieving the values and numbers they have indicated are higher than this. So I respectfully disagree with your view that this share will rise on testing results REGARDLESS of the outcome. Because anything other than an unambiguous positive test, which indeed may happen, will affect both the perceived value and extend the timeframes needed to demonstrate clear commerciality.
I'll answer your questions in the following post...

The fact is the city suits rarely if ever employ geologists to verify what management say in small cap oil. It’s usually spreadsheet jockey analysts who try to work out what it’s worth based on the simple premise.
1: how big is it going to be.
2: what’s the chance of success.
They then multiply 1 X 2 x oil or gas price and usually call this risked core NAV or some such nonsense. Never met one who’s actually got much of a clue how it all works. Of course the brokers own analysts need to independently come up with the “right number” to keep the client happy... chatted with many over a beer about this stuff.
What you need to recognise is that it’s a business that’s deeply conflicted, paid for research, brokers research is a forgone conclusion and will never disagree with management’s enthusiasm, although some will baulk at some of the more extreme claims.

Heid
You seem to know more than the rest of us.
Who did they use to predict the flow rate ?
I happen to know who they used so why don’t you share your world class advisors name...

The placees were not told what the current flow rate was...
The placing closed after the well had been put on stream.
They can’t have been told because they would have to tell all shareholders at the same time. FACT.

Mark Abbott 9th Feb 2015:
“ Test operations have now been completed on the Ashover Grit reservoir, the first of three potentially hydrocarbon bearing zones identified in the well. An interval of 9.5 metres was perforated (2006.1 to 2015.6 metres measured depth) and following an initial “clean-up” flow, free flowing oil production rates equivalent to 80 barrels of oil per day (“bopd”) were achieved during a 16 hour main flow period along with 47 thousand cubic feet of gas per day. ”
The current development consent is for the Ashover Grit only. So just drop the 700 bbls/day guff...

Gwywyn
Show me the words they said...
And then I’ll show you the bits you didn’t want to read...