Member Info for RNSTranslator

Firstly, before the usual suspects start to stick out their tongues and get their typing finger ready...this is speculation on my part and I think worthy of at least a constructive discussion. A bit long winded but hang in there...:
Today EOG (SW a non Exec) announced a placing for £1.5/2.00mm.
They are partners in Wressle, which came on stream last week and is expected to produce at 500bbls/day, but this rate not yet achieved as yet.
"Wressle field, which has the potential to more than double our production to over 200bopd" written last night so "potential" is key as it suggests that rate not yet achieved.
Question: Why raise money ahead of confirmation of flow rate at Wresssle of 500bbls/day, surely the obvious thing to do is wait until it is confirmed, indeed they have recently demonstrated that short term funding is available .
They also added:
"We have previously said that we are seeking an appraisal/development asset that would complement our existing production and exploration assets and this fundraise will enable us to accelerate this process." So they are accelerating the acquisition of a appraisal/Development asset.. not for cash otherwise they would have waited and raised for the acquisition.
At the end of the WN Q&A session (about 54mins) there was a rather extended discussion about partial monetisation/sale of the asset, heavily caveated but it did go on bit in which they also talked about how they bought the 17% holding on the cheap during the covid crisis, and that was great deal etc etc...
As we also know holding Oil and Gas assets directly is outside of their stated investment policy as in investment company.

Speculation: Selling their direct interest for cash right now is difficult as its not a piece that a well funded buyer of the whole asset would want, and arguably its too early to do so anyway, as they discussed. Perhaps what's being set up here is that RBD flip some or all of the 17% into EOG for shares, as they're now funded to undertake at least some activity on WN. RBD would finish up with a significant shareholding in EOG that is due to be producing some cashflow from Wressle, it also keeps a stake in the upside as it's a now major shareholder, and they solve the direct holding issue.
Maybe this is 2+2 = 5, but Its hard to think of an alternative explanation given the direct link between the two companies and the things both sides have just said....

Sorry about Blackhopper turning up, I'm must have inadvertently stepped in something on the way over...

Well we know it’s not yet doing 500bbls/day.
“ "Together with the recent commencement of oil flow at the Wressle field, which has the potential to more than double our production to over 200bopd ”
Still has potential.
Raises a couple of questions-
Why do they need the money now?
Why not wait until it is flowing at the promised 500/day?
What is the appraisal development asset they are reviewing?
Who had recently (Tuesday) discussed a potential partial sale of an Appraisal development asset?
Who has a direct holding in an oil and gas licence which is not compliant with their stated investment policy?
Who is the common link between EOG and The above...
I can already hear them asking the confetti machine operators if they can do an extra shift..

"you with your long technical ramblings trying to create even more fear and uncertainty"... perhaps only to those who don't want to understand them.
They are based on the companies own published numbers and statements. What do you fear about that?, other than it doesn't fit your own agenda or beliefs.
On the 2nd of December you asked me to predict if the RBD share price would be higher or lower by the end of the year.
and I responded: "...Price at year end if they announce they’ve got gas and condensate then 0.7/0.8 (can’t see how they won’t test) If they’ve started testing and the usual rabble can see “flames” then it’ll pop up to 1p ...perhaps more.
It’ll be January before the real result comes in, and it will depend on 1) did it flow commercially and sustainably then it may get up to 1.5p, if they announce it flowed well but suggest further analysis of the data is required and they won’t be testing WNA then it’s damage limitation time and it’ll fall off a cliff (probably terminal decline) as they’ve got nothing else of real value...that enough for you..?"

So on that date it was sub 0.4p , I predicted 0.7/0.8 on a successful well. The peak was 0.69. Hard to see how this was trying to spread doom and gloom (I noticed you didn't make any predictions) . So far its been pretty close. Hardly the ramblings of a "paid deramper" don't you think. You really do find it hard to accept those that don't share your own views, and all you can do is spout wild accusations, suggest they're being paid (who by?) to spread fear... I think we all knew of someone in very high office recently with those characteristics.... I think your responses, the bile and the vitriol tell us all we need to know.

The $18 figure is the full cycle break even cost for the Wressle project.
Simply put; Its the price of oil you need for the life of the field to get a zero return on your total investment over the life of the field. ie you get your money back but without a "profit". It usually includes a discount rate of 10% as a baseline to reflect your cost of capital. Its not a number that needs to be used in calculating revenue from the field, simply an indication of broad profitability or the sensitivity of the project to oil price variations. It is of course a modelled number with many assumptions that require a prediction of the timing and rate of oil production and the costs of the development , Opex and Abex.

The production costs are not $18/bbl, thats the full cycle economic break-even price.
Opex has previously been announced as approx $10/bbl.

NFC
Why does it concern you whether I hold shares? Other than so you can suggest I’m somehow trying to get the share price up or down for my own personal gain. Whilst of course your own promotional activity is to help everyone!
Why do I do this, is it altruistic..,to be honest yes it is in part. I’ve spent my career in this sector and have made enough not to need to make a few quid playing the market, although yes I do invest and when I do it’s not with a view to making a few quid on the daily fluctuations of some volatile small cap.
Why,? quite simply I find the ill informed promotion of some small cap oil and gas shares by folks simply making stuff up or pretending they know what they’re talking about and “it’s undervalued” or it’s a “ deffo 10 bagger” simply annoying, and to be honest trying to suggest to less experienced investors that you should be in this, whilst simply talking boll*x for their own gain.
You may not like all the facts and figures, because of course it spoils the story your trying to spin. It must be irksome when someone points out facts based what the company has actually said rather than what you’d like people to believe. That enough?
I’m sure your response will be the usual dismissive diatribe... perhaps you just can’t accept that perhaps, just perhaps I’m not trying to do this to make a buck...and that probably speaks more to your own agenda and motivations, don’t you think?

Mr Investment:
the 2.2mm bbls refers to the total Wressle 2P (Proven plus Probable) oil
from the Ashover 2P is 540k bbls recoverable with a small amount from the Wingfield 80k bbls as per Equipoise report.
So this well will last about 4-4.5 years if it starts at 500/day and declines by 20% per year, at $60/bbl, the opex which is approx $10/bbl at a rate of 500bbls/day will of course increase per bbl as production declines although at $60 for the field life the cut off is reserves depletion not opex cost. Total production after 4 years 520,000 bbls, total revenue over 4 years $6.8mm after opex net to UJO. Some of this will be used to develop the Flags as per their statement.
The P*stone flags 2P is 1.53mm bbls plus 2bcf of Gas. That will require a different well to a new location (see Egdons test RNS) and the requisite planning approvals, the issue is the gas as it can't be flared and will require a commercial solution to allow the oil to be developed.
Your approach to investing is of course entirely up to you. The track record of pretty much all AIM oilers is that they over promise and woefully underdeliver, and so understanding what they promise versus what is likely to be delivered is important, and unless you understand Oil and Gas it can be difficult to spot the difference between Sh*t and Shin*la.

GP, you are correct, this wasn't recorded today or yesterday....he refers to the technical update released "on Thursday". That was on Thursday the 28th Jan. This was therefore recorded less than a week after that and so likely co-incident with the 1st Feb "free flow" release. As such he didn't have any recent information on flow rates which would have postdated this interview..

AJamesW "The well will do more, or it will last much longer in production given that it has two other zones to go at!"
Thats not quite correct. The Pniston flags will require a new well to a different location, as per Egdons original test results RNS.

At 500 bbls/day and a 20% decline rate the field will last about 4-4.5 years at $60/bbl and current stated opex. David was correct in stating the the $17.60-ish is not opex its the full cycle project economic breakeven price. Opex was previously stated as $10 per bbl.
Of course the Wressle cashflows will be used to develop the subsequent PStone flags development as per their statement of 2016 ..."The Board intend to apply the net cash flows generated from the initial Wressle development to finance the development of the Pe*istone Flags reservoir"

Manwell.
If you look at the UJO/RBD technical update.
The first slide after the title page shows the pre drill B well cross sectional model. This is unchanged from previous diagrams.
the well track for B1 shows it intersecting the KA at the same level as the subsequent B1z level, with KA "slope" deposits forecast in the deeper part of B1. The overall model is one of a Kirkham Abbey reef with the fore reef to the right and a lagoon to the left. Looking at slide 3, you can see that B1 not only encountered KA much deeper than expected, but it was thinner and there were no slope deposits, just the Hayton Anhydrite. There was no commercial reservoir in the KA just gas shows.
This confirmed to them that the reef model was incorrect, and indeed a number of academic papers from recent years suggested that there were no reefs in the KA in this part of the basin, and by implication they were dealing with Platform carbonates. Whilst that in itself is not necessarily a bad thing , its different to what they had mapped and assumed, and does change the geological model for how the reservoir is developed. The B1Z well was sidetracked back to where they could more accurately map the KA and thus get a positive result and of course that had great log porosity with good saturations. My comments are that BI and B1z shows that its different to their original model and I was wondering how this might change the mapping of the reservoir, but more importantly (for a buyer) the reservoir extents and qualitative predictability from the seismic data. the 118m Column of course suggests that they believe the gas shows in B1 are in pressure communication with B1z and A1/2, but as B1 was tight Im still unsure if that is a still guesstimate or a fact based on pressure measurements., particularly as UJO didn't mention it at the time.

GP
All the useful questions from establishing a value perspective will of course not get answered:
Your Geological model of a reef with slope deposits appears not to be supported by B1 well results as shown in the cross sections in your presentation.
1: Does this have implications for the type of reservoir you have previously used to calculate volumes, if this is not a reef system as previously supposed.
2: Given that this well failed to encounter significant KA both in terms of depth, thickness and reservoir quality as predicted pre drill, does this change your interpretation of the seismic data and does this give more or less certainty on the reservoir distribution and by implication potential reservoir quality.
3: What purpose does the horizontal B2 well serve. Is it to demonstrate higher levels of producibility to support development (read asset value) options or is it to be used as an Early Production System to generate revenue for the fields further development.
Of course the CPR will become available only after the EWT's, although they may well suggest revised in place volumes as a bit of "red meat" for the shareholders to chew on...

Hi GP,
Have to agree that there must be a rationale for this.
Either they just think its a good idea to keep the punters happy and feeling they are being free and open with info, or its a pre planned event that will follow a Tuesday 7am RMS.
Any questions answered will not deliver any new significant information, at best it'll be a clarification, otherwise it has to be RNS'd.
Of course if there is an RNS then that way well elicit a whole bunch of new questions on Tuesday am.
Guess we'll se at 7:01 Tuesday.
I'm sure theres a whole raft of questions they can't or won't answer...How much is WN really worth, Do you plan to sell it, and if so when. What do you think is a decent/commercial flow rate, Does it really need to be tested and do you agree with Malcy's comment. Is the proposed horizontal B2 well for an early production (cash flow) system or just to further evaluate the formation?If its the former what volumes would be recoverable from the well...and son and so on.

So it’s oil not condensate is it?
Does that make a difference?

Heid
How do you see the Humber CCS and Hydrogen plans assisting the development of West Newton , especially the oil side of things.

"will get payment for oil flowed during test phase" - really?

For those of you prematurely wetting yourself at the declaration that the oil is “free flowing” and there’s a heat shimmer from “burning gas”...
Egdons release from 9th Feb 2015:
“... 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. No appreciable volumes of water were observed. The oil is of good quality with a gravity of 39-40o API.”
So it “free flowed” at 80bbls/day as well as producing some gas.(which presumably was flared and gave a heat shimmer)

Its only money in the bank if the flow rate is higher than the daily opex costs......

GP...you're absolutely correct 2 p's in proppant. Cant hide behind the autocorrect an that one...

propant ... spellcheck !!