Member Info for RNSTranslator

GP.
My understanding from what has been made public is that they hoped the skin factor issue could be overcome by re-perfing the Ashover. They indicated that whilst it flowed a 80bbls/day initially, it also wouldn't recommence flow at that time as part of the wider testing of the different formations. The proponent squeeze as I understand it was if the Ashover failed to flow following re perforation. It seems it is free flowing, so I suspect a PS is unlikely, the big unknown is at what rate is it free flowing... it'll probably take at least a week or so to establish the rate..earlier news is better than later news, as they won't want to say anything until they are sure, or if they've hit 500/day, and the longer it takes means the more they are still working with the rates...

Yes they have made a discovery.
The logs were posted on the website.
The issue is not have they made a discovery, rather will it flow at sustainable commercial rates and how much can be recovered - thats why the results of the EWT are key.

Mr Investment.
Each company is party to the JOA, this determines the voting pass mark for decisions within the joint ventures . I have probably reviewed and negotiated more JOAs than most folks on this board. They are based on a standard template (usually AIPN) modified to ensure compliance with OGA licence regulations, principally no pre emption rights, and to ensure joint and several liability ie the last company standing in the event of default/bankruptcy still is liable for all the obligations of the JV.
Unless they agree otherwise then each party is free to sell their stake in the joint venture and does not require either approval of the other parties to do so, nor are they obligated to include their equity in the sale. The only challenge to a sale can be based on financial capability of the buyer. Of course corporate sale is not covered by the JOA and is ultimately a matter entirely for the shareholders of each company to decide.
Currently RBD is both a JV partner and the main >50% shareholder in Rathlin and they will probably in reality act in unison, although under most JOAs they will be regarded as a single party (one vote for the entire% held, rather than voting individually) As to passmark for budget approvals work programme modifications and sole risk activity that will depend on what has been agreed. Usually as you say it can be 50%+1 or as high as 70%, it almost never requires unanimity, to avoid being held back by an impoverished or recalcitrant JV partner, I have been told that it’s a simple passmark.

UJO cannot stop the majority from selling, neither can he insist he's included. This is a Joint Venture.
A buyer if/when one eventually turns up will want to buy the asset not the company or companies as there will be a previous history in the company that may contain unspecified liabilities so they want a clean asset purchase. The sellers will want to sell the buyer the entire company as the ability to deliver more value back to shareholders will be significantly higher because the tax leakage on a corporate sale will be significantly less.
As with a ll these things if theres only one buyer then they set the terms and structure, if there's more than one buyer the seller gets more of a say in the terms.

remain in a 'confidentiallity period with an interested party'..
This is just a fact as most agreement to review data to evaluate a farm-in have confidentiality periods that extend beyond any evaluation period, this is for a very good reason. BigCo look at your data and decide not to do anything. If the confidentiality requirement ended at that time they'd be free to use the info as they see fit, so to stop that the Confidentiality period is often 3 years, sometime 2 years. Suggesting that somehow this means they are in discussions with someone else is just not correct, it simply means that the company thats declined to farm in is still under an obligation not to disclose the information.

I cant see then accepting $10 in the ground either.
Simply because nobody pays that level for undeveloped wet gas fields.
What is its net worth?, how do you calculate that?

The pipeline may be 2km away - so what!
Does it have ullage?
You cant just put off spec gas or condensate into it!

Hi GP,
I see we didn't release the news about Corallian today (no longer considered "material" I guess.)
Baron oil had to 'fess up:
Energy Voice paraphrased: Corallian Energy can start marketing its 174 million barrel Dunrobin prospect again after an exclusivity period with a “large European E&P company” ended. UK firm Corallian entered into the exclusivity period with the unspecified interested part in April before extending the window from October to January 31. Just Victory left...

Very Poor wording: Heavier Hydrocarbons did not mean heavy Oil.
What they meant was that the hydrocarbon type from the cuttings/ditch gas log included higher carbon chain molecules i.e not just C1 (as in CH4, Methane) but hydrocarbons with C4 (Alkanes etc) and C5 (Pentanes) and above, these are indicative of lighter oil/condesate NOT heavy oil.

A bit touchy today are we?

Nofckinclue is right even when he's wrong:

on 22 Jan he said this: "No doubt the doomsters will see this as a precursor to more placings.
However, if further funding is required, based on the extremely strong commercial position that they now find themselves in there are a number of other ways to do it without diluting shareholders."

Seems the Doomsters were right on this one eh!

"no point understanding the geology and the sector if you cant grasp the risk/reward and the fundamentals."
The reality is that you cant understand the risk/reward unless you understand the geology/sector, which you've admitted you don't. The basis for commerciality and thus value is based on understanding of the deliverability and volumes of the hydrocarbons. Unless of course you simply understand that its a punters stock which moves based on sentiment and momentum rather than the facts... which of course is what this share is all about.

" Did I specify the tests"... this is what you wrote: "if the previous testing data proves to be photoshopped"
What did you mean by this? The wells were tested but info on the testing, which was cut short, was not released.
The "facts and figures" you mention are based on mapping of the subsurface and taking estimated distribution of reservoir properties and calculating the ranges of volume of gas and oil that could be IN PLACE, they did not take into account any testing data which would inform the proportion of that that is theoretically RECOVERABLE. Without this information the commerciality of the WN area is still unproven - FACT. You can't sell oil and gas fields where the in place resources can't be recovered in an economic fashion.

Rubey, don't think so, see Nofkingclue post of 9:57.

The RNS are just words of enthusiasm for the enthusiastic investor, with big numbers to make it seem a good gamble.
They may have access to these exploration opportunities, which may or statistically more likely, may not contain what they suggest. Without cash they can't do it themselves, and in that case they need other companies to come in and pay for them... quite simply that not going to happen. In Ireland the big players came in a few years ago drilled some wells and found nothing and then left...Morocco is the graveyard of wannabe exploration companies, its cheap to enter, because there's a high risk that you'll find nothing of commercial value...This is a company in need of a new business model. Big time investors won't touch Oil and Gas, so other than hot money looking for a quick flip on a placing and retail "enthusiasts" then I cant see how they can dig themselves out of the hole they're in... I expect it'll be used as a vehicle to flip some privately held assets into to allow them to have a market to cash out into...together with a story about the next exciting upside to "expose" the investors to.

Why? everyone knows theres a fundraise in the offing...

"Albeit a max 50% downside if the previous testing data proves to be photoshopped."
What Previous testing data... ? No information was released on what the flow did before being shut down.
Investment case:
If it flows at 1-2k bbls/day and shows no pressure depletion and clear connectivity to WNA (and that tests as well) then you'll make a decent return, although any spike up to 1p or more will bring out the sellers..this is a traders share where folks talk it up in the hope of a quick return.
If it doesn't do the above then theres b*gger all else to place any value on so it'll be down at sub 0.2p.

VSA as company broker has always had fanciful valuations for Egdon.
Got most of their EDR Buy ratings and Price Targets from 2014..
Started off at 60p, nearly always above 35p.
How anyone can credibly suggest that a 2p share with a clear need for funding can have a price target of 15-20 times this is beyond me. If someone came along next week and offered 3p, they'd be gone in a flash...

"A couple of positives to take from William's support for the company ...blah blah, positive stuff"
An alternative interpretation.
He's a big shareholder and so having to undertake a discounted raise ahead of confirming wrestle production rates (who'd want to invest just before the rates are known?) so its not in his interests from a personal dilution perspective. Easier to cover the potential shortfall with a bridging loan until the actual flow rates are established. If its successful then he gets his money back, if its not then theres a fund raise in the offing at which he can take shares in lieu of his debt (if called)

"If you didn't think it would flow commercially either gas or oil then you wouldn't waste time and money on permission for additional wells and long term production license."

Firstly Because it makes sense to know what the Local Councils position is going to be on EIAs.
These are NOT permissions to produce or drill, if you read the actually planning response it actually says the following:

...As such, the LPA cannot ask you to undertake an EIA of the development proposal or submit an Environmental Statement (ES) with the application for planning permission." ie they still need planning , as it clearly says at the end of the response.

secondly, if you wanted to sell it on quickly after a successful test , you'd want to be able to minimise any potential delay and uncertainties whilst a buyer tried to find it out for themselves - its called thinking ahead.