Member Info for RNSTranslator

Hi GP
Interesting idea.
EOG are out of cash, so the loan is to tide them over to first oil. Q is then what, the revenue from Wressle is hardly enough to do anything meaningful. Here’s my stab: RBD put their 16% of WN into EOG for shares, gives EOG an asset to raise against, and also solves RBDs problem they have as a direct stake in oil and gas assets is not within their stated investment policy as an investment company, and gets the regulators off their backs, they may try to lob in their Corallian shares in too as they’ve wanted to get out of that Money pit for a while for some kind of value.....
Or they may use EOG as a vehicle for Rathlin to rto into, that gives them the ability to raise more cash into that asset via EOG, and provides a market for their Rathlin shares . Suspect the former as the cash requirements for any WN development is probably beyond eog. However it could be a way for rbd to extract a market hyped value for WN rather than a value that a large player might pay (lower end of expectations).

I'm pleased for you that you think you'll get 3p.
I think the reality is everyone else will be long gone at less than 0.5p (and I suspect that might include you)
Unfortunately don't have a tent, if I believe hard enough, do you think it might magically appear?

I take it from your response that you are the agitated one. You say stuff that cant be supported. and thats OK,
You just want to believe, and anything that challenges that belief is simply ignored...We understand.

David will be well ahead here, that I am very confident of.

You may well be confident but it appears you don't know why?
Do you disagree with my points?, do you have other information to explain how UJO can disrupt if they find they are being left out of any sales process?

"Wressle production will start soon and i guess once that happens, punters will start buying in"
like yourself "punters" usually buy in on anticipation of good news, not on good news.
If it flows at 500/day then I'm sure the price will rise, and the punters will quickly exit, because the good news has been and gone. If it fails to flow at 500/day what do you think will happen?
To me its clear that at Egdon and Europa, are both waiting to get the flow established before going out to the market for more funding. Why would you attempt a fund raise ahead of proving the flow rate? Both are out of spare cash, at Egdon after paying the 400K on first oil, the cashflow (even at 500/day) is hardly enough to repay the debts, let alone undertake other activity like Biscathorpe.... over £1mm each to UJO and Yates.
I'll bet you that shortly after announcing Wressle rates (and assuming their close to "expectations") then they'll both announce a fundraise. If Wressle dent flow well, then they need to announce fundraise as they will be close to having more debts and obligations that cash income.... either way a fundraise is coming. either at something around 2p or 1p...

"Just because David is a small fish he can make himself a right pain in the butt."
Perhaps you could explain how he can do that?
They don't need his agreement to sell their share of any asset.
He can't insist on being part of any deal.
He doesn't have enough equity in the JV to block anything, budget, work programme etc etc.

Perhaps you know better, and can explain what he can do ?

Patience is required. Don't expect news on EWT results until at least March for WNB and April/May for WNA .
There may well be other news before then but it won't be flow rates.
Perhaps one of you who claims to be big buds with Dave, Sachin or Steve should call and ask...as a mate they're bound to answer your call...if not why not try their PR folks..?

"I just have an inkling that with the largest onshore discovery in 50 years"
To become the largest onshore discovery in 50 years only means it has to be more than 120bcf in place, (80 bcf recoverable). (Saltfleetby). For those that like boe, thats about 20mm boe in place or 14 mm boe recoverable...although some folks read that statement as "its almost as big as Wytch Farm"

"In my opinion Mirasol is a swampy/friend's of the earth person.
Here to put Union Jack Oil and UKOG down. Been doing it years.
Owns a mobile phones, drives a car, drinks out of plastic bottles laying on the floor outside oil rig sites. Probably cooks on gas at home ."

A classy response Heid... but has he ever been wrong in anything he has suggested?
Have you?

You may be correct in saying that 15 mm barrels of oil at $60/bbl is worth $900mm , as a mathematical fact. Trying to suggest that 15mm bbls of undeveloped (and as yet undiscovered in Colters case) oil still in the ground is worth $900mm is clearly not correct. I think the point you were making is that you'd like some potential investors to confuse this number with its real value to the company... correct?

"Colter's 15m barrels was worth $900m. They calculated 15m x POO at the time of $60 hence the $900m price tag."
That number is not the "retail worth" its the potential gross income using current oil prices, it neither reflects the cost of developing the asset, the operating cost per barrel nor taxes. The NPV10 of Colter was given by RBD as $59mm net to RBD, which gives gross asset NPV10 of about $360mm. That is the value using the estimated cost to develop, the cost to operate the income stream, and a discount rate of 10%, but it does not include any risk, i.e. the assumption is that the project will proceed as expected, no cost overruns, no delays and the oil price will remain constant. (sometimes an annual cost inflator is included). Of course it would be foolish to assume that anyone will buy it on a 100% risk free basis...so the actual retail value (to another potential purchaser) is the NPV * the risk of the project delivering as per the NPV calculations, with a factor that relates to level of competition for the asset and the sellers alternatives. These are the unknown factors, and will vary from buyer to buyer. Some recent transactions have been at a substantial discount to NPV see COPL as an example.

“Yes it would be silly a 200 barrel tanker sitting around for two and a half days toget a full load not very good economy me thinks.”
Yes it would, it would be equally stupid to put in a tanker smaller than your estimated rate...I’m not suggesting that it will flow at 80 (although we know it can do that as currently configured), simply that they have all become a hostage to fortune, if you estimate 500, and that’s what everyone has bought into and it only flows at 250, then what do you think is going to happen? Opex almost doubles from $10 to $20 a bbl, and not only is revenue reduced the per bbl profitability is significantly reduced...

“Wressle can come on stream at 500 barrels per day
West Newton has potential to much larger than originally thought
Flow test at West Newton confirms potential“
Wressle may come on at 500/day, but the fact is it flowed only at 80/day, because the formation had been invaded by mud, they will need to try and deal with this, and then IF they are successful it may flow at 500. 500 is an estimate that everyone has understood to be a certainty...it’s not it’s simply an estimate based on a successful intervention on the skin problem...
Of course you’re right WN may be larger that previously thought, but they did drill an unsuccessful first well B1 which would reduce their mapped volume. Whilst volumes are important, it is irrelevant if the reservoir can’t perform by delivering commercial rates and for extended periods without significant pressure decline or water ingress from the aquifer...(all other KA fields have had this problem due to fractures extending into the water leg and flowing preferentially)
Of course they will test otherwise how do you confirm commerciality?, it confirms nothing other than they have a zone worth testing...nothing else. They do of course have initial flow characteristics from A2 before it was shut down, but there was no information published...

Gwynwyn
You did not read that it was 700 a day.
The formation they are producing from flowed at 80 bbls per day- FACT. Go and read the Egdon release.
The other formations flowed at higher rates but cannot be produced from this location - FACT keep reading that same release.
500 is the companys estimate only.

Hi GP.
They have stated in previous releases that full cycle breakeven is about $17/18 and Opex at $10/bbl.
Of course the opex number is a function of production rate. So at 500 bbls/day its $10/bbl. (ie $5000 per day costs)
If they produce at 250bbls/day then opex is $20/bbl.
Opex costs are largely fixed, licence, manpower, water handling plus energy etc...other than transport ,as lower volumes mean lower transport costs. I think this latter point is lost on most as they presume its $10/bbl regardless.. which is not the case.

Indeed they need Wressle to flow at 500bbls/day...
"Production guidance for the first half of the financial year 2020-21 is 100 boepd" thats guidance for August -January (which has already happened). The conclusion being that the current production will only average 50 boe/day over the next 6 months as Wressle will deliver the 150bbl/day they have promised. (Making the 200/day they promise) That would mean Ceres is therefore uneconomic...hence >>

Ceres..."Production is expected to cease in the 2021-23 period", there is of course an abandonment liability associated with the field that will need to be funded.

Other costs:
"Shell has acquired a 70% working interest in the licences and has been appointed as the licence operator and administrator. In consideration, Shell will pay 85% of the costs of the acquisition and processing of a 3-D seismic survey (capped at US$5 million)" ... A good job its been delayed as Egdon are on the hook for 15% of the cost of the 3D up to $5mm and 30% for anything over thats $750k as a minimum, plus $300k per $million over that. Of course what "capped at $5mm" means is debatable, are Shell saying they'll pay everything over $5mm or is it saying that Shell will only pay 85% up to $5mm and its heads up thereafter? a clarification might be helpful...having done deals with Shell in the past I 'd bet its the latter.

Material Uncertainty: "The Group has recently secured a £1.00 million debt facility as detailed in note 6. The Group also requires additional funding to be raised and plans to access additional sources of funding via debt and/or equity to fund certain future activities. Whilst, after having made enquiries of our advisors, there is a high expectation on the part of the Directors that such debt and/or equity will be available in the market as and when required, a level of uncertainty exists in relation to this." .. more funding or carried farm outs needed to actually do anything. The expected production pays the salaries and overheads and hardly covers the debt of £2.05mm to be repaid.

Bottom line: If Wressle doesn't flow at 500/day they are toast...

Heid: Perhaps you didn't actually read the release?

"Production guidance for the first half of the financial year 2020-21 is 100 boepd" thats guidance for August -January (which has already happened). The conclusion being that the current production will only average 50 boe/day over the next 6 months as Wressle will deliver the 150bbl/day they have promised. That would mean Ceres is therefore uneconomic...hence >>

Ceres..."Production is expected to cease in the 2021-23 period", there is of course an abandonment liability associated with the field that will need to be funded.

Other costs:
"Shell has acquired a 70% working interest in the licences and has been appointed as the licence operator and administrator. In consideration, Shell will pay 85% of the costs of the acquisition and processing of a 3-D seismic survey (capped at US$5 million)" ... A good job its been delayed as Egdon are on the hook for 15% of the cost of the 3D up to $5mm and 30% for anything over thats $750k as a minimum, plus $300k per $million over that. Of course what "capped at $5mm" means is debatable, are Shell saying they'll pay everything over $5mm or is it saying that Shell will only pay 85% up to $5mm and its heads up thereafter? a clarification might be helpful...having done deals with Shell in the past I 'd bet its the latter.

Material Uncertainty: "The Group has recently secured a £1.00 million debt facility as detailed in note 6. The Group also requires additional funding to be raised and plans to access additional sources of funding via debt and/or equity to fund certain future activities. Whilst, after having made enquiries of our advisors, there is a high expectation on the part of the Directors that such debt and/or equity will be available in the market as and when required, a level of uncertainty exists in relation to this." .. more funding or carried farm outs needed to actually do anything. The expected production pays the salaries and overheads and hardly covers the debt of £2.05mm to be repaid.

Bottom line: If Wressle doesn't flow at 500/day they are toast...

300 -325 bbls/day Initial daily production 225-250 by this time next year.
There is no extended test data so the 500/day is their best guess headline rate, they won’t have a clue about decline rates as they didn’t test it long enough to know.

“Girls” = autocorrect for “Field” !!!

Indeed a classic AIM small cap oil promoter share.
Buy a “girls” from Dana for $2mm and float on the basis that this is a development project worth $100’s mm. Then drill the first “development” well and discover it’s not quite what you thought, possibly larger...then drill the next “development” well and find water..,ah it’s just moved to the west..so in effect they overpaid. Quite why folks invest in these things when it’s obviously being over promoted I just don’t understand...or maybe I do, and it’s actually nothing to do with the assets it’s just an officially sanctioned ponzi scheme.