Member Info for RNSTranslator

EDR won’t go bust, they’ll just have an emergency raise or sell out to one of the other small cap players for shares...
Of course if for some reason they did go bust (and it’s only really companies with debt that do) then they simply lose their share of the assets to the other partners...operatorship can also be claimed by the other coventurers in this circumstance

"West Newton will have plenty of gas to offer."
The only independent volumes we have are 189 BCF in place from Deloitte
After the WNA2 well the Operator changed this to 211-260 bcf in place, however since then we have had an unsuccessful B1 well and a successful B1Z.
The average recovery factor for the KA in the UK is 15%, but if this reservoir is different from all the others to date then perhaps we could see 60-80% recovery. call it 150-200 bcf rec. rec. on the operators figures 0r 100-150 bcf on Deloittes.
With a field life of 15 years thats gave or take 10bcf per year average. Which is about 1 days UK average gas usage. The Langeled Pipeline from Norway also delivers gas to Easington (where this gas would likely need to be cleaned and processed), that line delivers 900bcf per year, thats 90x of what West Newton might deliver IF the KA behaves differently from all the previous KA producers in the region. Lets put this in context, its not a game changing volume, and is strategically immaterial, even in their best scenario. It may have value, but clearly that would be from any liquids...so selling this as a key to Zero Humber is clutching at straws...

“ An independent Competent Person's Report is being commissioned to estimate resources separately.”
That was 13 months ago, why didn’t it appear?
At that time they had A2 and some basic flow information before shutting down to redesign the test.
The plan was to test soon after this with the reconfigured test programme..that never happened..so the CPR never happened. The only valid numbers we have to date are the Deloittes CPR pre A2...post A2 numbers were Rathlins internal numbers and thus not independent. The same folks who drilled B1 in the wrong place..no effective reservoir. Until there’s an independent CPR based on the latest wells and test results it’s all self certified speculation...
Ultimately They may well be right, but nobody is going to buy this until that CPR is done by a recognised company and they’ve confirmed that for themselves...

You can’t produce a meaningful CPR without the test rates and pressure information. Folks don’t pay for oil or gas in place, they pay for estimated recoverable volumes...
Given the fact these are Extended Well Tests, both will take at least a month each, followed by a couple of months for a CPR to be prepared it’s probably May at the earliest before we get a number for recoverable gas and oil..,in place numbers are meaningless from a valuation perspective.

“ Does that matter it’s the equivalent in returns, bobs or boepd what reservoir of the 3 don’t they have permission to produce from?”
Actually yes it does matter:
Boe (barrel of oil equivalent) is a measure of of gas in energy equivalent to a barrel of oil NOT value equivalent.
Over the last year the price of gas expressed in boe has ranged from $9 to $33 per barrel.
They only have permission to produce from the Ashover not the Pen’stone or Wingfield.
As GP pointed out the Ashover flowed at 80bbls/day...
Do you actually understand the risks and potential value of what you’ve invested in ?

What a load of bllx from BMD..,
14% is the porosity not the permeability...
Amateur hour ....

You can’t just apply an area and multiply by net column height . The feature isn’t a simple block and so the column isn’t 45m everywhere, and I haven’t seen a net to gross figure (where did you get this from?) You need to calculate a gross rock volume from the top KA surface map. Also you can’t add the matrix and Fracture porosity, you need to create an average number based on the estimated distribution of each of these. Of course the principal production would be from the fractures as these have (generally) higher permeability and the matrix’s contribution will depend on their permeability (which we don’t know) .
The average recovery factor from the KA in all uk fields is less than 15%, but of course this may be higher because of a longer potential column, if managed well and the reservoirs are reasonably homogeneous across the field area then gas would be well over 50%. The KA net to gross is, generally speaking. within high poro- perm bands rather than a uniform distribution over the column. I have seen no information on this from WN, but it depends where the net in the net to gross sits within the column...

Spankings - really?
Perhaps you could point them out for the other readers..rather than just make stuff up.
Making stuff up is clearly your favoured route...
If you don’t agree then rather than just responding with the usual attempt to discredit based on nothing but noise, perhaps explain your own valuation and price expectations...although I suspect that’ll be the usual “I’m not prepared to engage “ is it a secret? Or is the reality do really don’t have a clue...

Asset sale:
Cash sale Not feasible until tested and recoverable volumes/flow rates established. That’s months away.
As an OEIC they may be under pressure to dispose of a direct oil and gas holding. So there could be a driver to sell the asset for shares in a bombed out E&P company. That way they keep exposure to the interest and fulfil their OEIC obligations. Other than this it’s just an blatant attempt to ramp the price. Likely candidates would be Europa (They’re on the Board), Egdon (in dire need of cash, so an exposure to WN may help), after that just list any of the Zombie oil co’s on AIM that might suit...That way they could vend it in for shares, avoiding the need for a section 9 whitewash may mean they sell multiple stakes into a number of them.
Can’t see cash changing hands myself...

It’s clear to me that the company is in dire straits.
Borrowing money from a partner tells you there was no other viable route to progress their activity. Where were the two biggest shareholders with nigh on 50% of the shares (Yates and Premier) when they needed help to get Wressle on stream and get the auditors to sign off on the accounts?
The Board seem to be happy to just sit by and see what happens next, all with fingers crossed that Wressle will flow at 500/day...if it doesn’t then this is terminal...at least for Board and management ...somethings got to give.

hence, we could well get the news on this very soon, even without EWT
Nonsense.
Nobody will buy this until it’s been proven to flow commercially. It’s like buying a car just by checking that the fuel tank is full, but not looking under the bonnet to see if there’s an engine in there...

You are asking the bond holders to take more risk. They won’t simply extend the bonds as the risk profile (as they’ve now discovered) is much higher than they realised when they lent to money. What will they want? Asking them to take equity risk will require equity returns, so don’t be surprised when they take most if not all of the equity.
Why is it in their interest to let current shareholders get a return. It will require management/board to negotiate very hard for shareholders and play a game of chicken...unfortunately the Board and Management don’t have many shares and are rewarded by keeping the show on the road, regardless of who the shareholders are.

Spookie Good try but it doesn't work like that.
Its costs 10k bbl/day to run this, so only oil above this rate is "profit".
A single well will not produce 50 mm bbls - fact, so you'll need a bunch more wells at $75mm.
Production rates fall as pressure declines without water injection.. thats another 85mm
Theres a limit to what this vessel can do from production and water injection...
This is not a $2bn reward for a $75mm investment...
This sort of uniformed gibberish from desperate folks trying to recover what they can from a poor investment.

The company will survive, it’s just going to have different shareholders...expect a massive debt for equity swap and a delisting...whilst the bond holders drain what they can from the corpse. It has to be buried so that’s £30mm plus that comes ahead of them. So It needs to deliver 250-300 mm. People suggesting there’s big upside for current holders are simply deluded or hoping there are folks more gullible than themselves they can offload this to.

It was necessary as they know that’s what’s likely to happen. Much as you’d like them to keep quiet about the “bad stuff” that’s what got them into this situation in the first place...

Spike-
Shareholders will do ok here.
Unfortunately they won’t be the current shareholders who’ll finish up with a few % of the company.
Bond holders will do whatever delivers them the best return on the outstanding debt, and if that means the shareholders have to “take one for the team” then they’ll have no option. Break even here was 10k bbls/day but they can probably get down to 9k with better price and further cost cuts . Limiting to 12k will keep the economic limit at bay for longer so they can get the new sidetrack on stream.
Bond holders will go for the plan but will not let current shareholders get in the way or get a return here until they’ve got all their money back and some...

They're also "supposed" to declare as they pass each % point.
So either they did it all in one day, or they "forgot" to put out a TR1..
Volumes should indicate which is more likely...

itsawrap
Its unclear.
There is no obligation to declare a holding under 3% (some say 5%).
So they could be below 3% (folks usually put below 3%, but thats not obligatory.)
Or they could have sold out entirely.
I would suspect the latter ... as they've said nothing.

"The NPV for Cadeby 79m barrels was set at $850m hence the $11 yardstick, all on the RBD presentation pages."
Sorry this is not correct, buyers don't pay NPV10 for undeveloped oil in the ground. The NPV calculation assumes zero risk on the forward programme, appraisal, time to FID, development costs and financing costs and that it produces at the rates set in the calculation from the time and for the period in the inputs. It also assumes your cost of capital is 10%.
Non of these things are applicable;
1: its not without volume and reservoir risk
2: it has development cost and schedule risk
3: it has predicted production rate risk
The cost of capital is way more than 10% for the current owners, and any bidder will know that... see the recent COPL acquisition if you want to compare NPV10's with price paid.. COPL also shows values with NPV 15 and NPV 20, its in the US onshore but the same applies here.
The reason companies in the small cap oiler sector use these numbers is to give a false perception of value , whilst presenting numbers which are "technically correct calculations" albeit not within the correct context of risk.

"in which natural gas is reformed into clean burning hydrogen, with an envisaged 85% saving in related carbon emissions"
The by product of reforming methane into Hydrogen is CO2...you cant just vent this as that defeats the object of creating hydrogen to burn in the first place... what is the plan for the disposal of the CO2?