Member Info for RNSTranslator

“initial studies suggest water injection could partially mitigate the reserves downgrade, and onlapping sandstones at Lancaster could represent material upside potential," -Hur. Chairman Today

1: Injection mitigation helpful.
2: Onlapping sandstones: where's the nearest (perhaps only) analogue?
Oh that'd be Solan....PMO Belief "Production from the field is expected to reach between 20,000 and 25,000 barrels of oil per day in the second half of this year." - Actual: Peak production 9k bbls/day. now a little over 3 years later its less than 2k bbls/day, another well P3 recently drilled. Dev Cost >$2bn Reserves originally 44mm bbls (Dev cost ~$50/bbl at 44mm bbls) now significantly smaller reserves and expected end of life 2025. - Don't hold your breath on that one!

I'd also heard he had the seafood.. how shellfish!

"RNSTrader my average here is 0.15p.."
Yes you're right you do have a lower average than me, mine was about .17
Difference is I sell when it runs ahead to numbers far more that its worth to another company, taking into account the risks and the as yet unproven commerciality of the assets.
So I sold most of mine in the .28/.29 range, the last few at .27
So you're correct you've been spanked.
Mainly because you believed what you wanted to believe rather than being honest about what it was you were investing in.
I'm not smarter, I just take care to make sure I understand the facts not the bull.

Face it RNSTrader, we’ve all had a spanking here
Speak for yourself...

Yes oddly worded.
We're fully funded for WN and upto first oil at Wressle. Clearly a fundraising was being actively discussed but wasn't formally underway, hence the no mention that there is one, but oddly adds that the proceeds of any such raising will be used for the companys flagship (WN) project and other stuff.

Its seems clear to me they probably need to fund the £2mm for Calmar. (funded "upto first oil" is a very specific qualifier)
They will also need money for Biscathorpe/Keddington and Wressle phase 2 (PF) etc.
Mentioning the future WN stuff is a bit premature (probably a bit of a cover story) as they still need to establish commerciality first which they already have funding for.

My read on this is:
They can't easily borrow the £2mm, so best not mention that as its what they said they'd be doing.
If something unexpected happens at WN (dry hole at WNB or the well declines on test) then they'll be raising money for Biscathorpe (ALWAYS mentioned by DB) and phase two at Wressle at a hugely bombed out price.
This way they have money for Biscathorpe/Keddington and Wressle Phase 2 even if WN bombs out, if its a success they can then follow up on WN plans...depends on how much they raise though. Its the obvious thing to do from a corporate perspective, albeit unpopular.
To be honest I'd expected him to raise after the well and before testing... seems the Wressle first oil cash plus a need to ensure funding for Biscathorpe etc scuppered that plan.

Hey ShanJo
Still waiting for you to tell us about what commercial production means at Wressle and how you know...
Have you "forgotten" or are you just lost for words.

Slacksid; You say "We were fully funded in May...............and we’re only in September now."

You might want to study what they actually say and do rather than what you would like to think they have said and done.
They were very specific in May ...

"Fully funded for all current drilling and well testing commitments
Cash balance in excess of £5.5 million as at 1 May 2020"

This was for drilling and testing commitments. As usual in these cases its what they didn't say that's the key: It wasn't clear if this included the £1.04mm due on Wressle production (that's not strictly speaking Drilling and Testing cost).
Since that announcement they spent £500k on more of Wressle in June which in addition added another £1.04mm to the cost due on Wressle production. Thats an extra £1.5mm commitment out of what was a £5.5mm pot. We didn't know if that pot was sufficient to cover their original £1.04mm, as they didn't specify. They have reiterated subsequently that they are fully funded for WN drilling and testing. (again a very specific qualifier)
They did however also say on that acquisition that they had been told that they could likely fund the £2.08mm from a debt/prepayment type facility, suggesting that the £5.5mm was not sufficient to cover the Wressle payment.
As we're probably only 4-6 weeks from Wressle first oil, they have to find this money. I would imagine that they've been in, or are still in, discussions with lenders for the £2.08mm to be paid back from Wressle production. Lenders against future production and reserves in effect lend against your future oil production and the oil in the ground as security. So understandably they want some certainty that 1: The oil is there in the quantity you claim and 2: that it will flow at the rates you suggest (this is how they get will their money back). The lenders will of course want to verify that this is the case and will and do take external independent advice on this.
As far as I can see, (and have already posted the information on this from Egdon), is that the reservoir they are developing only flowed at 80 bbls/day because of a "skin effect" but they expected it to flow at 500+ bbls/day. Of course it will require the lenders reservoir engineering advisors to agree with that assessment. If they don't then they wouldn't lend, if they do then they will.
So what are the alternatives if they won't lend because of this uncertainty, there's really only one.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that they're still in discussions/negotiations with lenders about the £2mm and don't want to compromise those negotiations with a release, or that they are exploring alternative funding sources for the £2mm which of course requires 3rd party discussions and as such may not be as confidential as they would like.

Dan-
Don't hold your breath for a TR1. Any seller should inform the company, the sanction for not doing so is .. pretty much nothing. The company cannot issue a TR1 in its own right to out a seller who doesn't send one in.
Its an offloaders charter...

Gonzalez,
DB/JO'F Godson and Bull etc are NOT the only people who can leak. (I'd argue its not in their own interest to do so)
Any deal, be it placing, acquisition or material change of circumstance will be known by the broker and nomad, and thats usually at least a handful or two of folks. The PR folk will probably not be told until just before its actually happened.
Leakage if indeed there is any, in my opinion, often comes from the investment community. It is of course illegal to be brought over the wall to discuss some material price sensitive information or market soundings and then to disclose it, even on a wink wink basis to their mate down the pub... its called insider dealing. Does it go on, of course it does, but it can be hard to establish sufficient evidence to convict. When a company has larger institutional investors who will not risk any reputational damage on a relatively small deal then its usually (but not always ) a secure conversation. Of course when you've a mainly retail investor base its much more difficult to establish a shareholder sentiment or buy in to whatever it is you're thinking of doing, this way. Hot money insti's, and they're really the only game in town at this end of the market, are just that, hot money chasing a quick return, don't give a toss about the longer game.

Ah Mr Heid,
quote: "It is a shame that we have to rely on the likes of Roofers rather than the official PR personnel , which is quite frankly , imo, appalling. Anybody can retweet an RNS. And I have seen ONE decent interview from Steff, our PR girl. I have seen comments on this board saying what a marvellous job Steff does but so far I do not see what added value she brings and I know from discussions with other shareholders who share my opinion."

1: You can only retweet an RNS thats actually been made by the company.
2: Clearly you think its the Company's job to ramp the shareprice, regardless of what they've actually said.
3: Thing is you know, the contents of that RNS are checked by the NOMAD. Any factual inaccuracies or knowingly deliberate falsehoods will find them in deep water legally, and so it won't be allowed out.
This is why, if you read them carefully, its possible to understand whats really happening..the odd "if" and "potentially" and "could" rather than "will"...etc. etc..the game is to accentuate the positives, but do not to lie. The negatives, unless they are material will just not be mentioned. Unless you have experience, its hard to know what it is they haven't told you.

Research is usually paid for by the company or done by the broker, its worth the paper its wiped on. Just look at all the ludicrous valuations on Egdon over the years. These research pieces are written by folks who know everything about a spreadsheet and NPV's and nothing about how the industry actually works, and they know the game is to promote the company who in effect is paying their salary.
The video Interviews are by wannabe media luvvies who simply ask questions from the script they've been given and approved by the Company. No tricky questions.
PR companies are there to Promote the company, and regurgitate the RNS, for a fee.

The Company would run a mile from a truly informative interview with questions like this:
Interviewer: So Mr Small Cap CEO, welcome to the programme, we note your recent RNS concerning the Wressle Development, and the Breakeven Price of $17.42 and Opex of $10 per Barrel"...
CEO: ..positive response highlighting the low costs and low capex and the "transformational" nature of the production.
Interviewer: When you say $10 per barrel Opex is that the opex per barrel when you're producing 500 barrels per day or the average for the life of the field? So,for example If you are producing at 250 barrels per day is it still $10/barrel or is it then $20/barrel. As you well know, Mr CEO, Opex is of course broadly speaking fixed. Halving the production rate doesn't mean you can half the site staff, or half the power requirements or half the site running costs does it?
CEO: But this is Transformational, as we said in the RNS.
Interviewer: But can you answer the Opex question, is it $10 per barrel for the life of the field or just when you're producing 500 barrels per day.?
CEO: This isn't in the list of questi

Quote from Mr Parsnips 9/7/2020 11:44
"I never said it was. Someone said that Dave was never involved in fracking. He was. And I am up to the balls invested here and in RBD."
Who has the motive to ramp....??

Mr Parsnips:
I'm simply pointing to the information released by the Operator (and repeated by UJO) and then making simple calculations based on that information. What do you disagree with? How is that deramping?
(de)Ramping is when folks mislead, make up stories, and either ignore or put their own interpretation on the facts.
Now who's the ramper.. uh!

"production rates in excess of 500 bopd could be anticipated >>> if <<< the effects of the "Skin" can be successfully countered".

Notice the IF, that means its not certain, but likely, and therefore not 100% nailed on..
To date the Ashover has only flowed at 80 bbls/day.

"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."

Wressle: Decline rates, cashflow and development of the *****tone Flags.
All this is published information from the Operator, not an interpretation.

Mark Abbott, Managing Director of Egdon Resources said:
"Development of the *****tone Flags reservoir will require careful positioning of any future well to optimise oil production from this interval in which we have seen a higher level of gas than in other reservoir intervals. The planned additional test is designed to gain the appropriate information in the most cost-effective manner whilst also evaluating radial drilling which is one of the potential development options being considered for this interval. We also look forward to determining the cause of the issue with the Ashover Grit EWT and to resolving this such that we will be able to determine the true potential for oil production from this interval."

Ashover /Wingfield:
Gross 2P oil Reserves of 0.62 million stock tank barrels in aggregate identified across two reservoir sands, the Ashover Grit and Wingfield Flags that form the basis of the initial development plan which currently excludes development of the material *****tone Flags reservoir sands
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 Production of 500 bbls/day+ requires successful counteraction of the "skin" effect.
Development of the *****tone Flags will be later and will require "careful positioning of any (future) well"
The Reserves for the current development is 620,000 bbls gross. CP Report. PF +2.15mm bbls.-CP Report

500 bbls/day is 182,500 bbls/year. Fields do not produce at one rate and then suddenly stop, they decline. Assuming no decline means that the Ashover/Wingfield would be finished in a little over 3 years, assuming a more realistic 20% annual decline rate then its more like 5-6 years.
Cashflow/Tax
Opex is $10/bbl Project breakeven is $17.42 Reserves for this phase 620,000.
This means the cost base to first oil is £4.6mm (620k*7.42)
At $45 per bbl and 500bbls/day, then year one gross revenue is $8.2mm, less opex at $10 thats $6.4mm. So this tells you that payback is quick. that is that the £4.6mm cost pool will be used up in less than a year. The field revenues will then be taxable at a Ring fence CT rate of 30% plus a supplementary CT charge of 10% (less any onshore allowances) from about month 9 onwards.
Bottom line, some of the current development cashflow will be need to be deployed into the development of the larger 2.15mm bbl *****tone development, which will requ

I do read them, difference is I understand them.
OFA, Whats that then, if its not a quasi-debt or a pre payment facility?
Its effectively a cash advance against future production, they effectively take a share of your production to repay the advance (plus interest). Either way your income stream is less/net production is lower as it goes towards repayment of the £2mm. The term of the arrangement depends on the expected production profile and the risk and rate of of decline or water ingress issues. As the field will naturally decline and in due course start to pay tax at 50% then the off take/repayment is front end loaded. At current prices the net revenue stream will keep the lights on and pay the salaries plus a bit more, but it won't pay for another WN well, maybe a Biscathorpe sidetrack later next year if they're lucky and Egdon/Humber also have the money to drill (which they don't currently have).

"The 2m due to be paid on oil coming out the ground is in fact around 700k and can be paid over a period of time in installments, as indicated by our esteemed leader DB in an interview some time ago."
Perhaps you could remind us where/when he said that? My recollection was that they were looking for some type of debt or oil prepayment facility to cover the £2mm due. I've never seen mention of a £700k prepayment, certainly not in any press release, nor in any interview, such a deal if indeed it ever existed would need to be formally announced.
Timing of Wressle: Its often quite useful to compare releases between different JV partners in the same asset. UJO and Europa have always indicated 2H (2nd Half) of 2020 for Wressle first oil. Egdon (serial over promisers and under deliverers) were, until recently saying Q3/Q4, now they say 2H. This suggests that there was at least a possibility of first oil before the end of September (end of Q3), so that suggest the timing of first oil was Sept/October (else why say Q3/Q4!) Given they now say H2, that suggests first Oil is in October (or November if its slipped), but haven't heard anyone mention its anything other than its going well and on time. Of course you can't say we're now producing first Wressle oil unless you've dealt with the £2.08mm payment.. so the solution to that issue has to be mentioned at the same time. Which from my reckoning, potential October first oil is probably before WN reaches the reservoir, so that solution will probably need to come before the initial well results, and almost certainly before the testing results.

They plan to core, this will of course depend on whether they core "on depth" or "on shows"
Given the high certainty they have of gas, its almost certain they'll core on Depth, i.e. stop drilling just above the reservoir section..
If they core on Depth, so that they can get a full core of the reservoir section then they will not enter the reservoir before coring starts. And as you point out absent of a sleeve then it may be that the core they get out may not have any gas remaining.
You cannot drill through a reservoir and then go back and core it. So they won't really know what they have, other than from gas/oil shows on coring, but ultimately from MWD logs when the re enter and drill on to TD.

Mirasol
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
"They'll test it as its hooked up and probably once a week, so be ready for mass over excitement at any time..."
Thats just plain nonsense.
The first sign of any hydrocarbons will be after they've cored the reservoir section, The core will likely be the first bit of data that gives any indications of hydrocarbons and type, although there may be some clues in the mud returns as they are actually coring depending on mud weigh etc.

I've just scanned the Rathlin site where they have a more accurate breakdown of drilling times.
https://www.rathlin-energy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/West-Newton-Community-Liaison-Committee-Meeting-Notes-21-May-2020.pdf
This is more detailed information than the generalised 6-10 weeks released via RNS but isn't specific about from when or whether this includes the Conductor drilling (clearly it doesn't!).
Putting aside the discussion about whether the conductor is drilling or not, or whether its stuck or not, these are the facts presented by the operator.
Conductor Rig operations: Mobilisation 2-3 days, Drilling 4 weeks.
Main rig: Mobilisation and construction 8-10 days
Main Rig Drilling: 7-8 weeks
Putting all this together and taking 17th of August as the Start of Conductor Drilling you get -
Conductor Rig drilling ends 14th September (28 days)
Main Rig on site and Constructed: 22nd Sept - 24th Sept (8-10 days)
Main Rig Drilling reaches TD: 10th November to 19th November (49-56 days)
This assumes the the main rig arrives as soon as the conductor is finished and that drilling goes according to plan.
It may of course be quicker or slower depending performance etc.
So it looks like results are due sometime around 10th November maybe as late as the 19th.
These are not guesses, these are the operators own numbers.

Lenin
End of october shareprice: Depends whether they are still drilling, and for how long they've been drilling, and that depends on when the rig arrives and we don't know when that will be. Heres my starter for 10, absent any other non WN news or significant oil price movements.
I suspect the share price will settle back at .23/.25 as there is no news to get folk excited for weeks to come.
Once drilling starts it'll slowly climb back up to .3/.32 before results are due, if they announce they've found oil/gas (rather than just oil shows) I expect it'll spike to .35/38 maybe .4 temporarily before folks start to take a profit, once testing underway then It'll fall back to sub.3 on heavy selling/profit taking.
If they announce that the test has failed or didn't flow at commercial rates then it'll be back to .15 or less falling to .1.
If they get commercial flow rates it'll go back upto around the .5 mark before heavy selling ahead of test 2. I would expect back down to the .35/.4 mark.
Of course there are other things that will affect the price in the mean time:
Wressle going on stream, but that will also need to be accompanied by news about how they are financing the £2mm due to Calmar, either a quasi debt instrument with an equity kicker, or a fund raise. I'd put a 25/35% chance of a fundraise after drilling and before testing IF Wressle comes on at that point and they get an acceptable debt instrument in place. If no debt facility available then a fund raise is probably in the 50% plus range.
Perhaps you could share your view?