Member Info for robs12

From the 2020 Annual Report, about GPA:

"This is one of the North Sea’s largest undeveloped oil projects with three core fields that have been fully appraised. 13 wells have been drilled with an estimated 400 million barrels of oil-in-place."

Back in 2018, from the statement when PMG acquired 100% of Perth and Dolphin, one could calculate that the 2P for Perth and Dolphin was 44.8MMbbls.
They stated that Perth held 197mm oil in place, 24% of that = 47MMbbls, so roughly in line.

They also estimated that including the northern areas of GPA, total OIP was 498MMbbls - the AR now says 400MMbbls for just three already appraised fields.

Finncap's NPV uses a figure of 79.7MMboe recoverable (range 70-130MMboe) for GPA.

This seems very much at the low end, cautious approach, which is good.

Just dreaming, but if total OIP is still regarded as 498MMBbls (including more than just the three already appraised fields), and the recovery factor 24% then that's 120MMboe recoverable (+50%).
If the recovery factor actually turns out to be say 45% after stimulation, then that's 224MMboe (+181%) .

Equivalent risked current NPV, everything else being equal (which of course it isn't...!), £3.48/sh rather than £1.61/sh.
With $65/bbl rather than $55/bbl per the Finncap analysis, that makes for risked current NPV of £4.32/sh.
Unrisked £15+...

Nice to dream!

I posted about Perth recovery rates a long time ago, but not seen it mentioned recently at all (either on the boards or by PMG) - a little reminder....

Back in 2018 PMG undertook a study through AGR to model potential fracture stimulation of the reservoirs, which concluded (at least to the extent that has been announced publicly to date) - "New GPA reservoir study concluded that stimulating the Claymore formation would result in a considerable increase in well productivity and is likely to increase the project’s oil recovery factor."

A few years earlier, Senergy estimated 24% recovery rate for Perth, when 2P was given as 41.3MMBbls. In a research note, Charles Stanley had to say about it: "For Phase 1, our economic valuation assumes a recovery rate of 24% (based on the Senergy 2P estimates). We expect the actual recovery rate to vary from this current best estimate, perhaps materially because there is quite a bit of uncertainty, in our opinion, relating to the distribution of higher quality sands within the heterogeneous Claymore reservoir. Recovery estimates for the Claymore and Scapa fields, which also produce from Claymore sands, increased over time to 40% and 56% respectively (according to the operator Talisman Energy's most recent publicly available estimates)."

The 2P figure hasn't changed to date, but if there is any validity to the carry across from Claymore and Scapa, then the recovery rate could potentially be doubled - which would be very nice....
...lots of ifs and buts!

Pt 2:

20 November 2020:
“Parkmead is in commercial discussions with the Scott field partnership, including CNOOC, in order to agree terms for a tie-back of the Greater Perth Area (“GPA”) to the Scott facilities”
“Parkmead is also in discussions with other operators in the vicinity where new opportunities have arisen during the year”
“Infrastructure studies completed in 2020 have confirmed that there are no technical hurdles to produce Perth oil from the wells all the way through to the onshore facilities”
31 March 2021:
“Parkmead continues to assess draft commercial offers received from the Scott field partnership for the potential tie-back of the Greater Perth Area (“GPA”)”
“Infrastructure studies completed in 2020 have confirmed that there are no technical hurdles to produce Perth oil from the wells all the way through to the onshore facilities”
“Parkmead is also in discussions with other operators in the GPA vicinity where new opportunities have arisen during the year”
“Every $10/bbl increase in the oil price adds approximately £130 million to the P50 post-tax NPV of the Perth field development alone”

Part 1:
24 March 2017:
“Perth and Dolphin are at the core of Parkmead’s Greater Perth Area (GPA) oil hub project which has been fully appraised, with a combined total of 17 wells drilled, and has expected recoverable reserves and contingent resources of approximately 104 million barrels of oil”
17 November 2017:
“Greater Perth Area (“GPA”) invitation to tender announced to the service provider market, covering the pre-FEED, FEED and subsequent development phases of the project”
“13 alliance submissions received from 35 companies across all project components of drilling, subsea construction and export route options”
“In discussions with a number of leading, international service companies and oil companies”
“Parkmead has received financial proposals for significant parts of the development, reducing the capital expenditure needed to bring the project onstream”
29 March 2018:
“Parkmead now in full control of the GPA oil hub project with operatorship and 100% equity”
“Agreement signed with Nexen Petroleum, a subsidiary of China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), to undertake a detailed engineering study for the potential subsea tie-back of the GPA project to the Nexen-operated Scott facilities in the Central North Sea”
16 November 2018:
“Engineering study confirmed the technical feasibility of a tie-back of the GPA project to the Scott facilities”
“Parkmead has entered into commercial discussions with the Scott field partnership in order to explore terms for a tie-back of GPA to Scott”
“New GPA reservoir study concluded that stimulating the Claymore formation would result in a considerable increase in well productivity and is likely to increase the project’s oil recovery factor”
29 March 2019:
“Parkmead has entered into commercial discussions with the Scott field partnership, led by China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) International, in order to explore terms for a tie-back of the Greater Perth Area (“GPA”) oil hub project to the Scott facilities”
“Parkmead also holding discussions with a number of leading, internationally-renowned service companies in relation to the GPA project”
“A tie-back to Scott is one path to potentially unlock the substantial value of the GPA project”
15 November 2019:
“Parkmead is in commercial discussions with the Scott field partnership in order to potentially agree terms for a tie-back of the Greater Perth Area (“GPA”) to the Scott facilities”
“Parkmead is also holding discussions with a number of leading, internationally-renowned service companies in relation to the GPA project”
27 March 2020:
“Parkmead is in commercial discussions with the Scott field partnership, including CNOOC, in order to potentially agree terms for a tie-back of the Greater Perth Area ("GPA") to the Scott facilities”
“Parkmead is also holding discussions with a number of leading, internationally-renowned service companies in relation to the GPA project”

CJohnSpain - is 25% realistic? Who knows. Many have argued that it will never happen due to the H2S, but that is exactly what a lot of the work has been done to address.
I've posted similar before, but will shortly post a current timeline over the last 4 years from results and prelims - their words on GPA. There's a lot of what appears to be copy and paste, but read carefully, there are subtle changes to wording throughout.
The latest interims statement is clear - they have a commercial proposal on the table now, and there is no technical reason why it cannot go ahead.
Given that, personally I think 25% risking seems low now - of more interest is what % they have to give up to get the deal done.

ab76, every $10/bbl adds £130m = $180m or thereabouts at today's FX.
That is to the P50 post-tax NPV of the Perth field alone - i.e. not adding anything for Dolphin, Lowlander (which I think they have relinquished), Andrew, Beauly .....or Athena (if that were ever to come back on the table!).

Indeed, exactly what most of us long termers have been saying for years.
You could also argue that if GPA doesn't go ahead, then Fynn Beauly and Fynn Andrew are out too (both discoveries, risked at 10%), which is another 5.8p off the risked NPV.

The flip side is that GPA is THE project they have been working on pulling together and bringing to market for several years, and the upside if it becomes 'unrisked' is huge. Even if they have to give up half of it to fund it and get the deal done - hopefully we'll find out soonish..

Still a long way to go before TC breaks even.
Prior to the farm purchase (at 50p/sh), his average was just over 70p IIRC, and Ryan Stroulger considerably higher.

The Finncap report calculates total risked NPV at 161.6p/share, with the majority of that (103p) due to GPA priced with Brent at $55/bbl, and risked at 25%.
The unrisked NPV for GPA is stated as US$613m, and they say every $10/bbl increase in Brent adds ~£130m to the P50 NPV.
With Brent now at $65/bbl, that unrisked NPV for GPA heads toward $793m, or 532p/share, risked at 25% = 133p/share.
So notwithstanding any other changes in gas prices etc (all currently higher than the Finncap figures stated, and any knock on effects to valuation of other fields/explo etc), that increases the current total risked NPV to ~192p/share.
(If my figures and theirs are correct!).
The WoS numbers are frightening (though nothing in the risked NPV for them, all valued at zero)

That's an interesting start to the day!

Just how far is Bulletwood-1 from Koebi-1? Are they thinking they could be linked?
Haven't heard anything about Koebi-1 yet?

Certainly seems like a departure from the plan if it's really happening (seems clear, hasn't been corrected yet and the coordinates are correct), and quite unusual. As you say, probably best to wait and see if they disclose why they are there in due course....let's hope it's not just a problem with the P part of P&A, but that (probably) wouldn't take 6 weeks to fix.
Could be interesting.

Nothing startling in there that I can see, other than the rather good news that they sold out the vast majority of the holding in Ratio Petroleum on 17 November - the day Tanager-1 result was announced. Ratio were 121 ILA on the 17th Nov, now 67 ILA (after poor Goliathberg result too).
They bought into Ratio in May 2018, at 97.4 ILA, so have made a little money on the deal (approx £100K), despite the disappointing Tanager-1 result.

Goliathberg a duster. Bad news for Ratio, and in turn for WTE..

Jabillo-1 will resume drilling in around mid to late May.

So result probably not until early July at best?

There should be news of spudding within the next 2 weeks?

https://oilnow.gy/featured/guyana-court-orders-kaieteur-news-to-pay-former-president-gy20-million-over-false-oil-blocks-claims/

Good, hopefully clears that one up once and for all...

Interesting - Zennor petroleum got taken out by NEO a couple of days ago - NEO were already a 15% holder in Athena.
Now also a stake in Skerryvore/Ruvaal, and Platypus where Zennor were also in cahoots with PMG.
NEO are spending like crazy.

It looks like they are spudding Koebi, then moving off to spud Jabilo, then some maintenance, then back to finish Koebi? Then presumably back to finish Jabilo.
“The Stena Carron has INITIATED (My caps) drilling of the Koebi-1 well in the Stabroek block. It will then move to the Jabillo-1 in the Canje block to INITIATE similar drilling activities later this week,” ExxonMobil Guyana Public and Government Affairs Advisor, Janelle Persaud said in a comment to OilNOW on Tuesday. “After a brief period of maintenance, the Stena Carron is expected to continue drilling of the Koebi-1 well in the Stabroek block.”

They can't drill full depth in 2/3 weeks which is why the dates sounded odd on the Mariner's. Doesn't seem an efficient way to do it, but maybe the maintenance is needed because something broke and they can't get deeper until it is fixed?

Don, given #30 says it will be moving to Koebi-1 on 3 March and conclude 20 March (which is a very fast drill in itself?), and this one says it will start Jabilo-1 on 10 March and conclude March 27....it can't be in two places at once.
And this another very fast drill if dates correct.
I'm no pessimist, I'm very optimistic or I wouldn't be here! But a realist also!