Member Info for SpArmada

Not only Petros has rejected their application, it has confirmed that the work done is still insufficient and more data acquisition and progressing is necessary before a PSC can be offered. Upland is a 0 without a PSC, folks.

Yeah, just ignore Petros who is saying that no PSC will be given to UPL but it will go through an open tender instead

@Puzzler2 I don't think we will see a fst track development for SFA without the FPSO, because it was essential for the old Puteri cluster. However, in the case of the PM428, some discoveries could be developed as tie-ins to the existing infrastructure like PM323/PM329 or the Abu or Bindu clusters that belong to other companies. I do expect a fast development of any gas discovery, as the FPSO Bunga Kertas is exclusively for oil production, so any gas resource can be connected to existing infrastructure.

They cannot claim reserves until the FDAP is submitted and approved. I understand that the estimated resource is a very low ball, as the field has seen little to no capex, infill drilling for example, in the last few years. They have plenty of time to work on the licences to increase the analysis of the existing discoveries and study the prospects until they can get the FPSO back from Chevron in a very good shape. I'd expect an upward revision of the resource and reserves in the next 12-18 months.

Here it is confirmed that the company hasn't secured the Block as it was hinting in the last releases. Petros has decided that any company can bid for the PSC, so Upland has no advantage.: https://www.upstreamonline.com/exploration/uk-independent-sees-malaysia-block-slipping-through-its-hands-2025-drill-plans-uncertain/2-1-1683259

Today's RNS could have been in the interest of someone that wanted an exit ...

With enough money, everything is possible. My guess they would have to work from day 0 with a huge inventory of spare components and parts in case they need one of them on short notice. Offshore support vessels cannot be stored until they are needed, they are specialised pieces of equipment, that's more my concern. I supose they could use some vessels operating in southern Brazil when necessary, but they would have to sail thousands of kilometres to the Falklands.

Considering that there is 0 infrastructure and service providers for offshore o&g developments in the Falklands and Argentina isn't going to allow the use of its ports for supplying SL, what alternatives does Navitas+Rockhopper have for the development and operation stages? Synergies with other developments will be essential to "split" the cost of creating this ad-hoc network of suppliers.

There isn't such thing as an "Argentine governor of the Malvinas", he's the governor of the Tierra de Fuego region. Argentina has always opposed any kind of exploitation of the resources in the Malvinas, so it should not surprise anyone that they are against the development of Sea Lion.

Deeko, are you aware that the cost of the exploration well for LBE is going to be in the USD 20-30 million range? They may reduce it after the farm out, maybe to USD 5-10 million, but it still is a lot of money for LBE. They could be carried, but then they would still need money for the next 2-3 years until Kertang becomes FID-ready. You may argue that they may receive some cash as part of the farmout, but it would be a small amount because the award of the licence was last year, thus there aren't many costs to be reimburshed. I'm not saying there is going to be a placement soon, but saying it is not going to happen is naïve, it is a grey area.

Black on white: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2582024-union-asks-uk-labour-to-drop-north-sea-exploration-ban

Very much appreciated oilworker!

Notice that the document was signed between the Government of the Republic of Iraq and the Government of the Republic of Turkey, not the KRG. That is the origin of the dispute (the ITP no shipping Iraqi oil but Kurdish oil instead) that has resulted in damages of $600 million in favour of Iraq, with an additional amount from 2019 to 2023. I don't think that document can be applied to the situation of the IOCs.

You can find the agreement if you Google "ITP Pipeline Agreement", in my case it's the third result from jurismundi. It was filed on 04/10/23

Oilworker, do you have actual field experience? I have 2 questions:

- other companies reports barrels of fluid during the clean up, some even with the % of water, gas or oil in it, is it common that they don't report this data?

- could the naturally fractured reservoir be the cause of additional clean up? One would think that the fluid might have gone into these fractures beyond expected and, despite the longer clean up, the outcome would be more positive if the stimulation was above expectations, am I right?

I don't know if you have read this piece, but it is not very positive with the prospects of the IOCs in Kurdistan. It says that Iraq could be preparing its own segment of the ITP to bypass the Kurdistan one. It also casts a shadow over the chances of success in the negotiation process: https://zerogcos.substack.com/p/pipelines-courts-and-politics-opportunities-02e

They are bidding for the Puteri blocks (its former AAKPLN or something like that) because the decommissioning costs have been already placed into the field's cess fund. Akatara doesn't increase significantly the decommissioning liabilities and the future Vietnamese development would also be a low-ARO project, as it will reuse existing infrastructure. The problem are Stag and Montara, mainly Stag.

Falkland Islands Government?

What's FIG?

Without the allowances, Pilot might not be developed