Member Info for WiseOldFool

Thanks CoplHodler and Tiburn for the responses re the horizontals and bubbling. Appreciate you taking the time to respond.
I guess we just don't have enough information available as yet. Fingers crossed the first short horizontals will provide some few hundred at least, anything like that now would make a significant difference to our bottom line and even better if they a achieve good rates without flooding.
Perhaps I'll drop Art an e-mail to see if he can can shed any light on the bubbling.

Hi Tiburn,

Nice to see you around here as I haven't recently!
As a posters who appears to have a good knowledge of the oil industry, would you mind if I picked your brain on a few things?

- As COPL have indicated they are looking to add short horizontals of 500-1000ft in length, do you believe these are still capable of achieve 1000-3000 BOPD?
- The latest presentation says, on the subject of BFDU (page 11) "primary recovery factors by analogy are limited to
10% maximum until the reservoir reaches bubble point" - do you know roughly how long it will take for the reservoir to reach bubble point?

If anybody else is able to provide insight on the above too it would be appreciated! I haven't been able to find much information on them using Google (perhaps there are too many variables to factor in).

Fingers crossed they are near the end Gold. Get all overhang completed by the AGM so that after that the we can hopefully commence the anticipated news cycle.

Devilbhiy & gold I appreciate the comments. Respectfully I disagree however perhaps the word Masterstroke was a little OTT.
Ultimately it comes down to whether an investor believes they can make a profit from their investment here based on that particular individuals calculations and I do have every confidence I stand to make a profit. As you guys are here are you not invested and do you not expect to make a profit here regardless of whether you agree on the course to get there.

Shaa that is an extraordinary interpretation of what I said.
I did not once reference positivity, confidence or optimism I referenced misinformation from "rampers".
To be optimistic or positive is to say "Imagine if RS confirmed even more OIIP than Art suggested"
Misinformation is "If we want some sort of guidance, it has been said the New Discovery is similar to PANR, they are worth a Billion pounds, putting us at £10 a share." (The £10 changed to £4.40 of course).
This was not correct information, something which you have as yet still not set the record straight for - why not? As such I would suggest this is a ramp.
I also have not suggested bad language is acceptable, I actually said its best people check the rules to ensure they operate within them... bad language is something else which is also against board rules.

The reason I do not filter anybody is because it would disrupt the flow of a thread and also because non-facts like suggestions PANR have the same OIIP as COPL must be corrected as I would not want to influence potential investors. You read my post about me being sucked in by the rampers so I'm sure you can understand why I would want to ensure others do not to get sucked in by untrue information and I will continue to ensure I correct mistakes where I can such as that whilst also remaining positive that I believe I will make a tidy sum from my investment here and attempting to provide constructively produced information on the company and its merits.

Art getting Atomic was indeed a masterstroke, how he did it arguably not as good as we would have liked but ultimately it is accretive. He clearly forced CUDA in to a corner and managed to protect COPL to an extent with the lien. That was a good move. Again however how it has been funded was not exactly fantastic however I am saying that from a greedy perspective where 6 months ago I may have though we could £2.00 I know we have 50% more shares than then and as such perhaps £1.50 is more fair. Unfortunately if all warrants were to be exercised then we may be looking more towards £1.10. I mean I'm happy with £1.10, it'll give me a great return but man I would have loved £2.00 obviously because, ya know, greed!

Hi Sidney, I try to avoid naming posters by name as it could be construed as inhibiting posters which is against LSE rules. As you say you're not "glued here 24/7" so perhaps you miss some of the countless threads which get deleted on a daily basis by moderators on days where the stock market is open. At the weekends this becomes more of a "tit for tat" place less misinformation is spread as of course it is less likely to influence posters to buy at that time as the markets are closed. If you check back on some of my recent posts I have tried to bring the narrative back towards discussions on the company, future value, informative tidbits etc as that is certainly what I prefer and is why I have been making an effort to post more regularly this past week.
I do tend to check this chat regularly as there can be some insightful postings from some with far more experience than I (Tiburn, SteveV, R-Dunc, Edgein, CoplHodler) to name a few, unfortunately these are often caught up in threads which end up deleted after they turn in to misinformation or abuse towards individuals.

Shaa, nobody on here is a "bulletin board hero", there are shameless rampers who's mission is to mislead PI investors in order to attempt to profit off them investing and leave them "holding the ball", clearly this is working very very poorly indeed but it is also extremely poor taste to deliberately intend to profit whilst creating misfortune for others. You admit most of what you and others write is pie in the sky. Misleading investors is against LSE board rules.

Many on this board have been accusing the "green box brigade" of misinformation and saying back up your claims. Now, whilst nobody has yet called me a deramper I took this advice on and tried to provide accurate and verifiable information but that even does not appear to be enough. What is it people actually want?
Is it for everybody to agree with "pie in the sky" calculations to mislead potential investors and never question it? I'm not prepared to be party to that AT ALL, that is disgusting behaviour.
I have moral fibre and do not wish to profit on any misfortune of other PIs.

Regarding CoplHodler, yes I have said that some of his posts make sense (when on topic of the company or discussing oil), he also makes attempts to debunk the "pie in the sky" stuff because he doesn't want others to be misled.

Baseless ramping is rife and it is obvious rampers control the narrative on this board to such an extent that they drown out any sensible posts and when rampers theories are debunked, they are not prepared to acknowledge their mistakes or have sensible discussion, it continuously goes back to "why are you even here if you're so negative" even though those debunking rarely provide negative reviews of the company or its prospects, just a negative review of the rampers particular theory.
CoplHodler has stated that he expects over 100% in the near term and potentially over 500% in the long term. That is a bloody good return on investment! Do you not agree? Most shares will not be capable of doing that so why is that 500% deemed as a bad thing in here? I will half my holding at the very very least if we achieve that. He does not sound like a deramper to me, he sounds like a man who's approach is measured perhaps you were to keen to "green box" him.
Unfortunately he currently appears distracted going round in circles with a rather very peculiar poster who asks lots of questions but never answers any.

Perhaps ALL POSTERS ON THIS BOARD need to check the LSE board rules prior to posting (rules such as Rule 5.h. "you will not post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts" and "post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.")
I believe if I went through the last weeks worth of postings I would probably be able to report 90% of the posts on those rules alone (like that irritating poster posting "blue blue blue" many times a day.

Stas20 thanks for the response. There are of course a multitude of variables which should be taken in to account, however one could not ever include all variables. My basis for using PANR was another poster using PANR as a comparable valuation, suggesting we had as many OIP as PANR which we unfortunately do not. That being said, both are US based, both have similar royalties, both have light oil, so the comparison certainly includes a small percentage of variables. My calculation was nothing more than "a bit of fun" as I fancied crunching some numbers (if you're a numbers man I'm sure you understand that sometimes you just want to crunch numbers), I also made it unequivocally clear that it was a very basic calculation not factoring in variables.

What I find odd however is that you are questioning the recovery factor I used. As I stated quite clearly, in two posts, this recovery factor is taken from the presentation COPL recently released, that recovery factor has not been made up by me, I am merely going on what the company, COPL themselves have stated. I also advised I would use conservative figures (should we not always go by base case? We do not want to expect more and deliver less, we want to think "this is great as a base case so anything more is fantastic")
As mentioned in an earlier post, please verify the below to page 22 and 23 of the COPL presentation;
Primary Recovery - 8% - 10%
Secondary Recovery - 40%

The comment from the poster following yours was very curious indeed, as that poster yesterday compared us to 88e and PANR and gave us an implied share value based on their Market Cap and based on information which is was not correct.
Since their post was debunked, it has not been following by an acknowledgment that their info was incorrect.
Many posters often call for an apology if the "green box brigade" provide claims which are noted to not be entirely accurate and are often asked to back up their claims but they themselves fail to back their claims up and are entirely unwilling to acknowledge mistakes within their posts or back their information up.
The attitude of this board is very peculiar indeed.

Hi meanreverter, I don't dispute that the recovery rate could be higher, I was solely using the primary recovery provided in the COPL presentation (pages 22 and 23). My findings are really only to look at what may come from the initial Resource Report being conducted by Ryder Scott.
COPL do use flooding however as this field is currently unstimulated with only one vertical exploration well running, I am not sure whether Ryder Scott would allude to a second recovery rate as their is no data on how well the field could perform under flooding.
That being said COPL did provide a secondary recovery rate of 40% in their presentation so it is very possible for us to expect higher than 8%-10% but this would seem the logical expectation from the initial report.

Apologies in advance for what is yet another long post of mine (which no doubt will get deleted like nearly all of my other posts... LSE clearly does not value my insights)

Shaa, I think you, I and well nearly everybody is aware the 88e was an anomaly within the industry for its value. If we were to analyse the data on the OIIP for LSE companies to find the value of every barrel of OIIP, firstly an analyst would collate that data and disregard any which appear significantly under or over valued in comparison to the vast majority. I suspect 88e would be one which would be disregarded if using their pricing prior to their recent failings as being well above industry expectations.

The comparison to PANR, as others pointed out is also off the mark as they have 17.8 billion barrels of OIIP. This took less than 2 minutes to check, posters really should ensure they verify the information they post, certainly when attempting to assign a value to COPL. There is no excuse for not doing so as to not do so is to mislead current and potential investors.

However, one thing which I did notice with PANR is that they anticipate recovering 1.78 billion barrels (so 10%). Could RS advise this much to be recoverable from their initial findings? I know the recent presentation did allude to 8%-10% primary recovery.

Anyways this got me thinking, if we were to use the PANR valuation and divide this over their OIIP, we could find a metric to potentially value our OIIP for BFDU. Below are my calculations.
(Note: This is a very basic calculation which is not taking in to account any other factors for PANR or COPL)

Let's begin;
PANR shares in issue - 760,505,988 (taken from most recent RNA, 4th May)
PANR share price at close on 06/05/2022 – 129.40p
PANR Market Cap = £984,094,748.72
Market Cap divided by OIIP of 17.8 billion = £0.0553 (rounded) per barrel. So a touch over 5.5 pence per barrel of oil in place.

Using this figure we could then calculate a potential value for our find, taking the minimum expected scenario of oil under our land, as per the 10th Jan RNS we may have 1.275 billion barrels OIIP.
£0.0553 x 1.275 billion = £70,507,500.

Then applying COPL working interest post CUDA acquisition (taking information provided in the most recent AIF);
“The primary working interest holders in the BFU Deep Unit are: Atomic (55.55%); Cuda LLC (27.77%); and CNOOC (16.66%).” Thus 83.32% for COPL.

£70,507,500 x 83.32% = £58,746,849

Could we potentially add nearly £59m to our MCAP!? It would certainly be nice to more than double the existing Market Cap solely on the OIIP for BFDU. One can only hope!

Shares In Issue (Post Consolidation) were 164,269,464 x £0.38 = £62,422,396.32

So as I do so hate to see conflicting stories I like to do my own research to discover the truth.
I had hoped that by doing my own anaylsis on the wells for Jan-Mar this year that I would be able to prove one of Illusion or CoplHodler correct and the other incorrect however my findings have instead come up with a THIRD answer.
I do believe CoplHodler and Illusion are both wrong in their theory of which wells fit within the 150-250 BOPD criteria.
As I have some time on my hands tonight I though I would share my findings in details with you all. I wish LSE allowed tables or images....

The four top producing wells under Southwestern (with avg BOPD per month provided) are as follows;
BFU 23-27V -- Jan - 256 Feb - 244 Mar - 223 (Avg over 3 months - 241)
BFU 21-35-76 ST A SN 3H -- Jan - 237 Feb - 154 Mar - 185 (Avg over 3 months - 192)
BFU 34-20V -- Jan -154 Feb - 162 Mar - 164 (Avg over 3 months - 160)
BFU 22-27V -- Jan - 158 Feb - 132 Mar - 143 (Avg over 3 months - 145)

As you can see from the above BFU 22-27V does not consistently his 150 BOPD so it would be fair to discount this well.

BFU 44-21V does not fit within the 150-250 BOPD as Illusion suggested (Jan 141, Feb - 132, Mar - 129). Illusion and CoplHodler - could I suggest you rerun your data just to ensure any sort function hasn't gone awry and ensure you are diving monthly production by the production days provided in the export?
Illusion I'm not sure what has happened in your spreadsheet for you to provide you with the conclusion that the horizontal well BFU 21-35-76 ST A SN 3H was not in the top 5 producing wells. As you can see from my data above. It is comfortably the second best producing well.
Unfortunately the RS report in the AIF did not allude to whether well production of 600-800 was from a vertical or horizontal well however there are three clear contenders for that debate.

In conclusion I have finished my glass of wine now, so I must finish the post as I need a refill.
(I feel like I had intentions for there to be more to this post but I have forgotten them in my ramblings...)

Bladderman, to clarify on the below;

"$100M is £80M of debt - over cooking it a bit aren't you. More like £60M."

$100M USD is just over £81M. The current exchange rate is USD to GBP is 0.81.

Shaa I would hope it is the leases to some of the unleased land where the Deep flows, significantly cheaper than buying CNOOC and we simply can't be put in the position where we are diluted yet again just yet. Once RBL has been put in place and production increased that would be a better time for CNOOC in my opinion

Art suggested it would be out in May however I wouldn't be surprised if it comes after CUDA US hearing (26th May) or even after the 14 day court appeal process thereafter.

I don't believe we will be in a position to go JV route just yet, certainly not with a major.
Majors will want evidence the deep flows first. Personally I would go with 2024 as more likely for JV, by then we will have a handful of producing wells from the deep and the flow rates and recoverability could impress some of the majors.
Majors may have cash to burn but they don't take many risks and at the moment they seem quite happy giving profits back to shareholders.

Absolutely SteveV, RBL is fast becoming the key driver in our growth, securing our future on more preferable terms, with the bridge loan, this has become increasingly more important and it allows us to develop, increasing our BOPD and our proven and probable reserves which consequently increases our RBL.

Another point you make CoplHodler which I think is perhaps not being discussed enough is the updated swap contracts from refinancing.
This could put us in a significantly better position in the mid-term. With CUDA now in the final stages, refinancing certainly becomes a top priority to ensure our security. Hopefully by August/September this will be in place.

CoplHodler, thank you for that post! Most definitely one of the most informative posts that I have seen on here for some time and on a critical subject for COPL (a subject I spent a fair chunk of last night reading about, thanks DanielM!) and something which I don't think enough people are looking deep enough into - the devil, as always, is in the details!