Blencowe Resources: Aspiring to become one of the largest graphite producers in the world. Watch the video here.
Alan Thanks for that. I don't 'do' Twitter so wasn't aware. But, having followed the link, it seems a few others also agree with me that Twitter isn't 'official' - or has POTUS decreed otherwise. Great news for a' that! Onwards and upwards.
RealAnalyst - Sorry, you're right. The 21 May RNS does indeed state that the 'approved' test will be conducted by Q3. I'd mentally ignored that I think because I thought that the EA had subsequently introduced some conditions that would need to be met first. Am I muddling that with another site? Anyway, even the Parish Council message still talks about 'subject to approval.' Apologies again to RA.
Jim3 - Sorry, but the RNS you're referring to related to OGA approving ANGS taking over the share of Balcombe ownership. It said nothing at all about aporoval for testing. Please read it more carefully. Alan - I am hugely respectful of your inputs, but in this case I have to say that you too are rather skimming over the last phrase in your post "subject to final sign off". My guess is that comms with the Parish Council are not fully formalised - certainly not subject to regulatory checks - hence my belief that nowt will happen until we get a pukka RNS stating that aporovals have been received. From EA perhaps - after all we've not heard 'officially' that we've met their conditions have we? I'm sure the test is 'imminent' but it can't have started yet.
I do wish people wouldn't gloss over these key phrases relevant to the timing of work starting. It happened last year re Brockham, together with in-depth discussion of what 'imminent' means. Also, it appears that some people on here are confusing comms with liaison groups and RNSs, which are of course vetted by the NOMAD. Hence we have RealAnalyst stating definitively that the BoD have issued two RNSs - one announcing that the flow test will start late September and another stating it was on schedule ... Ergo the flow test has for sure started. Well I've checked back in the recent RNSs and I don't know where he gets that from. The half yearly report stated simply that the Balcombe flow test was 'upcoming' and the RNS regarding SCC planning approval at Brockham mentioned that activity there would follow Balcombe - but gave no dates. Please point me at the RNS giving those firm dates for Bakconbe because I've not seen it. It seems to me that receipt of the relevant regulatory approval for flow testing Balcombe is price sensitive and hence WOULD drive the issue of an RNS - as happened with the SCC aporoval. Until that RNS appears I have to assume the flow test has not commenced. People making firm assertions without the backup facts only results in disillusion on the part of newbies who don't do their own fact checking. I know dates have appeared in liaison group releases, but only an RNS is the 'real deal' and we haven't seen that yet - have we? Btw does anyone know which regulator we're waiting for approval from ?
Although I've lost quite a bit with RMP in the past - eg oil turning to water in Somalia - I don't have a major concern with their involvement in the JV, even if there are eerie reminders of the old jobs for the Perth housemates scenario that we saw with RRL. I can't find the original reference now, but there was a table attached to an RNS (maybe the ASX one?) which clearly showed 88E as being the 'operator/manager' of the new licence. That being the case it's primarily RMP money we're using, not their management.
JA51 - I have to agree with you. Baits would appear to have made an inference that is not justified from the RNS. "In order to conduct the assessment, production from the Great Oolite formation was temporarily isolated and the Kimmeridge exposed to allow fluid samples to be collected. The Kimmeridge formation immediately produced light oil ..." This says to me that they simply 'switched inflows' down the hole and carried on using the same propulsion method that they were using before .... Be it ESP, nodding donkey, 300 guys sucking in straws etc. Is the existing production 'free flow'? (Rhetorical question.)
Just a passing thought ... Over recent weeks/months ops updates for IW2 have been coming fairly consistently on a Monday - and, where there was anything to say, at weekly intervals. I appreciate that, where there is price sensitive info, the board is obliged to issue an RNS immediately the info becomes available. But you can't expect a daily RNS for an ongoing op like iW2. Then, for some reason, the weekly update came on the Frday last week - and its content was such that, for many not totally au fait with its complexities it would be seen negatively, as things were going more slowly than exoected. Then we got the new JV RNS on the Monday. Clearly DW would have had no choice on the timing of this - it was obligatory that the news be released as soon as the final signature was added. But DW did have a choice in the IW2 update timing. Is it possible he released an update after only six days to get that out of the way so the market could react solely and positively to the 'good' JV news? And now he's issued another 'early' IW2 update which gives news of more delays. Well that's certainly 'out of the way' and SP has dropped. So why so soon? Could it be another 'great news' RNS tomorrow? 3D seismics maybe? Just musing!
Just a couple of points from the RNS that I haven't seen mentioned - as far as I can see. We will be undertaking the role of 'drill management'. I guess this means we have the day to day decision making power - including choice of drilling contractor, timing, methodology etc. That's helpful for us and a sign of confidence from our partners. " geological chance of success in the range of 25-30%.". This is of course a lower CoS than DW has quoted for IW2 and, strictly speaking, means we are more likely not to succeed than to succeed. I guess therefore that it's the massive size of the barrelage if we do hit it right that has driven the sentiment swing today? Regarding someone's earlier question about the effect of being in partnership impacting the buyout if an when it comes .... I don't see this having any negative impact on that. Anyone buying in could either cherry pick - and avoid buying the new acquisition element if they so chose or .. If they were buying us lick stock and black oil smoking barrel, their total acquisition would simply mean that they would finish with the same share in the JV as currently held by 88E.
Money hawk - I posted a response to yours but seems it got lost in the ether. My figure of 94% probability was for at least one positive outcome not 'just one'. Big difference! The correction I refer to was to a typo in my reply that disappeared .... So - confusion all round. Apologies.
Money hawk - Either a typo or a misunderstanding of my post .... The 94% probability was for AT LEAST one of the four plays coming good - not for 'just one'. Big difference! In other words I added together the probabilities of one positive outcome plus two positives plus one positive. The chance of 'just one' positive (same caveats as before) is 25% (4/16). I hope that makes sense?
Several days back, I posted a message in answer to a couple of posters questions relating to the overall CoS looking at the three plays that we were then involved in. Now that we have added a fourth prospect I thought perhaps a few on here might be interested in what this latest addition does to the CoS outcomes. Before I list them however let me state very clearly some strong caveats and assumptions: 1: this assumes that outcomes from each play are totally binary - ie 100% success or 100% failure ... I acknowledge that this won't be the case as there are many in between outcomes eg commercial but below hopes/expectations; 2: it assumes that each play is of equal contributory value to the company's total assets ... Again I acknowledge this won't be the case. So, basically, just a fun academic exercise, but here goes. ..... Let's call a 100% 'good' outcome from a play G and a 100% bad outcome (duster?) B. With four plays now, there are sixteen possible binary outcomes. These break down as: 4 x G - 1/16; 3G + 1B - 4/16; 2G + 2B - 6/16; 1G + 3B - 4/16; 4B -1/16. Looking at those as rounded percentages it boils down to this .... Four positive outcomes - 6%; at least three positive - 31%; at least two - 69%; at least one- 94%; no positive outcomes - 6%. As I say - for those who are interested (others please don't rant - just ignore!); lots of assumptions re binary and equal values etc etc. Looks good to me though!
LTI - Yes they would! I have seen numerous RNSs starting along the lines of 'pleased to announce/give an operations update ...' And then finishing with 'plugged and abandoned'. It's just a standard form of words. NB: this is NOT to say I don't think this RNS is positive news.