Member Info for ZYX098

Hi Boboil,

It's really easy to annoy the self appointed Sherriff of the BOR board.

All you have to do is have the temerity to question his assertions or point out the flaws in his postings and he goes off the deep end - especially if you have the cheek to use things like facts, experience and logic...

I'll head back over there at some point this weekend - see what his latest diatribe against me is about ;)

Hi LTT,

It looks like the FIG have taken the pragmatic view that - for the foreseeable future - any development in the FI will involve the use of one of the various types of FPSO, not a fixed platform.

That means that by far the majority of the decommissioning costs will be the P&A of the Wells, which will also cover the recovery of the Xmas Trees and Wellheads. The FIG have adopted the OEUK Guidelines for that process. Those guidelines are very prescriptive in their requirements and are absolutely world class in their requirements.

The FPSO will just disconnect from the turret, drop it's mooring system and sail away. The flow lines should be able to be spooled back up to a vessel with a suitable reel. Then it will be a relatively simple case of recovering the turret, manifolds and the mooring system. The same vessel should be able to do all that, although it is likely a Rig will be needed for the P&A work.

The FIG also appear to be adopting a very sensible approach with respect to the funding of the future liability of the Decom work, both in the "disaster" scenario of very early abandonment and the actual decommissioning at the end of the field life.

The UK Govt put the same type of legislation in place in the very early days. Basically additional taxes were/are paid during production (most of the early NNS Fields were paying over 90%!) with the idea that the additional funds would be metaphorically put to one side by HM Treasury and invested so that they could be drawn down to be given as a tax rebate when the time came for decommissioning.

Of course, in practice all UK Govts just took the money and spent it.

Hopefully the FIG will be more sensible than that!

The UK Decom work is starting to take significant tax rebates (NOT subsidies as certain sections of the media would have you believe) and the Govt is now having to find the money out of the general budget.

The "Windfall profits tax" and the removal of the investment rebates have had a catastrophic effect on the UKCS, with the result that the decommissioning of many fields and pipelines has been brought forwards - in some cases by almost a decade.

Because of this, the tax revenue from the UKCS is forecast to be negative from 2029/30 onwards, with an estimated £20 Billion in lost revenue by 2030 and as much as £60 Billion in lost revenue from fields that will shut in earlier than planned, or from satellite fields that will now not be developed as the hub platform / pipeline will be removed.

Hi LTT,

Netanyahu's plan of "completely eliminating Hamas" by military force was never going to work.

He has now twice bombed the Hamas negotiating team when it looked like some progress was being made in negotiations.

It appears his only aim is the keep the war going as long as possible, as when it ends he's likely to be deposed from office and jailed for corruption.

I agree with your other thoughts - with the US wholeheartedly backing Israel and also throwing Argentina a financial life line, I really can't see a situation where Israel will veto the Navitas investment at this ate stage in the proceedings.

Will some Companies face sanctions for working with an Israeli Company in the FI?

I doubt it - one advantage of being in the FI is being "out of sight, out of mind"!

Besides, there are many UK Companies that use Israeli IT Companies to provide their network & data security.

Wood Mackenzie just came out with a study that shows there could be significantly more recoverable oil left on the UKCS than the NSTA thinks.

https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/north-sea-fields-could-still-hold-14-billion-barrels-of-oil-and-gas

The 14 Billion bbls is recoverable from existing fields, with the NSTA estimating another 15 Billion bbls is yet to be discovered.

You would think that the Govt would be champing at the bit to get hold of that extra tax revenue, but......

The UK is the only Country that still retains the "Windfall Profits Tax" despite even the OBR conceding that O&G prices have long since returned to normal and that a recent study by the OEUK shows that the EPL will REDUCE tax revenue from the UKCS by an estimated £20 Billion by 2030.

As a direct result of the EPL and the way that production taxes are applied, Harbour Energy (the largest UKCS Oil producer) paid an effective tax rate of 108% last year and have laid off 25% of their Staff.

EnQuest have just announced that they lost $43.1 Million in the last 6 months, having paid $104.1 Million w.r.t the EPL.

Is it any wonder that they are both looking to expand Overseas, instead of the UK?

One very noticeable absentee from BB's list is Apache, operator of THE flagship field on the UKCS, Forties, plus about 10 other fields.

That's because that have announced that they will cease all operations on the UKCS by 2029 (a decade earlier than planned), pointing the finger squarely at the EPL.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx27p91kpzdo

It should be a no-brainer to rescind the EPL and restore the investment allowances that were removed at the same time.

But the people who have the power to do that clearly have no brains......

GOYB,

What's the phrase?

" I can neither confirm or deny it's Big Red."

But you don't need to guess again ;)

I read that job posting in two ways;

A) The FIG are hedging their bets in case of a catastrophic failure of SL for some reason (as they are with the Decommissioning funding), so 4 yrs would be long enough.

B) They are being poorly informed if they think they can get someone familiar with UK offshore HSE legislation (including the Safety Case) for that salary.

I don't think it has any relevance to FID.

That's far more reliant on the FIG signing off on everything before purdah at the end of October, otherwise we'll have to wait until Feb. 2026 for the new Govt to get up to speed and sign off.

Yes - and the UK & Argentinean militaries have been unofficially cooperating by giving each other the positions of 'rogue' fishing fleets that don't have permits.

Yes - the reality of future energy demand and the limitations / true costs of renewable energy are finally beginning to hit home.

That's why every African Country with a coastline is (or is trying to) develop their offshore gas reserves as fast as they can.

They need it for G2P projects so they can try and meet the rapid growth in power demand of their economies.

Since the imposition of the "Windfall Profits Tax", UKCS oil production has fallen by c. 30% and Gas production by c. 25%, with zero signs that the falls will be stopped (never mind reversed) by new fields coming on line - especially if the Govt will not bring in legislation to overturn the moronic ruling by the Supreme Court.

That fall in production will have to be made up by imports, which are more expensive (transport costs), come from Countries with lower HSE standards (with the exception of Norway) and the transportation results in increased CO2 emissions.

Because of the way the EPL is applied, Harbour Energy (largest producer on the UKCS) paid 108% tax last year! They've cut their workforce by 25% and have just put their ABZ HQ up for sale.

The other European Countries who imposed similar taxes have all dropped them - not extended and increased them, which is what the current shower have done.

In the meantime, there is no credible forecast that says that world oil consumption out to 2040 is going to do anything other than - at most - a 3% - 5% reduction over todays consumption rate.

Hopefully we'll follow the example of New Zealand and Denmark,;

In 2018, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Arden, announced a ban on new Oil & Gas exploration.

The Oil & Gas Companies fled, taking their investment and jobs with them.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/how-jacinda-ardern-left-new-zealand-on-the-brink-of-blackouts/ar-BB1o48xy?ocid=MEDDHP&apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

Faced with steeply rising energy prices, falling domestic production and increased CO2 emissions as Generators were forced to switch to Coal and Diesel to keep the power grid running, the NZ Govt is now introducing legislation to reverse the ban and are begging the Oil Industry to return.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/new-zealand-push-through-law-reverse-ban-oil-gas-exploration-2024-08-26/

In 2020, Denmark announced a ban on all new Oil & Gas exploration and development.

https://www.ft.com/content/981bef4d-3338-44cb-824d-39e953b287f7

Lat year, they quietly rescinded that ban, issued more exploration licenses and approved several new developments

https://nordicreporter.com/2024/04/green-light-for-expansion-of-north-sea-oil-production-in-denmark/

https://www.oedigital.com/news/510953-denmark-s-largest-offshore-gas-field-on-track-for-march-2024-restart

https://www.rigzone.com/news/totalenergies_strikes_more_gas_condensate_in_danish_north_sea-31-oct-2024-178597-article/

But will Mad Ed allow the Gov to chance course before it's too late?

I seriously doubt it - and we will all eventually pay the price with higher energy bills and increased risk of power cuts.

Potentially very relevant to the FI, considering the remote location.

https://worldoil.com/news/2025/9/12/sbm-s-blue-ammonia-fpso-concept-earns-abs-approval/?oly_enc_id=5801J6403578F0Z

Hi all,

Apologies for the tardy replies,

rpnoodle - theoretically yes. In practical terms, no. They'd need to replace the entire mooring system (upgrading to 12 legs from 8), plus buying at least another 3,000 ft of Riser. They'd also have to test and recertify all the handling systems, since they won't have been used to capacity since the 2009 upgrade.

Hiram; - Normally yes. But I'm guessing that the tight environmental requirements of the FIG might mean an anchored Rig is better from a CO2 emissions perspective. Also, 450m is a bit shallow for a DP Rig. PMO's experience with the Eric Raude (RIP) showed that. The hull of the Henry Goodrich isn't that much younger than the Endeavour!

LDC - they don't have to announce any of the contracts when FID is announced, though it would be preferable. As far as the Rig goes, as NIKB said, we won't necessarily know for some months. They could even wait until the Rig actually starts mobilising. It would be embarrassing to announce it's the Endeavour, only to have it fail it's 5yr inspection and so have to go with something else.

GOYB; Nope, not SLB. Try again, at the other end of the colour spectrum ;)

LTT; It's a balancing act. The Endeavours kit ON the hull is fine and she has a reputation of being a good workhorse. It's just the age of the hull itself that bothers me.

In some respects, you want an old workhorse rather than an all singing all dancing Gen 7 Rig.

Those of us of a certain age will remember the acronym "KISS!" - Keep It Simple, Stupid!

So much less tech to go wrong - it's annoying to have the Mechanic, Electrician and Electronics tech all running around trying to figure out what the problem is when the Computer won't let you move the drill string...

Bit like having an old Ford Escort, rather than a brand new Merc 450 which gives you half a dozen warnings as soon as you try and switch the damn thing on.

Also, despite (because?) all their automation and twin masts, those Rigs have a reputation for being sloooooowwwwww.

As Mirasol said, better to be able to take a Rig that's working. They'll have to balance that with the date it's needed by in the FI.

1st Oil will dictate when the Rig has to be there and you don't want to be relying on the previous Operator having a delay in their program.

"Oopsie, we had to do a sidetrack."

"It's been more promising that we though, so we are going to drill a bit deeper."

"It looks like a good one, so we're going into a test program - but only four weeks long...."

Four months I had to wait for that bl**dy Rig...

One advantage of the FI though, is that they already have 100% employment. That means that, at least in the early stages, there won't be a requirement to take any locals on the Rig crew, so all experienced hands can be used.

Huh.

LSE misleading about the number of characters left..

Last sentence should read "And I note that you avoided the part where you claimed the Hannam report said something that it actually does not….

Gus0,

Well, unlike you, I have better things to do than spend my time being on here all day, every day.

But I thought I'd post today - just to keep you on your toes..

I didn’t have to pay for access to Hannam & Partners website.

All I did was register – which anyone ese can do using the link I provided.

So you are being economical with the truth.

Again.

I really must be living rent free inside your head, because as well as using your “expensive time” to respond four separate times, I see you have now also resorted to distorting my posts.

Otherwise why are you claiming I’m trying to work out our own NAV, when it’s clear I’m simply quoting what is stated in the Hannam report?

But thank you for again showing that you are so insecure you have to rely on cheap insults and name calling, rather than reasoned argument.

I did LOL at your “keyboard warrior” comment – talk about the Pot calling the kettle Black.

Also, thank you for yet again proving you know nothing about the O&G industry.

If you did, you’d have recognised that the proposed development scenario relies on reinjecting the gas, which as stated on page 25 needs “a specialised FPSO with compression on board”. Their statement on page 22 (which you chose to quote) ignores this aspect.

BTW, the BOR presentations also state that the gas will have to be reinjected…..

Since you don’t know anything about the O&G industry, presumably this new development in FPSO technology has passed you by – even though it is potentially very relevant to BOR and the gas in the SFB.

https://worldoil.com/news/2025/9/12/sbm-s-blue-ammonia-fpso-concept-earns-abs-approval/?oly_enc_id=5801J6403578F0Z

W.R.T the development plan for Darwin, the BOR January 2023 presentation clearly says it would go into pre-FEED after appraisal.

Since you obviously don’t know what that means, FEED is Front End Engineering Design – and BOR haven’t even got that far, as they say they’d go into pre-FEED.

To make it simple, what BOR have at the moment is the equivalent of a car designer saying their car will have four wheels, an engine and seats. Nothing else about the car has been designed & engineered yet.

Contrary to your claim, there is nothing in the subsequent statements, RNSs or presentations that says anything different.

And if you knew anything at all about the O&G industry, you’d understand that – but you don’t, so you don’t.

WRT the license extension, at 12:28 on the 9th June in the Falklands Energy Revival: RKH and BOR Lead the Frontier Push thread, you stated “ZYX- The board will advise extension to the licence will be given ( i know this already)”….

Your comment is immediately after Anth72s, where he says about me “It’s good to have practical input from an obviously experienced O&G professional.”.

I note that in your diatribes you avoided addressing the part where you claimed the Hannam report said somethin

Well poop.

I meant "Bar Talk", of course.

My apologies, I was being distracted by

Never mind.....

And yet another Rig can be added to the list!

I was assured "100%" it is going to be the Noble Endeavor.

https://www.noblecorp.com/our-fleet/fleet/fleet-details/2024/Ocean-Endeavor/default.aspx

Bit surprised if it is, to be honest.

Not because she can't do the work - she's more than good enough for the project, plus any other NFB Wells that might also be drilled while she's down there.

But the hull was originally built in 1975, so it's getting really long in the tooth.

It must have had a good going over during the refit in 2009 (when the additional buoyancy was added), but even so the FI is a long way from any shipyard should there be any issues with it.

If it is her, I can't imagine Navitas doing anything other than insisting on a complete hull inspection in dry dock (rather then by ROV) during the 5 yr ABS certification work prior to mobilisation.

The other very strong rumour is that the Drilling & Completion packages have been awarded to a single provider - the one who already has had a lot of experience in the region...

Navitas went out for 2 or 3 bundled packages rather than each service individually - which makes sense as going out for each service one at a time would be painful and expensive. Not just for Navitas, but also for the Service Companies too.

It also allows for synergies in terms of equipment, materials and personnel, especially considering the very remote location.

Hi Mirasol,

I doubt it - that would bring in all sorts of complications w.r.t. farming into the block (never mind the license will have expired by then) and they have plenty of other prospects closer to SL that they can dip a toe into first.

Hi Donalb,

LTT is essentially correct.

For each Well they'd close the Sub Surface Safety Valve (SSSV) in the completion and vent the pressure above it.

They'd then flush all the lines to each Well to replace the oil with water (which will have Oxygen scavengers and corrosion inhibitors in it), close the valves on the Tree and pressure test to check that they are holding.

Once they've done that, they'd disconnect from the Turret (the turret is left in place) and then be towed to wherever the refurb / modification work for SL is going to take place.

It's then up to Hurricane to fully decommission the field, which by treaty (which I can never remember the name of....) means that everything has to be removed to a depth of 6' below the mudline.

This would also include P&A'ing the Wells to current standards and removal of the trees, flowlines, turret, mooring system etc.

Hi all,

I see Isobel has raised it's head yet again.

Drilling a Well on Isobel is nowhere on the horizon for Navitas / RKH - not even if there's a gap in the program for a Well between Phase 1 & Phase 2.

As nomalkanymore1 (Marlon Monkey) excellent posts explained, it's by no means a "one and done" - it will take several Wells to appraise properly and come up with a development plan.

In addition, ChatGPT posters continually ignore that Isobel is too far away from SL to be tied back - the waxy nature of the crude just doesn't allow it.

It would need to be a separate development - especially if it's anything like the size we hope.

Any slot in the program would be for proving up near-SL fields that can actually be tied back relatively quickly / easily.

Spending money earlier than necessary on Isobel would just result in a decrease in NPV, as they pay the financing / loan cost of the money used.

In other words, taking cash and using it for a Well that may prove up sufficient reserves to enable a relatively quick tie-back and production in the near-ish term is much more cost effective than using it on a structure that would need more drilling to appraise and then need it's own FPSO / flowlines etc which won't happen until much, much later in the program.

Hi Investor,

Contrary to what Gus0 stated, the Hannam & Partners research note isn’t behind a paywall.

All you have to do is register on their site here;

https://research.hannam.partners/register

Then you can get their research note on BOR here;

https://research.hannam.partners/open/1b327941-89e4-47cb-8aa2-93cd52a7dacd/Border%20and%20Southern%20Initiation%20Note.pdf

At 48 pages it's a comprehensive document, although much of the G&G and Development stuff is lifted straight from the BOR website.

So why did Gus0 claim it was behind a paywall when it’s not?

Presumably because it doesn’t say what he claims it does.

It doesn’t say “Q4 of this year the farm out will be concluded”.

What it actually says (on Page 1) is “We expect competitive tension on Darwin to increase with the potential for a farm-out in Q4’25” followed by (on Page 6) “We expect a deal to be concluded by YE 25”.

Both of which are, of course, something different altogether from “the farm out WILL be concluded”.

It also points out what we already knew – that BOR have been making serious efforts in trying to farm this out since 2023.

You may have seen that Gus0 got all bent out of shape when I stated that a conventional FPSO wouldn’t be used on Darwin.

Their report states “A specialised FPSO will be required”, otherwise the produced gas will either have to be vented/flared (which would not be allowed by the FIG) or they'd use an FLNG FPSO (which is also a specialised FPSO…) to export the gas.

It also confirms (as does the FIG website) that the license expires on the 31st December 2026 – not Dec 2028 as Gus0 has claimed in the past.

Much of the section on the potential development of Darwin is lifted straight from BOR’s January 2023 presentation and is therefore (as I’ve tried to explain previously) well out of date with respect to costs and the concept is now unlikely to be approved by the FIG.

There are a lot of positives that can be read from the report;

Their NAV15 is 23p/share at $70/bbl.

The oil price so far has resisted the downward pressure of OPEC releasing more supplies and the potential for recession, but even at $60/bbl the NAV15 is 15p.

BTW, because of the potential risks associated with the SFB, they use NAV15 instead of NAV10 – but it still shows there is upside left compared to the current share price.

They highlight the possibility of monetising the gas – something which I have previously said should be considered with recent advances in FLNG technology.

With possible reserves of up to 10Tcf (almost the size of Leman!), that’s a potentially huge revenue stream!

The report is very complementary about the BOR management team, highlights the attractive fiscal regime being offered by the FIG and - as we already know - that FID for Sea Lion will stimulate further interest in the FI area and that there is a considerable exploration inventory yet to be touched.

Hi Phil164,

Good for him, but as he himself says, that was over a year ago.

I’m very familiar with his type of bullying modus operandi, as there used to be a poster over on the UKOG board who did exactly the same thing. Indeed, the syntax is strikingly similar.

I find it irritating that someone like him will not tolerate any questioning of his assertions – even when they are clearly wrong - and he obviously has no idea of any of the technical aspects of the Upstream side of the O&G industry.

As you and I have shown, we can have a reasoned discussion on this board (which is what they are supposed to be for) and at the end agree to disagree.

On the other hand, we have all seen that Gus0 immediately reacts with great hostility by resorting to deflection, name calling and denigration, instead of discussing the questions raised.

But I do find it very odd that nobody is questioning that some of his posts indicate that the BOD is apparently giving out sensitive information to a PI.

So either the BOD are being careless, or he is making stuff up to suit his own agenda.

As he did when he claimed that he’d been told by the BOD that the license has been extended to 2028, when it hasn’t.

Or when he claimed that the development plan for Darwin “is fully researched, costed and off the shelf” when it clearly is not - as stated in the BOR presentation of Jan 2023, when they say the next stage would be to go into pre-FEED.