Jump to content

NWE - NORWEST ENERGY NL


theflasherman

Recommended Posts

In reply to: King Baz on Wednesday 19/11/08 02:03pm

Hi KB,

 

QUOTE
Just like you deciding that P-2 and P-9 were definitely not connected, based on the P-11 sidetrack, but as you will see from today's announcement this is not necessarily the case.

 

The last P11 report from AED states ...

 

QUOTE
The reservoir is a new discovery and preliminary assessments indicate that the reservoir sands intersected by the Puffin‐11 well confirm and extend the existence of the oil sand formation intersected by the Puffin‐10 well drilled late last year. This reservoir is interpreted as a Late Cretaceous reservoir which includes LK1a sands. This new reservoir is separate from and adds to the other as‐yet undeveloped sandstone reservoirs in the Puffin South West region. These other reservoirs include the LK1a reservoir at Puffin‐9 and the UK1a reservoir at Puffin‐9 and at Puffin‐2.

I have highlighted in bold the section that explicitly states that P11/P10 is not part of P9 and P2 accummulations.

 

I noted this when they announced it as it vindicated my interpretation of the P11-P9 well (which was a duster), that P10 and P9 and P2 were not a single accummulation.

 

I thought to myself, good, that has resolved that point of disagreement between myself and KB. Clearly this is not the case.

 

Cheers,

Mosaic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In reply to: mosaic1996 on Wednesday 19/11/08 02:51pm

mosaic - put down the broad brush mate. I prefer

 

Identified oil Resources and Reserves in three locations (all AED 40% working interest):

Puffin NE in AC/L6

‐ NE1(Puffin ‐5, 7 & 8) & NE2 (Puffin ‐3)

 

Puffin SW in AC/L6

‐ Upper UK1a reservoir (Puffin ‐2 & 9; Puffin ‐10; Puffin ‐11)

‐ Possible MK reservoir (Puffin ‐11)

‐ Lower LK1a reservoir (Puffin ‐9; Puffin ‐10 & 11)

 

Note the additional sand.

 

From Pg: 7 of AGM presentation.

 

 

 

From, Pg: 13

 

Puffin 11

Lower Sand section (DST#1a perfs) is considered an LK1a sandstone, the massive

reservoir sand across the Puffin Horst from SW to NE and beyond.

 

 

 

If you also look at the graphic on pg8, AED indicate that the UK1a in P2 and P9 are connected, and in turn the UK1a in P-2 is connected to that in P-10 which in turn is connected to P-11.

 

AED are saying that they are still interpreting the new seismic over P-9, and are still modelling recent results, and l do concede that the P-2 / P-9 connection is not 100% certain, but on the same note it certainly has not been disproved.

 

I have previously clarified this with AED.

 

The term 'seperate' is used in the context of 'additional', not 'unrelated' . . . afterall these oil prone sands are found throughout much of the block, and in regions up to 75m in thickness.

 

Note, l am not saying that P-2 and P-9 are 100% connected to P-11, all l am saying is that the P-11 result does not disprove the P-2/P-9 connection theory, and that is correct.

 

Without any validation, just your own interpretation you seem to endorse your own view.

 

 

AED up 9% with the market down 1% . . . hopefully AED keeps going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: King Baz on Wednesday 19/11/08 04:28pm

QUOTE
mosaic - put down the broad brush mate. I prefer

Maybe you should put down the rose cloured glasses http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

 

I read the presentation. My interpretation is different to yours.

 

No indication/guidance of size of P11 discovery in the presentation. A bit dissappointing.

 

Cheers,

Mosaic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: atsasx on Wednesday 19/11/08 05:11pm

Took the words out of my mouth.....

 

If two of our most respected commentators disagree to such an extent what chance do us Non-oilys have of interpreting the data?

 

http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/unsure.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (mosaic1996 @ Wednesday 19/11/08 02:33pm)

Notwithstanding that I spelt the word wrong, the key qualifier in my post is the word "potential".

 

My understanding is that this means the volume of rock in the field has the "potential" to contain 400BCF of gas.

 

I have no idea of the recoverability of this gas and whether such recovery would be commercial or otherwise. My amateur's reading of the situation is that NWE has no way of applying probabilities at this stage and a lot more work is required before 400BCF can have any probabilities applied.

 

My post was in reply to yours which said "I am certain that it is 300BCF in total in the Cobra structure which spans the 2 blocks rather than 400BCF [300 + 100]".

 

What makes you so certain? What is the P figure applicable to the "300BCF in total in the Cobra structure" that you are so certain about?

 

h.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (handel @ Wednesday 19/11/08 05:42pm)

Hi Handel,

 

QUOTE
What makes you so certain? What is the P figure applicable to the "300BCF in total in the Cobra structure" that you are so certain about?

 

The "potential" is a number typically associated with an upper limit [if there are no leaks in the mapped structure, if it is filled with gas to the max, etc., then], typically referred to as P10 or a 10% chance of that being the case = unlikely based on personal experience of following many wells.

 

NWE has stated that 300BCF is the most likely gas in place in the Cobra structure based on their preferred model of the structure. "Most likely" means P50 or 50% chance that more than the 300BCF will be present, and 50% chance that less than 300BCF will be present. This is standard industry practice: a bit like debits and credits for accountants.

 

Based on seismic and well data they produce computer models (note the plural). They have announced the 300BCF based on their preferred model. More often, companies will take an average of the several models. Who knows how/why they selected their preferred model: most reliable/probable [why not take a weighted average of the various models?]; largest 'most likely' resource? I have my suspicions, but I can't be certain.

 

As an aside, at this stage there is a lot of guess work as to where the actual structure boundaries are/what the structure really looks like. It is a very inexact science.

 

Cheers,

Mosaic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: mosaic1996 on Wednesday 19/11/08 06:01pm

I should have also pointed out that by using a "most likely" figure rather than a P10 figure, NWE is presenting a more realistic picture than many other juniors who emphasis the much larger, and much less realistic P10 figure. This is a good thing http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

 

Cheers,

Mosaic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: mosaic1996 on Thursday 20/11/08 07:47am

Be good to see AED use its muscle and Bid say a generous 8 cents a share cash for NWE, then cancel the royalty and sell off or liquidate the rump.

AED would then pass the potential of the royalty increasing to iits own shareholders, instead of those of NWE.

Sounds great as Cash is King at the moment and NWE looks as if it could do with some cash, particularly as it spends cash instead of conserving cash and waiting untill AED produces plenty of oil.

 

It may be that Mac the Bank is also behind AED .

 

 

I am not advising anyone . Everyone should consult their licensed financila advisor before dealing in any security and or financilal instrument.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...