Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Borders & Southern Petroleum LSE:BOR London Ordinary Share GB00B08F4599 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 2.95p 2.81p 3.19p - - - 489,189 12:02:27
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.0 -1.8 -0.4 - 14.28

Borders & Southern Petroleum (BOR) Latest News

More Borders & Southern Petroleum News
Borders & Southern Petroleum Takeover Rumours

Borders & Southern Petroleum (BOR) Share Charts

1 Year Borders & Southern Petroleum Chart

1 Year Borders & Southern Petroleum Chart

1 Month Borders & Southern Petroleum Chart

1 Month Borders & Southern Petroleum Chart

Intraday Borders & Southern Petroleum Chart

Intraday Borders & Southern Petroleum Chart

Borders & Southern Petroleum (BOR) Discussions and Chat

Borders & Southern Petroleum Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
24/10/201608:27Borders & Southern Petroleum20,311
01/10/201512:31Borders & Southern - Falklands Oil (Positives & Negatives)46
29/1/201512:03Only worth 3p on fundamentals.........17
28/1/201513:00Borders & Southern Petroleum - Massive Potential 2012473
30/10/201309:37GO, BORIS!39

Add a New Thread

Borders & Southern Petroleum (BOR) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Borders & Southern Petroleum trades in real-time

Borders & Southern Petroleum (BOR) Top Chat Posts

Borders & Southern Petroleum Daily Update: Borders & Southern Petroleum is listed in the Oil & Gas Producers sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker BOR. The last closing price for Borders & Southern Petroleum was 2.95p.
Borders & Southern Petroleum has a 4 week average price of 1.96p and a 12 week average price of 1.81p.
The 1 year high share price is 3.84p while the 1 year low share price is currently 0p.
There are currently 484,098,404 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 5,315,269 shares. The market capitalisation of Borders & Southern Petroleum is £14,280,902.92.
whites123: MAYA : Mayair. 2 trades of 5000 shares go through (These are not destined for share buyback) and the result is, NMS tightens up and increase of 8% showing. Folk... DYOR etc, but it really is a coiled spring waiting to pop. The company has an approved mandate to buy back 10% of stock at an average price of £1.42. (£5,500,000) all stock bought below means the top price payable goes up. MAYA : Mayair. Very limited PI interest showing in MAYA (Mayair) still, but with just 2 small PI trades showing of £3,700 total the share price has risen some 8%. The company has an approved mandate to spend over £5,500,000 on share buy back program. Its a squeeze of epic proportions. Do some research people... Im like an over excited kid as I have not seen this situation for many a year. MAYA : Mayair Close to £5,500.000 still to spend on share buy back program. Averaged out that equates to over £1.40 per share, but all those bought lower means the upper price to pay can well exceed that marker. Tripling of the share price is easy once stock is in demand. Its a squeeze of epic proportions in the waiting. And yet another RNS from MAYA showing a further share buy back. Each and every time the rns comes out the price increases. Yesterday just 2 purchases. 1 from a PI buying 2,500 shares and the other purchase was a share buy back by the company. They have the mandate to buy approx a further 4 MILLION shares back. The share price will explode... Anyone else here excited about MAYA? (Mayair) They want to buy back 4,247,500 shares (10%) for a maximum of £5,755,750 They have already bought back 340,000 shares for £205,611 So they still have to buy back 3,907,500 shares with £5,550,139 They can pay up to 142p (£5,550,139 / 3,907,500) to acquire the outstanding stock but for every share they buy below 142p, they can pay more than 142p to complete the buy-back, so the price should keep stepping up. The objective of the buy back seems to be to get the share price up. This could triple from here. 19th Oct -2016 RNS today showing they bought back more shares.. In a lightly traded stock like this they have the mandate to buy back almost 4,000,000 more. Where will the share price be by then? Many many multiples of todays price is my best guess.
fadilz: Yes, beware of spikes, they feed on themselves :o) That said, when/if ever oil prices are perceived to have turned, and have a prospect of remaining around $60, then I am sure that partners will come to both BOR and RKH/PMO - and then over time share price would go up by multiples, perhaps double digit multiples. RKH is highly geared to oil price, and BOR even more so. That at least is my patient gamble.
ride the wave 1: Barvin you mug troll - your posts are having the opposite effect still . Please keep posting because you are my lucky charm mate . 5p short term target Borders & Southern Petroleum plc 194.1% Potential Upside Indicated by Panmure Gordon Posted by: Katherine Hargreaves 31st March 2016 Borders & Southern Petroleum plc with EPIC/TICKER LON:BOR had its stock rating noted as ‘Reiterates217; with the recommendation being set at ‘BUY’ this morning by analysts at Panmure Gordon. Borders & Southern Petroleum plc are listed in the Oil & Gas sector within AIM. Panmure Gordon have set their target price at 5 GBX on its stock. This would indicate that the analyst believes there is a potential upside of 194.1% from today’s opening price of 1.7 GBX. Over the last 30 and 90 trading days the company share price has decreased 0.527563 points and decreased 0.05 points respectively. Borders & Southern Petroleum plc LON:BOR has a 50 day moving average of 2.08 GBX and a 200 day moving average of GBX. The 1 year high share price is 6.5 GBX while the 52 week low is 1.25 GBX. There are currently 451,563,529 shares in issue with the average daily volume traded being 688,779. Market capitalisation for LON:BOR is £7,631,424 GBP.
cyan: I wish I did know everything. I am not sure the FOGL results are of no relevance to BOR. Why did BOR share price crash ? I am glad you have faith in your CEOs judgement; after all he turned down a couple of offers , or so the story goes. Where is that farmin you have been predicting .? pmsl
ride the wave: LMFAO :- look in the mirror !!! Bor have 484m shares in issue , a mkt cap of £30m and 263mb of proven reserves . Fogl have 533m shares in Issue , a mkt cap of £181m and 47mb of proven reserves . Fogls mkt cap is 6x greater than Bor because they are fully funded . Assuming Bor become fully funded in the near future and using the same parameters that value fogl , then bor share price would be 37.2p . That doesn't include the fact that bor have 49m less shares in issue or that Bor has 5.5x more proven reserves than fogl . CAN YOU see why bor is the more attractive /speculative share buy ,assuming they will get funding in the near future !
ride the wave: Also worth noting that fogl are paying $630,000 for the ER (day rate) . We know Bor want to do a multi well drilling campaign that includes appraisals on Darwin PLUS an exploration well (which will be Sullivan imo) . So that's a total of 3 wells which would take around 5-6months (guessing) or 150-180 days . The rig owners are falling over themselves trying to rent out their rigs and that includes all the workers etc . All these costs have probably nearly halved in price , so potentially Bor and their partner could save $47,250,000 - $56,700,000 on the rig alone . This must make it an attractive proposition for the big boys to ponder . If there was to be a partnership with Noble /Fogl it wouldn't get signed off until Bor have seen Fogls 3d results (and visa versa) . Both Fogl and Bor 3d results will come at the same time (q2) , so we could see some sort of merger around that time . Remember Fogl can issue those shares that got voted in at their AGM . You never know what this could be used for ? . No RNS from Bor even though the rig has mobilised should tell you that the farm in process is STILL ongoing . The a slots have gone and now we are down to 8 drilling slots which are left (b slots) .I think we will have a rig signed at some stage , we could hire out the ER for straight after the next campaign finishes (240 days) , so as you can see there are many options available to Bor . Our bod believe in the prospects and that's why they own around 14% of the company . It's in their best interests to do a deal on good terms so we won't get screwed over . They have all put their hard earned money into Bor (just like us) and that speaks volumes . All f1 companies went up today and that's on major news . Imagine what would happen to Bor share price when a farm in partner is announced with a multi well drilling campaign (lol) . It only takes ONE RNS and our outlook will be transformed , we will get re-rated as well . I think that the merged 3d results will show a few elephants on our acreage (1BB plus) . Darwin if proved up will have 265mb of condensate and that's without our other TWO potential reservoirs . Darwin could turn out to be HUGE (make no mistake about that) . We have been told that the first pass observations for the merged 3d results look GOOD . Also the detailed reservoir study that tells oil/water/gas apart results are still to be released . So we have loads of news coming our way in the short term and hopefully production at some stage (for all the long termers like me) . I strongly believe that our discovery (Darwin) is looking really strong at this early stage . I've got no doubts in my mind of eventual success as Darwin is real , robust and technically strong . Tick follows tock .. All IMO DYOR 🏄 Great company , fantastic bod , a lot of fun days coming like Christy says . I can't wait !!
cyan: That's a fair question Travis. I think the oil price is very relevant to BOR. If the oil price was $150 then BOR would have a very satisfactory farm-in . With oil at $50, imo, means zero chance of a farm-in. People keep forgetting it costs $110 million for each drill in the SFB. You can buy whole companies for that with producing assets! Charting BOR share price is useless in predicting the future.
ride the wave: Bor hold 100% of their acreage at the moment . Rkh changed their plans at the last minute (before drilling ) , what would happen to Bor share price if they did the same ? . I'm just putting it out there because no one knows the next move .
rumblefish: Pasted form the iii board today....impressive A lengthy post but hopefully of some interest as we meander towards the next campaign. To elaborate on Marlon's last point first, I think one of the key themes that is sometimes forgotten by PIs when looking to invest in the Falklands (or AIM exploration shares generally) is the extremely protracted lead times to a return if you are investing for the long term through to production. What I've learnt, sometimes the hard way, is you just can't treat them like normal investments. A well result that initially seems fantastic, which you would think was excellent for a company and its share price, has often been interpreted in the opposite way by the market (aside from a spike after the RNS). Paradoxically, the geological result of a particular well (after discovery) has been deemed largely irrelevant from a share price point of view. I think it was a post from Oil Brat some time ago that said geology trumps the market. I disagree. Whilst there is the unusual situation of geological success being a fundamental prerequisite for the long-term viability of a company, the reality, in my view, is the markets don't factor this into the price. After initial discoveries that catapult the share price from single digit pennies, such as Sea Lion for RKH or Shaikan at GKP, the game then is more to play the AIM market rather than the geology. Take Sea Lion as an example: 14/10-4 was a cracking result with an OWC suggesting the fan is full to spill, -5 had an excellent flow test and -6 was a bold step out that really enhanced the STOIIP of the field. Geologically, it couldn't be much better I don't think. Fast-forward to today and the field is fully appraised, they are financially secure, they have funding to production with a competent partner. What's not to like? Well, the share price. These companies still have a very long way to go until the value gap between the current price and their potential in years to come is closed. The share prices, in my opinion, are almost solely driven by news – or the lack of it. What I'm getting at relates to Marlon's point of being 'accused' of being a trader. The reality is the share prices are only likely to increase on the back of news that will generate interest and an upward movement in the share price. If you were to look back at every well drilled in the Falklands to date, I would say there has been ample opportunity to make decent returns with an investment strategy that takes utilises an understanding of AIM more than the geology (very easy to say in hindsight of course and I certainly haven't traded my way to an early retirement!). However, the strategy should, I think, try and get as much of a handle on the geology as possible. There is a vast amount of information available to investors, be it through these bulletin boards, company presentations or more in depth material elsewhere on the Internet. Whilst some are better than others at providing information or answering queries – BOR falling very much in the latter category – there is enough out there to get a reasonable grasp on the significance of various bit of news and an understanding of when that news is likely to come. This then allows a more informed choice when making the investment decision. So, coming back to the geology, I agree with RedRock-8 when you say that according to the FOGL presentation, Nurnberg looks to be in the gas window! There appears to be only a small sliver of the South Falkland Basin that is in the oil window. Inflexible was an 'option' well which may have been a more logical choice than Undine being in the Springhill play but it now sits in their 'immature' window. To my untrained eye, the best prospects are BOR's Covington, Childs and Clarke, which, when blended into FOGL's Cretaceous source rock modelling, seem to provide the best chance of being in the oil window. The key to success here could be the 3D currently being shot. At the AGM we were shown a slide of how Darwin looked in the 2D seismic and then the 3D with its flat spot. We were then shown the 2D image of Covington, which looks very similar to Darwin on 2D. Covington is just north of the 2D/3D cut off so this area has been prioritised for having the 3D shot there and the hope is that the 3D will provide a similar picture to Darwin when the 3D is interpreted. On a slightly separate note, one of the reasons I think BOR hold their cards very close to their chest is the open acreage to the north of their licence area. If they have further success with Covington etc, and with them having completed a lot of technical work, that will put them in a strong position going forward to bid for licence areas there. So we have two companies in the SFB following slightly different paths. BOR, as has always been the way, are likely, imo, to follow a minimum risk approach through in depth technical work on the prospects in the Darwin area. FOGL on the other hand are taking a higher risk but higher reward approach by aiming at Diomedea first (RR-8, you mentioned in a post some time ago that you thought their next target would be D; this has proven the case, I'm intrigued as to what was your thought process back then?) and then Hersilia to test their theories about the tertiary channel development at more proximal sand input locations up the slope. FOGL will of course also have 3D this time round so it will be very interesting to see the various interpretations. Going forward, what is the medium term outlook for the shares? In my view, both BOR and FOGL represent good value at current prices. However, I think there may be a little further for them to fall, not particularly because of anything relating to either specifically, more as a result of the macroeconomic environment and the continuing aversion to risk that is being seen in the markets. That, coupled with a news void relatively speaking, may put downward pressure on prices. However, as ever with AIM, a change of sentiment could transform things quickly. FOGL's news is likely to be a rig announcement and the 3D interpretation. I personally don't see much upside from lab results. BOR have farm-in developments to announce – however, the question is when! To get the best possible deal, they would ideally want to have the full suite of 3D data available and interpreted for a data room. That is likely to be towards the end of this year I imagine and given things like the rig contract are going to start moving sooner than that, they may want to secure a partner sooner. The question then, perhaps, is whether another firm is willing to take a punt on BOR's technical work on the 2D to date or whether they want the full 3D available to them, otherwise they may impose worse terms. It will be interesting to see what approach BOR's BOD take to maximising shareholder value. In the long term, like RKH, I think the future is bright. However, in the short to medium term, I think they need to tread carefully to ensure they don't waste opportunities to create shareholder value. AIMHO! Regards, TFM P.S. RedRock-8 – Do you know where to find the Tracks CPR? Rumblefish
pro_s2009: Gramacho's BOR AGM notes below : .........A lively AGM and a very good presentation from BOR on Friday. Summary/Key Points • If Darwin alone contains insufficient liquids on which to base a development several other prospects are within subsea tieback distance offering IMO the opportunity to aggregate further gas condensate discoveries into one development. • Reservoir continuity on seismic and good trap definition suggests Darwin will require few appraisal wells. IMO rock properties suggest well deliverability will be extremely high and gas condensate well spacing is typically much larger than that of oil fields this will also assist commerciality. • BOR has the MDT pressure gradient across the main Darwin sand and will have a sense as to whether Darwin is a relatively lean gas condensate with modest liquids yield or a relatively rich gas condensate with a high liquids yield. However it will not be drawn into estimating the likely range because there is significant uncertainty in any such estimate and prefers to wait until definitive numbers are obtained from the lab tests. • Further work is required to understand the source rock and migration story. Based on the information obtained from the well to date BOR retains the belief that the source rock immediately underneath Darwin is in the oil window despite gas condensate having been found. It believes the acreage in the vicinity of Darwin may yet contain oil fields. • The well did not encounter a gas water contact and therefore we still don't know for sure that Darwin doesn't contain an oil leg. Apparently there is room between the flat spot depth and the highest known water in a lower sand to house an oil column. However would there be sufficient contrast between a gas condensate and oil leg to generate the observed flat spot? • Stebbing is being drilled as a tight hole and it was extremely difficult to get a read on what the well has found to date. I could speculate but it would be without much technical justification so I am not comfortable doing so. • Management is extremely confident they will be able to conduct a significant appraisal and exploration program once further 3D seismic has been obtained and the existing 3D seismic has been reprocessed to incorporate the well results. DISCUSSION 1. BORs Communication Strategy and "that" Condensate Yield BOR's communication strategy remains unchanged. fadilz's note of 16:14 on Friday 29th sums it up well. Hence once again you had to be present to see the seismic and well logs and several slides have been omitted from the web version of the presentation. It was nevertheless very pleasing to see Howard and his team open up with more information about the high potential of this acreage. Clearly BOR are guarding their interpretation of this fairway to secure a competitive advantage in any future application for open acreage nearby. The company demonstrating the best understanding of the play and how it works in the open acreage will be the front runner to obtain the licence. One would also hope that the F.I. government would recognise BOR for having opened up the play (and its shareholders for taking the investment risk) and reward it with some or all of the remaining acreage into which the play extends. The concern for PIs is, given that Darwin is a gas condensate discovery, BOR may not have done enough by way of release of information to retain the market's interest and thereby support the sp, particularly in these difficult times. Hence will funds be raised for additional drilling at the optimal sp? Certainly Friday's presentation goes some way towards revealing some of the potential but until the Darwin condensate yield and Stebbing results are released we don't know how critical selling the potential will be. BOR pointed out that having 100% W.I gives them other options such as bringing in a partner. Harry Dobson pointed out he and his team have a long track record over many years of securing funding for businesses and certainly the track record to date with BOR is impeccable. He pointed out that the IIs have seen more information via confidentiality agreements and the IIs have backed the company to date. Perhaps the private investors just feel the pressure more as it is our own money on the table. Harry mentioned the board's substantial holding and he believed they had as much if not more of an interest in making this work than most of the shareholders in attendance. There was an impassioned plea by one shareholder, an ex CEO or Chairman of a public company, for BOR to indicate the likely range of condensate yields at Darwin to go along with the range GIP estimates. This received a lot of support in the room and the temperature rose a few degrees! The GIIP estimate is 2.44 TCF +18% or -23% which is a rather tight range considering only one well has been drilled. (Definitely a function of the great trap definition afforded by the seismic and the flat spot.) The possible range in condensate yield is multiple times that of the GIIP range so it is not surprising that BOR is unwilling to quote a probable range at present. Without any well specific information the range of condensate yields varies by a factor of 10+, i.e. 20 to 200+ bbl/MMCF (equal to 20 to 200+MMbbl/TCF, could even be as high as 300+) as has been discussed here previously. As mentioned in the summary of key points I believe it is possible to get a sense of how rich or lean the condensate is from the MDT pressure gradient but it would not be definitive and would leave room for significant error. It wasn't clear that BOR had asked specialists to estimate the range using the pressure gradient information. What they did say was that the possibility of a gas condensate reservoir had not been on their minds before drilling (gas or oil being the more obvious outcomes they had focused on). fadilz commented "a chap who has consulted for both BOR and now FOGL was willing in conversation to put it at 50m to 150m barrels per TCF, but most likely around 80-100..." Whilst the 50 bbl/MM is easy to rationalise the case for 80-100 ML and 150 High is not clear. It would have been interesting to share in that conversation. Certainly other elements of FOGLs understanding of what BOR had encountered have proven incorrect so IMO we just have to wait for the lab results. It is worth noting that BOR consider they will struggle to commercialise Darwin if the yield is 50 bbl/MM but may have a commercial project "if it is in the hundreds". Whether this meant 100+ or 200+ was not clear. In any event BOR has not yet done the necessary work yet to show the value range for a specific CGR. The complete work scope to analyse the condensate samples is 10 weeks but Howard did promise to release yield information prior to then if it becomes available. BOR took a comprehensive set of samples from four depths so they have good coverage and will be able to detect any variation of yield with depth. 2. Darwin Results Slide 9 shows the reservoir properties which are very favourable (see later comments on well spacing and deliverability). It was particularly interesting to learn that the well did not encounter reservoir at the depth of the flat spot. BOR did not select a drilling location where it was present. There is a thick shale section separating the main reservoir package from an underlying water bearing sand interval. As I understand it the flat spot is located elsewhere on the structure within the depth interval encompassed by this shale section. Hence whilst the flat spot is probably a gas condensate-water level, that is not yet proven and there is room between the highest known water in the lower sand and the flat spot depth to house an oil column down dip of the well. BOR will have MDT pressure points in the main gas sand and in the underlying sand and can determine whether the intersection of the two gradients agrees with the flat spot depth. If it does then this would suggest there is a gas condensate – water contact down dip of the discovery well. However that technique is only valid if the lower sand is in pressure communication with the main gas bearing sand and BOR did not confirm that the two sands are in pressure communication. (In fact in the post presentation chat they pointed out the limitations of the technique if they are not. Bit of a tease there lol!). We have seen examples in the Sea Lion wells of sands on different pressure profiles and this may be another example. The continued potential for an oil leg is not an outcome that BOR pushed at the AGM although of course this was considered to be very possible prior to the drill. A gas condensate contains a broader spectrum of components found in oil than would a gas cap. Would there still be sufficient contrast to generate a flat spot at the contact between gas condensate and oil? It is still in the gas phase in the reservoir so perhaps it would. The presence of an additional Lwr Cretaceous sand will be of interest to BOR because it may be present elsewhere in conjunction with a valid trap. It wasn't clear whether this is a sand that is being targeted in the other prospects such as Sulivan and Stokes. The well TD'd in sand and BOR believe there are additional sands deeper in Darwin. BOR did not offer an explanation why this sand is not charged. Is there sand to sand contact across the fault at this level or is it not on the migration path? As usual at this stage lots of questions yet to be answered. Apart from the condensate yield one of the more interesting outcomes of the lab work will be the reservoir fluid viscosity. Hopefully Howard will publish it because it would, along with the excellent permeability and apparent reservoir continuity from seismic, support the case for very high well deliverabilities. We could be looking at a well spacing of 2.5km2 and only 8-10 producers with say 4 gas recycle wells which would assist in lowering development drilling costs. Drilling costs were a concern going into the meeting given how long Darwin took to drill. Darwin cost about $95MM. The rig equipment problems were responsible for about 1/3 of the $40MM overrun which puts the well cost at $82MM without this one off event. (The rig was on zero rate whilst the problem continued so the $13MM represents the remainder of the spread costs.) The majority of the overrun appears to be due to drilling issues including hole instability due to tectonic stress. An extra string of casing was run at one stage to stabilise the hole. BOR appear very confident this can be overcome by change of mud type. In addition a multi well campaign would see fixed costs shared over more wells so, together with the benefit of the usual learning curve, drilling costs should reduce as more wells are drilled. Apart from the equipment problems the rig has performed extremely well with only about 2 days lost due to weather. 3. The Lower Cretaceous Play Fairway Prospects This acreage is target rich. BOR showed us 4 further prospects (Covington, Chaffers, Burgess and Bute) plus what appeared to be an unnamed lead/prospect and 2 deeper prospects Sulivan and Stokes. BOR showed a blob map of the prospect outlines to scale. IMO you could draw a 15km radius from a central point that would encompass most of the prospective resources shown. Hence, IF this turns out to be a gas condensate play, any further successes have the potential to be aggregated into one development as they are all within subsea tieback distance. This is important because it is not yet clear whether Darwin alone contains sufficient liquids on which to base a development. If it doesn't a single central processing facility could handle condensate from multiple discoveries. Slide 18 of the web presentation is striking in that all the prospects are much larger than Darwin emphasising again how BOR stuck to their principle of drilling the highest COS prospect first even though that could and indeed has lead to questions about commerciality. The key to this strategy will be how Darwin success and the ability to reprocess the 3D and calibrate the AVO response will affect the COS of the rest of the portfolio. Covington is an amplitude supported prospect which is particularly interesting as it appears to be up dip from Darwin and could have received oil displaced from Darwin by a later gas condensate charge. It has an area almost 50% larger than Darwin so there is potential for a larger accumulation. However it is currently defined on the 2D and needs maturing with new 3D before BOR will drill it. I expect this to have a very high pre drill COS. Chaffers has some data quality issues and requires 3D reprocessing. Source Rock Maturity Howard said that the thermal gradient is very close to what was predicted. IMO this is good news because had temperatures been much higher than predicted this would have invalidated the source rock maturity map in the CPR. This was drawn based on the Aptian (Lwr Cretaceous) source rock top oil window being at 3000m below the seabed and the top gas window at 4150m below seabed. A higher temp gradient would have placed much more of the source rock in the gas window than predicted. 61/17-1 TD was 4876m which would be about 2838m below mudline. Hence any potential source rocks encountered in the well are expected to be immature or in the early oil window and therefore not responsible for the gas condensate. Howard said they don't believe a source rock was encountered but final confirmation will come from geochemical analysis of the cuttings. BOR thinks it knows where the Aptian source rock is deeper in the section below Darwin. We did not ask if BOR are planning to verify the pick by finding the source rock. It seems fairly fundamental to know the source rock depth to confirm another part of the source rock story. The question of drilling deeper came up in the context of there being more sands deeper in the Lower Cretaceous that could be hydrocarbon bearing. Howard indicated they may well drill deeper in a later well such as Covington. The Aptian is one of the youngest age periods of the Lower Cretaceous so it is not necessary to drill through the entire LC to find the source and hence it would seem there would not be too much of a cost penalty to drill the source. The Stebbing lower target is in the Upper Cretaceous so it doesn't offer the opportunity to confirm the pick. There are three other areas of uncertainty regarding the source rock: a) The type of source rock i.e. whether it is oil prone, gas prone or mixed. The source rock is believed to be oil prone based on DSDP wells but these are hundreds of miles from Darwin. b) The thermal history i.e. in the past has the source rock been subject to higher temperatures than associated with the present day burial? c) Is there a migration path that links Darwin with a deeper part of the basin where the source is in the gas window? If these areas of uncertainty can be addressed then BOR will have a good handle on the source rock and the distribution of oil versus gas condensate. Drilling the source rock would answer a) and b) although I suspect b) can be answered by analysing samples from the well. c) may be something that BOR looks at in the post well review. 4. Stebbing and the Tertiary Fold Belt Play It was so hard to get a read on Stebbing due to the tight hole status. BOR advised in the spud RNS that the drilling time estimate was subject to "geological challenges" that might cause variation from the estimate. I suspect this was a recognition that the hole problems encountered in Darwin could again be present in Stebbing. The wells are less than 50 km apart and Stebbing will encounter most of the formations encountered by Darwin. In addition Stebbing will encounter rocks that have been subject to tectonic stresses associated with folding. It is unlikely BOR would have been in a position to switch to a different mud system (e.g. an oil based mud system) if the cuttings handling equipment was not on board. Hence IMO the delays seen on Stebbing are to be expected. Although Howard would not take questions about the status of Stebbing he did confirm the content of an OGJ article from 2009 which suggested there is a chain of five anticlines with gas hydrates located above the crests sounded correct. In other words there is a lot of upside should Stebbing be a discovery. 5. Forward Program BOR are planning on running a new 3D survey in the FI summer at the end of the year. This should firm up Covington and provide other exploration targets. My sense is that a rig can be contracted on the basis of the results from reprocessing of the existing 3D survey provided there is sufficient encouragement from the Darwin liquids yield and Stebbing. BOR were indicating that a firm program of five wells is one possibility and IMO the area covered by the existing 3D should support this length of program. The new survey might enable any optional slots to be filled if the results are available in time. CONCLUSIONS AND OTHER OBSERVATIONS • BOR has just scratched the surface in terms of revealing the potential of this acreage. There is a healthy prospect portfolio that should expand when the 3D has been reprocessed and additional 3D is run and interpreted. • The Stebbing results will have a bearing on the importance placed on the Darwin liquids yield. If Stebbing were to find oil then the focus would be on Stebbing and less so on Darwin. If Stebbing were to find a gas condensate then the focus will be on sample results from both wells. • The key to the share price will be demonstrating it can find enough liquids to underpin a commercial project. RKH was able to prove commerciality over the course of several wells in one drilling campaign which helped underpin the share price. BOR has only two wells in which to achieve the comfort of commerciality to underpin the share price. That is asking a lot. Should BOR not achieve that then share price performance will be influenced by how the longer term potential of the acreage is viewed versus a sub commercial discovery or one that can only be commercialised in the longer term. • It was evident from Harry Dobson's comments that this has been an extremely stressful campaign as a result of the rig problems. It was good to hear him pay tribute to the efforts of the team who have overcome the problems and delivered a discovery despite all the issues. Finished at last! Regards and GLA including the BOR management team, Gramacho PS: Apologies if I had to cut short one or two conversations at the AGM in order to get some time with the BOR folk in the post presentation conversations. Since BOR don't do the PI presentation circuit we only get this opportunity once a year!........
Borders & Southern Petroleum share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:41 V: D:20161025 11:55:50