Aj Bell Share Discussion Threads

[allenb100] 19/6/2015 03:22

Lazarus2010 - 17 Jun 2015 - 11:00:17 - 192937 of 193032
Mortie re "was not aimed at me."

not at all...you were not part of yesterday's conversation regarding management etc. The part of the post that you didn't quote was aimed specifically at the earlier bb posts with the usual 'sack the management' complaints.

[allenb100] 18/6/2015 10:07

I'm not doing very well today. Although in a standard $60 wti eme should make money every month April was not such a month. I think we did lose money in April.

Crosseyed's figure in the header do not allow for any DD&A. I I include it at the same rate as was incurred in H1, it would appear that we did.

Revenue 973Overheads -100Interest -173Other - 37PBT 663 (per Crosseyed's header)LessDD&A -708Net loss for April 45









DD&A Using the H1 rate $2,698 less $85 one off adj = $2,613,000
Based on gross prodn of 199,952boe = $13.06boe

Gross Production for April 1,807boepd = 54,210bos x 13.06 = $708m

[mortie1] 14/6/2015 08:49

Laz,

It's a wet Sunday, I've tired of pulling legs off flies so I thought I would accept your challenge in your post 162619 where you said "it was MRO who stated that they expect to make 65% roi*, not me, so why don't you challenge MRO?"

I had not indicated previously that I had no belief in the MRO BestFit IRR 62% but as you mention it, I don't. The full text is available on my thread if anyone is interested.

Thanks for dropping by.

This is the MRO PP sheet they provided in their May presentation.

I am only going to discuss the Austin Chalk column here.

MRO have given sufficient information to calculated a value for a BOE.

We know that 71% is liquids and 85% of the revenue is liquid based. Therefore 29% is gas with 15% of revenue from gas. Value of gas part of the boe is
.29 x 6(convert from boe to mcf) X $3mcf = $5.22 We know that $5.22 equals 15% of revenue per boe therefore revenue per boe = 5.22/.15 = $34.8 per boe.
We have sufficient information to breakdown the liquids between Condensate and NGLs but it is not really relevant at this stage. I will include a calculation at the end.

Given that we know the royalty rate 25% and the opex Ist qtr $7.94boe Year est $8.75 to $9.75. Lets use $8.00 we can work out how many BOE's it takes to achieve undiscounted payback in the stated time of 2.5 years. Net revenue per boe = 34.8 - 25% - $8 = $18.10. Number of Boe's to paybay $6.5mm well cost = 6.5mm/18.1 = 359,116 boe's so avg monthly prodn = 11,970boe.

We know the first month production was 1,270 X 30 = 38,100boe

[allenb100] 08/6/2015 03:50

I thought I would share some data I collect with the board.







Despite to IP 1 being v.good, my comments were veering towards the negative, so please, draw your own conclusions. Always assuming you have an interest.

[mortie1] 02/6/2015 22:58

free stock charts from fm.advfn.com

free stock charts from fm.advfn.com

[mortie1] 13/5/2015 10:08

I thought I would have a look at the stack & frac results for March. MRO in it's March presentation identified Murphy Sinclair unit as it's first S&F site. We know all four wells were drilled from the same pad so this narrows it down to wells 9H, 301H, 501H and AC 9H

The Prodn for March was as follows:



According to the plats, the wells are not all stacked vertically. 9H and 501H appear to have common grid refs., as do 301H and AC 9H. The two sets are 175ft apart, which is 20 acre spacing on 5000ft lateral. They are all 5,862 from FTP to LTP

The wells are prodcing from the Sugarcane EF and SugarKane (Austin Chalk) fields Production would appear to be at the high end. Surprising that MRO did not make more of it.

[mortie1] 04/3/2015 15:32

It will be interesting to see how big a hit Baytex has to take as an impairment on it's Aurora acquisition ( if any). Should give us a good idea of what we are worth according to the bean counters. No impairment would be very good news as it implies that they expect to be profitable for future developments at current prices including the hefty premium they paid for the assets. And if they are profitable, eme will certainly be so. MRO had no impairments relating to any of it's onshore US activities FYE Dec 31,2014.

[bluetooth] 03/3/2015 10:10

Still doing it 3 years on!

[mortie1] 17/2/2015 12:15

First Name
Last Name
Points


Jill
Smith
50


Eve
Jackson
94


John
Doe
80





First Name
Last Name
Points


Jill
Smith
50


Eve
Jackson
94


John
Doe
80

[mortie1] 13/1/2015 16:52

free stock charts from uk.advfn.com

[mortie1] 07/1/2015 19:26

rom my reading of a model JVA, which came from a Texas lawyer, the non participation by a Joint Venture Partner (JVP)in a well does not result in the lose of any acreage per se.

It does result in the loss of production from that/those wells, but even then not necessarily for ever. Depending on the agreement, this could be the outcome but it may be the production rights are regained after the participants have recovered some multiple of their costs, typically according to the model between 200 to 400%. I think 400% would effectively mean the lot and maybe even 200% would mean that. In effect every well which eme failed to participate would result in 15,000boe of reserves lost (500,000boe EUR x 3%). The non participation, I believe, would seriously annoy the operator, in effect they have another JV to account for with slightly different %'s. This would make an already complicated calculation of shared facilities, ie flowlines, flowstations etc to become more so. Even allocation of costs for pad drilling becomes an issue. For instance the upper hole mud is probably used by all wells, imagine how much more complicated it becomes when say 2 of the 5 wells have participants and different %s from the other 3. Tool rentals on a monthly basis have to be allocated between the two different JV's etc. etc. In reality every invoice has to be allocated, it becomes a nightmare.

X'id,
"I don't know if Laz is right about HBP but I doubt it." That's my usual starting position with anything Laz posts.

If the wells were be on a oil lease, then there would be no way of knowing what eme's entitlement from that lease would be in the future. RRC only reports by the lease, whereas the allocation by MRO would be on a well basis. The upside of that is you could then stop the data collection

[allenb100] 07/1/2015 11:51

Cash flow 264less net effect of discontinued ops (2,053)Add back Stock Purchase 1,000Adj cash flow from operation ( 789)

[mortie1] 18/12/2014 04:46

2014 Capital, Investment and Exploration (non-capital) Spending (dollars in millions) 2014 Budget Percent Of Total North America (N.A.) and International Exploration and Production (E&P) Conventional Assets $1,395 23% Resource Plays 3,559 61% Exploration * 529 9% Total N.A. and International E&P 5,483 93% N.A. E&P 4,241 72% International E&P 1,242 21% Total E&P 5,483 93% Oil Sands Mining 294 5% Total 5,777 98% Other Corporate 56 1% Capitalized Interest 49 1% Total Other 105 2% Total Capital, Investment and Exploration Spending $5,882 100% * Includes spending on exploration in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, Ethiopia, Kenya, Gabon and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. It does not include all exploration and exploitation spending, which is expected to be $1,164 million in 2014.

[allenb100] 21/11/2014 09:09

DT,

While CW may not have drill a horizontal well in the Earn in acreage, they have certainly drilled plenty in Reeves County . At least one of them "Lowe 24" was in excess of 7,500ft in the lateral section. The well is in production and looks to be a good producer.

I don't think we should have any concerns as to CW's competency and if the first well calls for a 7,500fter, so much the better.

Re Lease costs, here is something I prepared earlier.

This is based on Short Laterals ( 4,500ft) costing $6mm, and Long Laterals (7,500ft) costing $9mm.

I rounded down the acreage to get an exact number of wells ie 14,720 acres and have assumed a short lateral for the first well. Total estimated cost is the shown per acre cost x 10,880acres. (14,720-640)x.75 + 320)

My best case would be $ 26.25mm
My worst $ 34.5mm