Aminex Share Discussion Threads

[skinwalker] 06/3/2017 23:46

for Christs sake Haggis - shut up and go to bed

[haggismchaggis] 06/3/2017 21:47

From Mike Rego's presentation. Isn't he again saying the Ruvuma fan system that's in his diagrams? Key to migration will be a network of carrier beds – the main contenders must surely be the channel-fan systems along the rift margins dating from Lower/basal Middle Jurassic break-up times through to present, allowing for migration generally updip and westwards towards the shelf.Thus it can be surmised that the best opportunities for oil will be associated with early migration along the exhumed coastal strip, i.e., nearshore and onshore to the West, away from the influence of any plume activity.

[haggismchaggis] 06/3/2017 21:45

From Mike Rego's presentation. Oil offshore and onshore Ruvuma? Well isn't that AEX acreage? And the potential 78 billion barrels of oil migrating up the Ruvuma/Rovuma fan systems that AEX are drilling into?The potential volumes of oil and gas that may be generated from Lower/basal Middle Jurassic source rocks within the onshore and offshore Ruvuma/Rovuma Basin at approximately 50,000km2, put the oil and gas potential into perspective.o Let us take a Lower/basal Middle Jurassic oil prone source rock of 50m thickness, with HI=350, TOC=5%, which will expel a volume of 9.8 MMbbls oil and 32.6 Bcf gas per km2o For a basin of 50,000km2, assuming source rock presence over 80%, i.e., 40,000km2 , this is equates to expulsion of 393,800,000,000 bbls oil and 1,303,000,000,000,000 cf gas - (393.8 Billion bbls oil and 1,303 Tcf gas)o If we assume that only 10% of the expelled hydrocarbons become effectively trapped for exploration, this still equates to 39,380,000,000 bbls oil and 130,300,000,000,000 cf gas - (39.38 Billion bbls oil and 130.3 Tcf gas)• If we have a similar source interval in the Permo-Trias, there is potential for a further similar volume; if there is any evaporative fractionation or "cracking" of the oils to gas, for every 10 Billion barrels of oil there is the potential for a further 6Tcf of gas.o Thus for a basin of 50,000km2, with a total 100m source rock interval from the Permo-Trias and the Lower/basal Middle Jurassic, this is equates to 78,760,000,000 bbls oil and 260,600,000,000,000 cf gas - (78.76 Billion bbls oil and 260.6 Tcf gas)• With 150-200Tcf of gas discovered primarily offshore to date, there are some phenomenal source rocks present, but most importantly, what has happened to 78 Billion barrels of oil, and where is it?

[haggismchaggis] 06/3/2017 21:22

greyingsurfer, further to my previous post, look carefully at the slide shown at 37m 15s into Mike Rego's presentation, this is entitled "Bringing It All Together - A Way Forward" and the diagram showing the channel fan system where he says the oil has migrated from deep offshore to the near shore and onshore, it features the "Ntorya discovery" as a route for the oil migration, yet you suggest Mike Rego is bearish about oil on AEX acreage? Why would Ntorya even be on that slide if he didn't think there was oil there?From what I've heard and seen in his presentation about the oil migrating to the near shore and onshore, it indicates to me that Mike Rego is very bullish about oil on AEX acreage.The presentation pdf file link is below. The slide I refer to is number 35.http://237880a850b57f720dfd-816ef7f212e42c7f99df6030f7ad3efa.r22.cf1.rackcdn.com/FP%2023.02.2017%20Mike%20Rego_Rego%20Exploration%20Ltd.pdf

[skinwalker] 06/3/2017 20:52

Mike Rego? Doesn't he run morris-dancing courses on Dartmoor now?

[oilandgas1] 06/3/2017 20:41

An interesting article on oil:

hxxp://www.thehedgefundjournal.com/content/andurand-sees-further-energy-recovery

Check out IRG .. big move today .006p to .049p

[whoppy] 06/3/2017 20:32

It's oil, imo. Your big buyer knows. This is no longer a gas play. Extra testing, separating gas and oil. Gas condensate yes. The well has black oil. Need more time to confirm an oil discovery.

[haggismchaggis] 06/3/2017 20:28

greyingsurfer, as for Mike Rego, have you not listened to his entire presentation? Or do you have selective hearing like you seem to have with my posts? Mike Rego says 5 people in that room got together last year to try and find the oil, and yet you suggest he's bearish on oil?Mike Rego states a conservative case for billions of barrels of oil that he thinks has migrated to the near shore and onshore, and yet you suggest he is bearish on oil?Mike Rego says the liquid (oil) rim from N2 could be very positive for oil (presumably on AEX acreage as that is where N2 is drilled), and yet you suggest he is bearish on oil on AEX acreage?Mike Rego does a staggering 45 minute presentation demonstrating the huge case for near shore and onshore oil, whilst heavily quoting AEX wells, seismic etc, and yet you suggest he is bearish on oil on AEX acreage? Mike Rego at the end of his presentation States there is a case for oil and again mentions N2, then nearly let's slip that the case for oil is at...... (put your own words here, but a lot of people believe he was going to say Ntorya), and yet you suggest he is bearish on oil on AEX acreage? I suggest you go and listen carefully to what Mike Rego says in his presentation, and to what NR says in his presentation, then reevaluate.

[haggismchaggis] 06/3/2017 20:11

greyingsurfer, putting words in my mouth, nothing less than I would have expected. Feel free to go and find where I've stated as fact the things you claim I have. I know you won't find any because I always use the following words to ensure fact is not purveyed to the reader: possibly, possibilities, possibility, option, theory, chance, thought, might. In theory you might not be reading the context of my posts correctly, and misunderstanding thoughts, scenarios, ideas, and suggestions as fact, that is no fault of mine, as I word my posts carefully enough in my mind to prevent such confusion. As for estimates, everyone can see they are my own personal guesses, and as such I can put down whatever I like, as I don't expect anyone to take it as anything more than a personal guess. Often I show maximum potential, but I state it as maximum potential, not fact, and everyone is capable of deciding what percentage of the maximum is likely.

[tidy 2] 06/3/2017 20:10

Lots of blue days from here imo

[greyingsurfer] 06/3/2017 17:46

Haggis,

Haggis just does a lot of good research and only states facts as fact, (and is also amazingly modest)

You've consistently suggested the most optimistic possible outcomes as "fact", or close to. No one has disputed that there have been traces of oil in cuttings at N-2, and shows at L-1 (and possibly at N-1). But that is a very long way from suggesting that an oil find is likely on the acreage. Mike Rego, who probably knows more about this than anyone has suggested that the western targets (Namisange in particular) are the most likely places that oil might be found. However, he's also said he doesn't consider it likely. It may be there, we'd all be very pleased if it was - no one more than the BoD I'm sure, but I would be very surprised indeed if the looking for oil had a high priority in deciding short term drill locations.

You've also consistently given highly optimistic estimates of possible short term gas production, from Ntorya, again as fact.

The AEX story is currently looking very good - based on likely gas resources, provided they can avoid too costly a renegotiation of the licences. It doesn't need ramping up with consistently overoptimistic interpretations of limited data.

Peter

[haggismchaggis] 06/3/2017 15:33

ngms, Haggis just does a lot of good research and only states facts as fact, possibilities as possibilities, potential as potential, thoughts as thoughts. If everyone did that instead of mixing those up to try and sound more knowledgeable than the next guy, gaining knowledge from these BB's would be a lot easier for everyone.

[blackgold00] 06/3/2017 15:27

very good Ed, yes i think we best wait for the results

[edgein] 06/3/2017 15:17

Jonnyt,

Old Ed here doesn't work in the oil and gas industry but has been investing for around 25 years, most of it in the oil and gas sector. I've a scientific background/education and have read hundreds of research papers on the subject as well as been in regular contact with many CEO's over the years. The best of which were Mr Barrett of former EOG fame and TCW of SQZ.

Its impossible to determine whether the sand in question is the upper or lower sand of NT-1 which also contained small amounts of light oil. The mud logs of NT-2 shown in the recent SOLO presentation open up more questions than answers. Interestingly NR removed the scale for each log etc but there's certain things you can still gleam from that including what looks like interbedded limestone not seen in NT-1 logs. However these weren't present which made me think that the schematic in the presentation wasn't Ntorya at all. If that's really NT-2 logs in that presentation its very significant in the presence of potential reservoir quality lithology throughout the net payable section with no visible shale, lots of sandstone. I'd like to see another representation of that slide from AEX though to clarify, even though NR did suggest its NT-2.

I've not seen any evidence to date to suggest that NT-1 and NT-2 sands are separate. Both imo will produce wet gas, some small amounts of light oil. The oil is either remnants of migration or gasification. The only way to tell if this oil has migrated updip will be with further appraisal. the pressure differential can be accounted for as pressure normally increases the higher you progress up a sloping fan (especially if reservoir quality and HC saturation increase). These tend not to be uniform structures. So until we hear otherwise this imo is just a continuation of NT-1, presumably the upper sand, the lower sand may also have merged with the upper sand above the GWC. Causing more gas to enter the reservoir no longer blocked by shale. Accounts for lack of shale in the NT-2 logs on the SOLO presenation (that's if it were NT-2 logs and not NR being a crafty blighter).

Regards,
Ed.

[blackgold00] 06/3/2017 15:03

what i am trying to say ngms, is, as the two zones are separated, couldn't we get different readings from both, pressures contents etc. or the top 3m zone might corresponds with what was tested at NT-1 but the bottom 16m pluss zone doesn't. i'm enjoying this. : )

[ngms27] 06/3/2017 14:52

blackgold, I think we can, Gussows theory. Unless NT-1 and NT-2 aren't connected.

I'll wait patiently for Ed to tell me otherwise!

[blackgold00] 06/3/2017 14:45

the lower 16m zone at nt-1 was separated from the tested 3m zone by about 6m of shale, so until the test results from NT-2 which as i understand it is testing both zones, we cant know.

[last throw] 06/3/2017 14:43

ngms

Cannot see any defamation in my post and can assure you that it was not intended as such - hope that clarifies that but if you wish to take it further then I'll leave that to you and your advisers.

LT

[ngms27] 06/3/2017 14:38

last throw, nice bit of defamation there in post 61695. I'd consider removing it if I were you.

I admit I'm not always right and am happy to bow to some superior knowledge from Edgein (works in the Industry) but Haggis, come on!

[ngms27] 06/3/2017 14:35

blackgold, the bottom 16m wasn't tested because it was water wet. Thus if the NT-1 / NT-2 structure had reservoired oil it would have been directly above the water contact so would have been seen at NT-1

[blackgold00] 06/3/2017 14:29

ngms, "Unless of course NT-1 isn't connected to NT-2 as otherwise the oil would have been at NT-1."

ngms we have been here before, at NT-1 only the top 3 mt was tested and that zone was separated by about 6 mt of shale from the lower 16 mt zone that wasn't tested like Rego says the NT-2 results will be interesting.

again about 29 min in

hxxp://www.findingpetroleum.com/video/PetroMall-Ltd/Mike-Rego/1777.aspx

[last throw] 06/3/2017 13:47

hi

I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here but ngms seems to be struggling on the ropes a bit now that several pretty erudite technical posters have arrived on the board (haggis and edgein)- it's almost as if too little or misunderstood knowledge is extremely dangerous; in this case not only to the issuers but perhaps also to the people who take them seriously!

I also notice the absence of the precocious baby who made a bit of an eejit of himself with his arrogant and disdainful posts promulgated from the lofty heights of his perception of his very high worth ....... NOT!

Whilst I have ignored the negativity of what could have appeared as quite knowledgeable postings from these self-appointed "experts", I am sure some will have based selling decisions on these and, if I were either of them, I would be hanging my head in shame if their ill-conceived and inaccurate posts had cost folk money .... unless that was their original intention ......... mmmmmmmmm, couldn't live with myself if that were the case but that would never be my agenda!

And, for what it's worth, I reckon that the momentum now is there to take us to double figures on the issuance of the RNS with much, much more to come.

Good luck all serious long-term holders!!!!!!

LT

[haggismchaggis] 06/3/2017 13:34

ngms, I also doubt they will say "oil is the target at N3", but as usual that's not what I said. I said oil is 'A' target, not 'the' target, as I fully expect them to play it safe and put gas as 'the' target, but that doesn't stop them adding oil as a potential target.

[haggismchaggis] 06/3/2017 13:31

ngms, see the NR presentation, he says 'black oil' on N2 cuttings.

[ngms27] 06/3/2017 12:41

haggis, I'm pretty sure the condensate will have been derived from oil and what we have is staining and nothing more. Unless of course NT-1 isn't connected to NT-2 as otherwise the oil would have been at NT-1.

I'm pretty sure they won't ever go as far to say oil is the target at NT-3.