markymar
- 03 Dec 2003 11:36
cynic
- 03 Nov 2010 11:12
- 5453 of 6492
you do talk a load of bollocks so often, but that's fine .... you're happy to be long, and i'm happy to be short ..... however, i note you do not dispute the timescale i mention nor even that it was only traces that were found per the latest info
Proselenes
- 03 Nov 2010 11:17
- 5454 of 6492
cynic, your constant resort to petty abuse demonstrates you are a little too emotional with this one perhaps, I assume therefore your short is presently loss making ? ;)
chav
- 03 Nov 2010 11:28
- 5455 of 6492
"as it stands, it is still blue sky and, if i am not much mistaken, they still need to get formal permission and then to get hold of a rig. what timescale do you put on that?"
Cynic
I presume you have not read the RNS?
They still have the Rig!!!...providing FIG give the necessary permissions and permits then they will Spud within a week...if they don't get FIG approval in time then they will drill Dawn/Jacinta first and then go back to Rachel and drill rachel 2.
cynic
- 03 Nov 2010 11:29
- 5456 of 6492
my running loss on DES is minimal and very significantly more than counterbalanced by my running profit on FOGL (short) ...... i respond to your posts because you persistently ramp, predominantly talk a load of rubbish and rarely answer questions raised - as in this instance
cynic
- 03 Nov 2010 11:31
- 5457 of 6492
thanks chav ... at least a sensible answer from you ..... however, i would have thought that both Dawn and Jacinta were longshots indeed
chav
- 03 Nov 2010 11:38
- 5458 of 6492
Dawn/Jacinta have a COS of 6%
Rachel 1 had a COS of 15%.....Rachel 2 should have much higher COS based on findings of Rachel 1 + Sidetrack.
Sealion had a COS of 23%
There all have low COS when starting out ,because it's into the unknown ,however I would like to believe that they are learning with every Well drilled and the COS is improving with each Well.
cynic
- 03 Nov 2010 11:46
- 5459 of 6492
i would definitely question the validity of your last phrase, though 6% and 15% look pretty realistic - i.e. extremely slim!
chav
- 03 Nov 2010 11:53
- 5460 of 6492
Sealion had a 73% chance of failure!
skinny
- 03 Nov 2010 11:55
- 5461 of 6492
Is that like 77%
chav
- 03 Nov 2010 12:01
- 5462 of 6492
lol..correct skinny!
chav
- 03 Nov 2010 13:14
- 5463 of 6492
DAWN cos 8%...lol...does that make Dawn a 33% better chance than Jacinta at 6% COS?
gibby
- 03 Nov 2010 18:49
- 5464 of 6492
its just a flip of a coin dudes & good sp timing - atb
gibby
- 03 Nov 2010 18:51
- 5465 of 6492
personally stayed out today - had a bit of fun with gkp instead - feel its about time the 2 to 3 range became a permanent fixture there imminently - seem to remember a high of around 203 today now 188 ish i think
take another look at des tomorrow - think will end the day south
cynic
- 03 Nov 2010 20:58
- 5466 of 6492
have checked papers .... 25m SAND with traces of oil and NOT 25m of oil!!
Balerboy
- 03 Nov 2010 22:07
- 5467 of 6492
Thats what the blonde said when she was buried up to her neck on the beach and asked a chap for help.......he said "whats in it for me if I get you out"......"sand", she said.,.
chav
- 03 Nov 2010 22:22
- 5468 of 6492
chav - 03 Nov 2010 10:47 - 5448 of 5467
Rachel 2 has to have a much higher COS because it is going into a zone which the sidetrack has proved to contain at least 25m of HC's shows...
required field
- 03 Nov 2010 23:08
- 5469 of 6492
Sounds like a hollywood sequel to me !.
cynic
- 04 Nov 2010 07:54
- 5470 of 6492
try reading 5466 .... 5468 reads as if the sand was almost saturated
chav
- 04 Nov 2010 08:01
- 5471 of 6492
lol...how do you turn "HC's shows" into "as if the sand was almost saturated"???????????
cynic
- 04 Nov 2010 08:04
- 5472 of 6492
perhaps it's interpretation, but i read it that it was 99.75% sand with a tiny trace of oil ..... you seem to read it as say 80/20