Empyrean Energy

Web site : http://www.empyreanenergy.com

cyril - I ain't an ex-oiler. I'm still very much involved in the drilling side of the business and have been for an awful long time. I also have a degree in Geology, etc, etc.

Facts don't lie and knowing the area makes this a gamble not worth taking IMO.

I've said before and I'll say it again. Texas is probably the most mature oil province in the world - it all started their for gawd's sake! If there were huge finds to be had they'd have been producing for decades by now.

More on the Sugarloaf-1 well from the Adelphi website - all intervals so far are dusters. I read this as only 2 more prospective intervals left. Anyone else?

"Adelphi originally farmed into the Sugarloaf area on the basis of a large, deep, 4-way dip closed growth fault play in early Cretaceous Hosston Formation clastics. Upon recognition of the Austin Chalk play as an attractive secondary target, we increased our equity in this well from 12.5% to 20% prior to the commencement of drilling Sugarloaf-1.

The Sugarloaf-1 well commenced drilling during August 2006 and reached a total depth of 20,896 feet (6,371 metres) in December 2006 after 116 days.

During drilling and subsequently confirmed by wire-line log analysis, the well encountered indications of hydrocarbons in both the primary and secondary targets. In the primary Hosston Formation, gas indications over both an upper and lower interval of interbedded clastics, and in the Austin Chalk with a 28 metre zone of possible gas pay.

During March 2007, a testing program including fracture stimulation of part of the Hosston Formation intervals was undertaken but formation water and only minor quantities of gas were recovered at rates too small to measure. As a result, the well was plugged off to allow later testing of the Austin Chalk zone.

The Sugarloaf-1 test of the Austin Chalk interval commenced during September 2007 with the fracture stimulation and testing of the bottom-most zone. If a potentially commercial flow of gas and/or gas liquids can be obtained, the well will be production tested so as to obtain productivity information. The scope and timing of testing the remaining two zones will depend on the results of the first."


Yep, you read it right. The primary target (Hosston) produced nothing but water and exceedingly small amounts of gas. They plugged it off. I re-iterate - this was the primary target!!!!

They have now fracced and "tested" zone 1 of their secondary (Austin Chalk) target and it's a duster too.



Hello, hello, hello. Am I missing something or is it all there in black and white? Negative crap, my arse!!!

Al thanks for your reply, i'd normally apologise in these circumstances, but don't
feel i need to in this instance. If you were to look at it from where i'm sitting,you
would read very little content,just a sneer at any bad news(appearing to be hindsight ?)so for that reason if the views were not, the posts were most certainly
coming across as such. As far as my ex-oiler, maybe i misread one of your posts
(ref to florencent shows) which led me to believe, that to be the case.
Your last 2 posts are what is imo required to make a bb worth reading,someone
with knowledge helping those of us without to understand and make proper
decisions. For my part i try to exchange info gained(both positive and negative)
with that aim.
I hope this frank exchange has cleared any misunderstanding?
regards
cyril

.................. answers on a postcard? Come on you lot. Thought there'd have been a few replies by now.

;-)))

EME has interests in two areas. The Sugarloaf is only one - call it Block A. Undoubtably the Hosston Formation appears to be a dud, but it is NOT the Sugarkane. Since EME owns acreage in BOTH blocks, I would suggest that your claim of 10% possible returns are crap!!

The information on the Australian sites is excellent, but there is a small snag, as you cannot directly relate to everything as they ARE not licensees in EXACTLY THE SAME ACREAGE by any means as EME.

AT PRESENT NO HORIZONTAL WELLS have been tested in the Sugarkane in this area.

At this moment it really is not possible to tell what the Sugarkane will produce!!

So what is unusual about RNSs being positively slanted. Most companies try to do it when possible.

The previous two high level failures really are irrelevant. Glantel was always an exceptionally high risk prospect. Eagle Eye was a mechanical failure, it does not in any way reduce the potential of the prospect.

Interestingly if you followed Gulfsands the same type of picture could have seen on their Syrian prospects. The first two exploration wells were failures, the shares price collapsed but the third well was a success and the price recovered. Currently they are probably undervalued due to the previous two failures but as further drilling on their successful block continues "value" will out. If you had been passing comment on Gulfsands after their first two wells your coments would probably not have been too complimentary.

John - The thing about the 10% is from a quote from the Adelphi website. It isn't something I've dreamt up you plonker, hence the quotation marks. You being deliberately dense or just got your head out of the fume cupboard in the mud lab? ;-))

Last time I checked 20,000 (the Sugarloaf AMI acreage) was 10% of the the quoted 200,000 acres of the area "known as Sugarkane". I've changed the calculator batteries and yep, it still comes up with 10%.

Also, I think you'd better go check the website - EME has no part in Sugarkane. It is simply close to their acreage!!! Read the whole of this page carefully!!!!

Now you mention Eagle Eye and Glantal, these were both put forward as EME company makers at the time. Now you say they are irrelevant. So what is going to make this company? Yet another undrilled propsect with "massive" promise? How many unfulfilled promises do you need? I have followed GPX too over the past couple of years.

cyril - no worries from my side with you. I think I've probably often just posted a "told you so" type of thing rather than elaborating, which would probably have been of more benefit to yourself.

;-))

Al - the AMI acreage is considerably less than EME's, you quoted a figure for potential resources that is not based on AMI acreage not EME's acreage.

The Sugarkane is the formation not the field!! It's a bit like naming things as the Brent sands or the Forties sand. They're not but were laid down the same time geologically.

PS Do you really need a calculator to work out 10%. Too many late hours must have dulled your brain

Of course Eagle Eye and Glantal are irrelevent. Sniffing mud may have screwed my brain, but how does the success or failure of these two wells affect what Sugerloaf will produce in the least.

You seem to confuse me with others less knowlegeable of the industry. I'm in no way suggesting that Sugerloaf/Sugarkane will be a company maker. However on a risk/reward basis and based on what I have read it is worth a gamble. After all is that not really what buying shares is.

Hi Big Al, very informative posts from you.

I have a minor qualification in geology, (well a grade 3 O level in fact), and very much appreciate you detailed explanation.

Even my grade 3 is enough to keep me out of this one.

Like the look of TRP Block 5 however, (see my thread),

sww - too much bad news over too long a period. This just popped up - BARC flogged some by the look of it. They even supported BFC until the bitter end. ;-0 Not many admittedly.

Empyrean Energy PLC
25 October 2007



25 October 2007


Empyrean Energy PLC

('Empyrean' or the 'Company'; Ticker: (EME))



TR-1(i): NOTIFICATION OF MAJOR INTEREST IN SHARES

1. Identity of the issuer or the underlying issuer of existing shares to
which voting rights are attached (ii):

Empyrean Energy Plc

2. Reason for the notification:

An acquisition or disposal of voting rights

3. Full name of person(s) subject to the notification obligation (iii):

Barclays PLC

4. Full name of shareholder(s) (if difference from 3):

Barclays Stockbrokers Ltd
Gerrard Investment Management Ltd

5. Date of the transaction and date on which the threshold is crossed or
reached (v):

19 October 2007

6. Date on which issued notified:

22 October 2007

7. Threshold(s) that is/are crossed or reached:

11% to 10%

8. Notified details

A: Voting rights attached to shares

Class/type of share if possible using the ISIN Code GB00B09G2351

Situation Previous to the triggering transaction (vi) -
Number of Shares 5,611,438
Number of Voting Rights (viii) 5,611,438

Resulting situation after the triggering transaction (viii) -
Number of Shares 5,556,400
Number of Voting Rights - Direct (x) 0
Number of Voting Rights - Indirect (xi) 5,556,400
% of voting rights - Direct 0
% of voting rights - Indirect 10.99


B: Financial Instruments

Resulting situation after the triggering transaction (xii)

Type of financial instrument N/A

Expiration date (xiii) N/A

Exercise/Conversion Period/Date (xiv) N/A

Number of voting rights that may be acquired if the
instrument is exercised/converted N/A

% of voting rights N/A

Total (A+B)

Number of voting rights 5,556,400

% of voting rights 10.99

9. Chain of controlled undertakings through which the voting rights and/or
the financial instruments are effectively held, if applicable (xv):

Barclays Stockbrokers Ltd

Proxy Voting:

10. Name of the proxy holder: N/A

11. Number of voting rights proxy holder will cease to hold: N/A

12. Date on which proxy holder will cease to hold voting rights: N/A

13. Additional information: N/A

14. Contact name: Geoff Smith

15. Contact telephone number: 020 7116 2913

Don't think that is Barclays itself selling, looks like a PI who has flogged about 55,000 and held in a nominee account or alternately 55 PI's who have sold 1,000 or alternately...

Just been looking at the chart. Might see 25p shortly after yesterday's drop through support. A chance of support at 31p mid I guess as well.

no chance

Thanks maestro - as useful and informative as ever. ;-0

Al i must admit you,ve taken the wind from my sails,trying to make sense out of the latest posts. Regarding sugarkane,i've just been looking at a sketch of S/L1,and the top zone is discribed as the sugarkane interval? This is believed to contain the gas and condensate as discovered in the successful well.
As far as valueing the AMI 10% works out at 300billioncfg and 50million barrels
of condensate, while the gas works out roughly at $21m, the condensate is
another matter 50m*70= $3.5billion now thats not to be sneezed at.
Still a bit unsure, but as understand it,the top zone is the important zone.
cyril

Sorry my calcs last night were wrong for the gas (i have my mother in hospital and my daughter who suffers poor health unwell, so my minds elsewhere), should be
$210m ?
cyril

For those who want some more information, pages 8,9 and 10 of this report give some on the Sugarloaf/Kane prospects.

http://www.auroraoag.com.au/docs/2007/AUT20071025.pdf


.

ttt

Thanks PP

.