Empyrean Energy

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

.................. 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

.

Al would appreciate your views on the following article.
http://www.oilbarrel.com
cyril

http://www.oilbarrel.com/email_index.html?page=/news/article.html?body=1&key=oilbarrel_en:1193623438&feed=oilbarrel_en

29.10.2007

Empyrean Energy Gets Some Encouraging If Inconclusive News From Its Kennedy-1 Well On Its Sugarloaf Prospect In Texas

The latest drilling report from London AIM-listed Empyrean energy concerns its Kennedy-1 exploration well on the Sugarloaf prospect in Texas, US. The well is drilling ahead at a measured depth of 13,481 feet. The planned measured depth of this well is 17,570 feet.

Since its previous report casing was successfully run and cemented at a depth of 12,719 feet followed by the start of drilling the horizontal section within the target Austin Chalk upper zone. There are background gas levels broadly consistent with those found in shallower zones.

The re-frac of the deepest of the three zones of gas shows, and log interpreted potential gas play in the Cretaceous age Austin Chalk formation, was undertaken, with all of the Frac protant injected into the formation as per the programme. The lack of significant hydrocarbon recovery and the flow pressures seen, to date indicate that this deepest zone of the Austin Chalk is unlikely to be commercially productive at this location.

In other words, there looks as if there is gas in the shallower zones but we do not know how much at this point. Empyrean has assets in Germany but it is focused in the US, like other small independents from the UK and Australia, because the high prices available for gas and the good infrastructure make it worthwhile revisiting low risk discoveries which were not deemed worth exploiting by the companies which originally discovered them. The low cost nature of the assets means that even the most junior of companies can quickly build up a good cash flow business.

Sugarloaf is important to Empyrean because it represents a potential step up from the modest developments the company has achieved on Project Margarita, also in Texas. You are talking about the difference between hundreds of thousand of cubic feet a day to possibly millions of cubic feet a day from individual wells.

The Sugarloaf prospect covers 60 sq km in the prolific Gulf Coast Basin of Texas and lies just 6.6 km east of the producing Sugarkane gas-condensate field. Empyrean has a 6 per cent working interest in the Texas Crude Energy operated project which was first drilled in 2006 when Sugarloaf-1 found tight reservoir sands in the primary Cretaceous-aged Hosston formation.

This was a disappointment but the compensation was that there was at least 92 feet of potential gas play in a shallower secondary target, the age Carbonates. So the shallower zones looked prospective if the deeper ones dont.

On the basis of past drilling Empyrean extended its interests. It has farmed into a 12 well programme (Kennedy-1 is the first well) over Sugarloaf Block A and Block B. Empyrean will earn a 7.5 per cent interest in Block A by paying 12.5 per cent of the pre-production costs. The first well here, a horizontal appraisal of a putative gas reservoir, encountered encouraging gas shows.

Empyrean also has an 18 per cent working interest in Block B, where, as part of the programme, the Kennedy-1 well is taking place. It is early days but it is suggested there could be a multi-tcf gas target to be exploited.

There is also movement on Project Margarita, the other Texas asset. A six well drilling programme has meant output of around 2 million cubic feet of gas a day and some 60 barrels a day of oil. Empyrean has 44 per cent of this acreage, and at current prices for both oil and gas there is good cash flow.

But it was always agreed that if the shallow low cost/low risk wells came good, the partners would graduate to three deeper, high impact wells on Project Margarita. The first proposed prospect is a potential gas accumulation of between 15 and 48 billion cubic feet.

getting hammered daily cant see any positives of late.