.

RF - How could you sell BOR after reading this. It sounds like Stebbing has a greater chance of success than FOGL wells

"Despite the success of the Darwin East prospect we would still regard" FOGL "prospects as relatively high risk and as such apply conservative chances of success (8% for Loligo and 8% for Soctia; a higher risking than for Borders & Southern’s remaining Stebbing prospect to reflect the 3D seismic that Borders possesses and the de-risking impact of Darwin)."

I'm going to SHOVE this quot back into Proselenes's face

"Loligo and Scotia (FOGL drills) are prime oil window."

That's not what it's looking like now, is it??? Seems after all, it was all talk. We're being ramped. I dnt like it. I want him to come clean

I think its time for me to in the bed. I've earned a nice sleep after a good few hours of research/daydreaming!!

FSM
C. is shorthand for circa. ="about"

I think FSM might be new name of someone I have already squelched - that series of posts is nigh on confirming of it.

If you note the 8% CoS is what Goldman are applying, not a CPR or geologist, just Goldmans who openly say it is "conservative".

Condensate is more valuable than oil for a start, 2 billion barrels of oil would come along with around 15 Tcf of gas, so an LNG plant would be built, the gas turned into LNG after the highly valuable condensate extracted.

Anyway, its only the shallower targets (as I have said many times already) that are more likely gas condensate - its the deeper ones that are more likely oil.

I will copy you a post from TMF :)

FOGL is in a very good position now.

If Stebbing is condensate it will make the total gas/condensate finds sufficient between Darwin and Stebbing for LNG viability on top of condensate. Therefore Loligo can be gas and it just adds to the whole equation.

If Stebbing is oil, again its very good news for FOGL.

If Stebbing is a duster then FOGL carries forward the Darwin discovery assistance to any find of their own, and of course the follow the rig money piles out of BOR (on good or bad news) and piles into FOGL.

So for FOGL is pretty much upside all round, and on top of that they have potential farm in news at any time - which given the present low market cap would actually add value and not detract - given how only a tiny amount of potential is priced in presently.

Then of course comes basically 6 drills (actually 2 drills but targeting 6 targets) but for the sake of having decent size only, lets call it 5 significant targets.

Any on their own could be commercial, and if any combination of them come in then its just pure upside.


Loligo Deep is drill one. Shallower targets are more likely gas/condensate and the deeper ones oil.


T1 target = 1.5 billion P50 potential recoverable barrels.
T1 deep target = 0.64 billion P50 potential recoverable barrels.
Trigg target + Trigg deep target = 0.97 billion P50 potential rec. barrels.
Three Bears target = 1.6 billion P50 potential recoverable barrels.

Second drill

Scotia target = 1 billion P50 potential recoverable barrels.


So you have in effect 5 significant size targets, all potentially commercial on their own, split over 2 FOGL drills. Drill 1 being a 4 in 1. Its no wonder FOGL is holding up (and today I got some more sub 80p and will continue to add at below 80p).

Farm in news, it goes up. Stebbing condensate, it goes up. Stebbing oil, it goes up. Stebbing duster then move on to FOGL, it goes up. And then the drilling of billion barrel recoverable size targets begins.................. with even the deepest target of that one drill, Three Bears, a potential massive find if all the other targets on the way down fail.

It's your last paragraph that's my way of thinking.....Stebbing might come right but it's far from certain...but FOGL then have two wells coming right up with loads of targets to choose from.....still have a foothold in BOR and might in one way or another add to it...but prefer to be mostly in Falklands Oil and Gas for the upcoming spuds.....

i think a great deal of caution is required all round ...... this whole FI exploration region is a massive gamble, and the markets will be very very nasty and unpredictable for the next few months ..... thus, in my opinion, try to ignore 95% of the hype which is based on (un)informed guesswork and decide how much you can afford to LOSE ..... all AIM stocks will continue to get hammered on "bad" days regardless of underlying quality, and in the event of disappointment, the abyss awaits

for myself, i have only a smallish holding in FOGL and reduced my holding in RKH a few days ago

It's risky that's for sure......but the prospects or targets are there....and it is in british waters....sods law...just as this is coming round we have a world crisis on our hands and it seems nobody has any idea how to get Europe out of it....no easy solution can be found for the greek woes so obviously even the "foilkie" stocks (if I can call them that) are affected....not many people had any faith in Rockhopper before it struck light oil.......who knows ..the same can happen here....it's the number of possible strikes that are interesting !...

Can I just say that not enough is said when an investor is doing a grand job. Read all your posts cynic and feel you put out good advice. :-))

Yes....the trouble is that I would like to turn my porfolio into cash but I would take bad losses.....I'm planning on using the losses that I have already clocked up offsetting future gains on a recovery....just going to have to sit through the slump.....it can't last forever....we have to hope that it does not get worse.....another share to keep an eye on is Max Petroleum....there is a very slight chance of them having a massive strike with this deep well of theirs...and they do have increasing production....very interesting that one....risky again....but oilies are the only ones where some money can be made at the moment...

For the risk averse cynic does give good advice. Nobody is ever going to make a packet following him, and nobody will lose a packet either. They might make a little or lose a little but thats all.

But then, if thats all you want then fine.

For me I love risk, I take risk and I try to win big but also mitigate as best possible the downsides.

EG, buy very early - wait - top slice a few to get your pot back but still run the large profits for the gamble. Cynic would take the profit quickly - I run the profits.

Run your winners and cut your losers quickly.

Most people cut their winners too quick and run their losers far too long.

There is also the fact that not everybody can watch the sp's all the time.....I have a normal working life...this is a hobby of mine...and if it makes me some money...good....but I cant spend my whole life doing this...I miss out on some opportunites to sell, I know....it can't be helped...

Pro what a load of rubbish......oil is what they need not gas and oil is a lot more valuable.

Condensate is more valuable than oil for a start, 2 billion barrels of oil would come along with around 15 Tcf of gas, so an LNG plant would be built, the gas turned into LNG after the highly valuable condensate extracted.

As the prospects are a long way from Darwin and Stebbing...it could be anything....or a mixture of both......I still think that another Sealion is out there waiting to be discovered....

MrP - you do not seem to recognise the difference between calculated risk and risk averse ..... the foolhardy (you?) would overload their portfolio with stocks that are intrinsically an outright gamble, whereas the more prudent (me) might take a calculated risk with a more modest stake ..... did you back Foinavon by any chance (100/1)? ..... if you were playing roulette, would you chuck say 80% of your funds on just a single spin for red/black, for at least that has a guaranteed 50% chance of being right? .... if the return on red/black is insufficient, would you put say 40% of your funds on a single spin for a single number (35/1)?

cynic, its all about taking risk, but ensuring that the risk is mitigated as much as possible.

Its simple to do, if you have the brain and the patience to do it. Buying FOGL in the high 40's and low 50's was simple to do. It was obvious it would go up.

Buying FOGL now in the high 70's and low 80's is obvious, it will go up again with Loligo.

RF, it should be a mixture of both.

The work done by BHP concluded that the shallow targets are more likely gas condensate and the deeper targets oil.

Which is why FOGL raised money recently to ensure they could drill the deep targets and not just the shallow ones.

Hopefully if Stebbing is another gas find, given its size, then the 5Tcf barrier will be broken already meaning LNG is viable in the South Falklands - so whatever is found by FOGL will be commercial regardless.

Whilst dry gas converted to LNG is less profitable, condensate sells at a premium to brent crude (condensate is more valuable than oil) - which is why the BOR Darwin discovery might even be commercial on its own.

They could re-inject the gas and just recover the condensate, if they have 300 million barrels of condensate they are laughing - it would be more valuable than Sea Lion which is a lower price crude oil - and condensate per barrel is more valuable.

MrP - nothing is obvious or guaranteed in oil exploration, otherwise 80% of wells drilled would be successful, whereas a good average is about 25% ..... darwin was drilled for oil, not gas of some description, so depending on one's viewpoint, the result was little better than a failure ..... as i see it, the only good bit was to establish that hydrocarbons of some kind were at least present, even if not the "one and only" that would required if success were to be claimed.

you also keep harping on about the commercial viability of LNG if found in good quantities in FI ..... sorry, but i don't think that has any foundation in reality ..... through my biz, i know just a little about LNG, and unless there is a huge demand somewhere in west coast south america - pretty unlikely as they have their own fields - then forget it.

and before you ask, no i have no idea at all about condensate about which you wax so lyrical ..... however, BOR seems to be making far less noise about its potential than even you.

cynic, firstly there is big demand for LNG in Chile, very close the Falklands and Chile is no friend of the Argies.

And if distance is so important, why is LNG from Qatar being shipped to South America ?

Why ship LNG from Qatar to the UK ?

Distance actually means not a lot in todays climate given the high costs of energy.

If the middle east ships LNG to Asia and to South America and North America - then distance means little in the LNG business in terms of viability.

if you are correct about qatar to uk and south america, then i am happy to stand corrected ..... i have also always said that LNG is rapidly becoming the new sexy energy for powering ships and other forms of transport and heating

by the way, if you are such a gambler, do you use CFDs, for they will give you very heavy gearing relative to outlay - between 3:1 and 20:1 depending on the stock and with no time constraints