Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
erdo...I think you're right, Ike filled the position....
for awhile, but moved to Chrome,....and now Sylvan Odobulu, is acting as the the CFO.....I remember Ike C. Okpala!
I'm trying to recall, was Ike C. Okpala, the CFO who had the questionable credentials?
Its been such a long and winding road!
Ike C. Okpala has been the CFO for quite some time...em
Nice find Rambus, and Happy New Year to all...
Lets hope this is the year for ERHE to shine. Addax is leading the pole on the right side of your link Rambus, that bodes well for us.
http://petroleumafrica.com/vote.php?qid=13&R1=2
I can't even imagine, where this would go....
with a Commercial Discovery!....bring it on I'm ready...
3 MM's are pushing the bid now..NITE, ABLE,and UBSS..em
Somebody(s) wants in......
Is Ameritrade Level II working for anyone?...em
Crude oil vs Condensate
this is a pretty good read.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103085
-------------------------------------------------
Hi all
A random question, but can anyone inform me of the differences between condensate and crude oil in terms of energy content and oil product refining?
So far as I understand (and this may well be wrong) crude is direct from the ground whereas condensate is a byproduct of natural gas extraction? I think condensate is "lighter" (whatever that means) than crude?
I also note that energy data publications (well NZ ones anyway) seem to lump the two together suggesting they aren't too different.
Cheers
Ian
__________________
"What we need is less gasping and more thinking" - Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow pp147
http://authorofconfusion.wordpress.com/
Ginarley
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ginarley
9th January 2008, 11:20 AM #2
DavidS
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 252 As a practicing petroleum reservoir engineer, I'll offer the following that's probably more than you wanted to read:
Fundamentally, the distinction between "oil" and "condensate" is artificial and arbitrary. Both are the liquid hydrocarbon phases resulting from "flashing" reservoir hydrocarbon fluids to surface pressure and temperature. That's the function of various "separator" vessels through which wellstream production is processed. Those "standard" (AKA "stocktank") conditions depend on contracts and local regulations, but for laymen it's enough to consider that 1 atmosphere pressure and "room" temperature (e.g. in OK & TX it's 14.65 psia/60F, in LA it's 15.025 psia/60F, some places it's 1 atm [14.696 psia] and 25C, yada yada...).
For common use, your assessment is pretty close. They're both "crude" in the sense that their compositions are whatever came from the well with no processing other than simple separation -- which is what that means in the term "crude oil". If the hydrocarbons in the reservoir were in the liquid phase, we tend to use the label "oil" for both that reservoir liquid and the liquid that remains after "dissolved gas" is liberated when pressure is reduced by production and separation. If the reservoir hydrocarbons were vapor, we tend to use the label "condensate" for liquids condensed when temperature and/or pressure are reduced (especially the latter). If (as very commonly happens) the reservoir contains both phases, we use whichever label suits us at the moment, usually leaning toward the primary phase that flows into the well (or did when production began).
Petroleum (oil and gas and condensate) fluids are mixtures of many, many different hydrocarbons. Reservoir fluids are different from reservoir to reservoir (and even within the same reservoir -- variations across reservoir compartments and compositional gradients are not uncommon), running the full spectrum from nearly solid tars (e.g. Athabasca in Canada), to heavy "dead" oils with very little light components (e.g. the heavy oils in the Midway-Sunset field of central California), to medium oils with varying amounts of "dissolved gas" (a useful but philosophically imprecise concept) (e.g. many Gulf Coast oils), to the nice stuff that's generally the pricing standard (e.g. most midcontinent crudes and the once-benchmark West Texas Intermediate), to volatile oils
that "shrink" dramatically when they liberate gas as pressure is reduced, to rich "retrograde" gas condensate fluids that condense much liquid as pressure is reduced (hence the retrograde moniker), to leaner gas fluids that yield condensate only as they're cooled (many gas fields), to dry gases all the way to nearly pure methane (e.g. the Arkoma basin).
Some folks (e.g. the link below) use five classifications for petroleum reservoir fluids: "black oil", "volatile oil", "retrograde gas-condensate", "wet gas", and "dry gas". The distinctions are useful, but the boundaries are hardly distinct. The term "black oil" is particularly imprecise and context-dependent; to a reservoir simulation engineer like me, that means the simplifying assumption that the fluid can be characterized by only two components, one of which can exist in only one phase whose properties we can characterize the other component dissolves in that phase; that phase is "black" as in box, not color. Usually the non-partitioning phase is the "heavy" component (separator oil may contain dissolved gas, but the gas phase contains no oil), but it works the other way, too (separator gas can contain condensate vapor, but condensate can dissolve no gas). When it's applicable, the black-oil assumption saves *lots* of computational effort.
Labeling hydrocarbons as "oil" or "condensate" is pretty arbitrary. Even the "oil" vs "gas" distinction is only relevant at conditions where both could coexist together. Many reservoirs are at temperatures and pressures where only a single phase can exist, and there are quite a few for which the temperature is so close to the critical temperature of the mixture that it's not at all obvious whether reducing the pressure will evolve bubbles of vapor or droplets of liquid (those can be pretty tricky to produce efficiently). There are some for which the temperature, pressure, and/or composition variation with depth give them fluids which are "gas" in top (because they condense liquid on depressurization), "oil" in the bottom (because the evolve vapor on depressurization), with no gas-oil contact in between.
"Condensates" tend toward the lighter end of the spectrum, "crudes" to the heavier. Since most hydrocarbon liquids are pretty close to (CH2)n formula, the "energy" (heating value) content per pound is fairly constant (to a decent first approximation, about 17000 BTU/lb IIRC; for reference a thousand cubic feet of lean natural gas delivered for home uses yields about 1 million BTUs [and weighs about 46 pounds {yes, that's 22000 BTU/lb, but it's mostly CH4). That is, a barrel of 50 API (a density measure) condensate from Hugoton has less energy than a barrel of 12 API crude from Midway-Sunset (API gravity is lower when density is higher).
"Condensates" tend to be lighter in color, too, all the way to water-clear and often to straw-yellow or light green, though some are deep black. "Oils" run a broad range of colors from deep black to light straw, with varying tints of green, brown, red, and even blue.
As to price, the "sweet spot" is somewhere in the middle of the range (the price you hear on the news is for either "light sweet crude" or "West Texas Intermediate". Lighter crudes (& condensates) are easier to process for many products (gasoline, gas, petrochemicals) but have less total energy content.
This link probably bears more than you care to read about the matter, but it does have some phase diagrams that might help understand the spectrum.
DavidS
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DavidS
9th January 2008, 11:40 AM #3
DavidS
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 252 I'm in the "upstream" (exploration & production) end of the businesss so I'm less of an authority on refining processing, but this might help:
Light condensates tend toward short-chain alkane hydrocarbons (C5-C9), often more "normal" straight chain than branched isomers. Some are pretty close to low "octane" gasoline, a term that is sometimes applied. They're easier to separate (and clean up impurities like sulfur or metals) for many petrochemical uses or for lightening mixtures of heavier hydrocarbons, but their heating value is lower. Refineries can use them as feedstock to generate more branched hydrocarbons to raise the octane rating of gasoline, or to produce alkene (sp2 double-bonds in the chains) hydrocarbons for polymerization, etc.
Heavier oils will have more of the (surprise) heavier C12+ hydrocarbons, maybe more aromatics (benzene rings), probably more alkenes and branched isomers, and asphaltenes. Their lighter components can be distilled for use as above, the heavier components can be used directly in other products or "cracked" into shorter hydrocarbons.
Really heavy crudes can be more difficult to refine. They're more likely to be contaminated with sulfur and heavy metals that can poison refinery catalysts, they're harder to pump around the refinery, they can leave more fouling on the process equipment, and they need more processing (cracking, reforming, alkylation, other magic refinery foo somebody might be able to describe) to produce the nice light fuels we all love (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) -- and pay handsomely for -- instead of the heavy -- and low-priced -- industrial gunk useful only for big thirsty customers (powerplants, ships, industrial furnaces) or road asphalt.
DavidS
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DavidS
9th January 2008, 07:04 PM #4
Ginarley
Post-normalist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Palmy, NZ
Posts: 880 Thank you so much DavidS, a wonderfully detailed answer and very much appreciated - its rare to get one's obscure question so clearly and thoroughly answered
Cheers
Ian
__________________
"What we need is less gasping and more thinking" - Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow pp147
http://authorofconfusion.wordpress.com/
Ginarley
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ginarley
10th January 2008, 03:13 AM #5
Schneibster
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,966 Excellent answers, DavidS. Very informative. Thanks very much!
Schneibster
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Schneibster
10th January 2008, 10:45 AM #6
DavidS
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 252 What, no antiverbosity flames? Donning this asbestos before checking back was wasted effort? No matter; it's about as flattering to my form as anything can be (there's not a whole lot of upside potential there).
I did neglect to mention one tidbit about processing (not refining) that might be interesting...
Because petroleum fluids are multicomponent mixtures, exactly how they're brought to surface conditions can make quite a difference in how much "oil" or "condensate" or "gas" comes from a given quantity of reservoir fluid.
At the "ends" of the fluid spectrum it doesn't matter much.
For "dry" gas (which yields no condensate), of course, no hydrocarbon separation is needed (though separators or dehydrators are always used to get rid of any produced -- or condensed -- water in the stream).
For "dead" oils (with little dissolved gas) and lean "wet" gases (which condense condensate ony on cooling, not just depressurization), it doesn't matter much; "flashing" the fluid to surface conditions in one big step or many little ones ends up with about the same ratio and compositions of gas and oil.
For common intermediate oils it's usually enough to find a pressure at which a single stage of separation will yield fluids that (when finally flashed again in the stock tank) will give the greatest yield of the more valuable product. Usually separation is designed to maximize stocktank oil yield, but nowadays the gas-oil price differential is thinner than it was when gas was so cheap it was almost a waste product. Ratios vary, of course, but a common value might be that 1.5 barrels of reservoir fluid can be separated at, say, 200 psi to yield 1.0 barrel of stocktank oil and, say, 800 standard cubic feet of separator gas, or at 150 psi to yield 0.95 BBL and 820 SCF.
For volatile oils and rich retrograde condensate fluids, however, the number and conditions of separation stages can make a big difference in how much hydrocarbon comes out as stocktank liquid (oil/condensate) or vapor. Really interesting cases can benefit from separator networks that recycle part of their vapor (or liquid) back to an earlier (or forward to a later) stage of separation to better distribute the heavier components to the stocktank liquid and light components to the final vapor stream. In such cases the whole condensate-oil distinction is almost meaningless.
Where it gets *really* interesting is when multiple parties own different interest in reservoir "oil" (and the gas evolved from it) and "gas" (and the condensate precipitated from it). There's at least one really important field where the distinction between "oil" vs. "condensate", and even "gascap gas" vs "solution gas" is really important to the involved parties' revenues (for professional reasons I can't name the field here, nor describe how that's handled).
In such a case there has to be a way to discriminate the fluids for equity determinations. While those methods are devised with some sort of technical justification to hopefully treat liquids derived from reservoir vapor as condensate and vapors derived from reservoir liquids as solution gas, in the final analysis they boil down to contractual terms.
Mixing lawyers with engineers, geologists, and geophysicists is often interesting to watch but *never* much fun to do.
Oil question?....
would the gas and oil mixture, naturally turn into Condensate. as it is pumped out of the sands, and brought up thru the pipe in the cold ocean waters?
In other words...is condensate the mixing of the gas and oil in an ocean field?
No forms 144's filed, means no stock sold....
everything must be filed by the big boys....face it,no shares have been sold by SEO or Chrome.
When SEO split up his shares and put a bunch in Chrome, it was all documented with SEC filings.
So far, neither has sold any.
sec Rule 144....SEO did not pourchase his share on the open market...therefore they are restricted, even now!...a form 144 must be filed if any shares are sold....rules must be followed,
http://www.williamblair.com/Pages/ces_rule144.asp
Restricted Stock: Rule 144
When you acquire restricted securities or hold control securities, you must find an exemption from the SEC's registration requirements to sell them in the marketplace. Rule 144 allows public resale of restricted and control securities if a number of conditions are met. Your William Blair & Company advisor can help you through the process of selling your restricted stock.
Securities
Restricted Securities
Restricted securities are securities acquired in unregistered, private sales from the issuer or from an affiliate of the issuer. Investors typically receive restricted securities through private placement offerings, Regulation D offerings, employee stock benefit plans, as compensation for professional services, or in exchange for providing "seed money" or start-up capital to the company.
Control Securities
Control securities are those held by an affiliate of the issuing company. An affiliate is a person, such as a director or large shareholder (10% or more), in a relationship of control with the issuer. Control means the power to direct the management and policies of the company in question, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.
If you acquire restricted securities, you almost always will receive a certificate stamped with a "restricted" legend. The legend indicates that the securities may not be resold in the marketplace unless they are registered with the SEC or are exempt from the registration requirements. The certificates of control securities are usually not stamped with a legend.
Rule 144 Conditions
If you want to sell your restricted or control securities to the public, you can follow the conditions set forth in Rule 144. The rule is not the exclusive means for selling restricted or control securities, but it provides a "safe harbor" exemption to sellers. The rule's five conditions are summarized below:
Holding Period
Before you may sell restricted securities in the marketplace, you must hold them for at least one year. The one-year holding period begins when the securities were bought and fully paid for. The holding period applies only to restricted securities.
Adequate Current Information
Current financial information must be made available to the buyer. Companies that file 10-K and 10Q reports satisfy this requirement.
Trading Volume Formula
After the one-year holding period, the number of shares you may sell during any three-month period cannot exceed the greater of 1% of the outstanding shares of the same class being sold, or if the class is listed on a stock exchange or quoted on Nasdaq, the greater of 1% or the average reported weekly trading volume during the four weeks preceding filing of Form 144 (Notice of Proposed Sale) with the SEC.
Ordinary Brokerage Transaction
The sales must be handled in all respects as routine trading transactions, and brokers may not receive more than a normal commission. Neither the seller nor the broker can solicit orders to buy the securities.
Filing Notice With the SEC
At the time you place your order, you must file a notice with the SEC on Form 144 if the sale involves more than 500 shares or the aggregate dollar amount is greater than $10,000 in any three-month period. The sale must take place within three months of filing the form and, if the securities have not been sold, you must file an amended notice.
Chrome is a large shareholder (10 %)or more....
so I'm assuming they are governed by SEC rules on any selling or buying, or transfering of shares, that they do. The fact that Chrome is HQ'ed in Nigeria, does not exempt them from SEC rules and regulations.
Roubini Was Wrong, Again, and Again and Again...
Update 10/30/09: Oil has climbed above $80 per barrel this month so Roubini's January prediction that it would stay below $40 for all of 2009 ain't lookin too sharp just now. And, nothwithstanding this past week's correction, stocks have been strong since late winter...so Roubini's prognostication that this is a sucker's rally also isn't looking too sharp right now. The S&P 500, which he predicted would sag to 600 has surged above 1000.
http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20081024_1
Update 3/23/09: Last fall, I kept hearing about economist Nouriel Roubini, who supposedly predicted the financial crisis. He was all over the cable television circuit claiming that he had predicted the myriad horrible things that were happening. I wrote the following piece on October 24th because his prediction that hedge fund selling would force regulators to close world stock markets for one to two weeks was absurd. It was indeed absurd and of course, never happened. Roubini was wrong. In researching his past predictions over preceding years, I was struck by how many were wrong. If the economy continues to improve as the year goes on, it will be interesting to see how Roubini will try to explain the myriad negative predictions he has continued to make in recent weeks and months.
(Here's another recent Roubini prediction: in mid-January, Roubini predicted oil prices would stay below $40 per barrel for all of 2009. Oil has now gone back above $50 per barrel - wrong, again!)
Some additional recent Roubini predictions which are quite likely to be wrong are his early March, 2009 predictions that the recession will last through late 2010 and his other prediction that the S&P 500 Index was highly likely to fall below 600 (at the time he said this in early March, it was at 676 and rallied strongly since). He has been widely quoted as referring to the stock market rally as a sucker's rally.
"Panic over hedge funds could close markets," says the bold headline in The Times, a large London newspaper on Friday October 24, 2008. The article states that Nouriel Roubini, a professor at New York University, told a London investment conference audience that "...hundreds of hedge funds are poised to fail as frantic investors rush to redeem their assets and force managers into a fire sale of assets...We've reached a situation of sheer panic. Don't be surprised if policymakers need to close down markets for a week or two in coming days." Roubini went on to say, "Things will get much worse before they get better. I fear the worst is ahead of us." Those are pretty bold and scary predictions. Telling investors that the worst is yet to come after global stock markets have been hammered down by about half since late 2007 is pretty amazing.
Roubini has been getting tons of press of late for having supposedly predicted the financial mess that unfolded in 2008. A recent Bloomberg article said, "Roubini predicted in July 2006 that the U.S. would enter an economic recession. In February this year, he forecast a ‘catastrophic' financial meltdown that central bankers would fail to prevent, leading to the bankruptcy of large banks exposed to mortgages and a ‘sharp drop' in equities."
Before I listen to or follow the advice of anyone making predictions, I want to know that person's track record and background. So I researched Roubini's background and his actual economic forecasts (not his claims) and here's what I found.
Roubini earned his undergraduate degree at Bocconi University in Milan, Italy in 1982. He grew up in Italy after his Iranian parents moved around to Istanbul, Tehran and Tel Aviv.
According to his consulting firm's web site, "Professor Roubini served as a senior adviser to the White House Council of Economic Advisers and the U.S. Treasury Department"
That sounds impressive but on the web site for the NYU Stern School of Business (where he teaches) it says, "He was also the Senior Economist for International Affairs at the White House Council of Economic Advisers from 1998-1999; then, the Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for International Affairs and the Director of the Office of Policy Development and Review at the U.S. Treasury Department from 1999- 2000." That sounds a lot less impressive.
As for Bloomberg crediting Roubini for predicting the current financial meltdown, stock market plunge and recession, some perspective is in order. Back in the summer of 2006, Roubini spoke at an International Monetary Fund event and predicted an imminent U.S. recession according to economist Anirvan Banerji who participated with Roubini in a panel discussion. A transcript of that event shows that Roubini did not predict a market meltdown or any of the other problems he now claims to have predicted as quoted by Bloomberg. Banerji says that Roubini predicted a recession in 2004 caused by U.S. trade deficits, federal reserve interest rate hikes and high oil prices. (His recession calls dating back to at least 2004 is verified by a Business Week article I'll get to in a moment).
In 2005, Roubini saw Hurricane Katrina and high oil prices causing a U.S. economic slowdown. "This is a very delicate moment. The economy is already very imbalanced. On top of that, we've had a massive oil shock and now we have a natural disaster that might be something of a tipping point."
Here's another quote with Roubini's poor predictions from an article on his own business school's web site: "Among those sporting a red face at Christmas dinner was Nouriel Roubini...Roubini was featured in The Enigmatic Greenback, specifically suggesting the US dollar was in an "anti-gravity" phase that was about to reverse. He has kicked off 2006 with a mea culpa, admitting that he had indeed called 2005 incorrectly. Dispirited? No way. Roubini is back and he's not taking a backward step. 2006 will be the year of the US economic slowdown, and thus the global economy will hit slowdown as well."
And, then there's this article from Business Week, which states, "Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University who was worried about a global recession in 2004, is now predicting that "the U.S. is heading toward a sharp recession by early 2007."
So there you have it. Roubini predicted a recession in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. He was wrong four years in a row. So, in 2008, his prediction appears to be finally coming true. Well, a stopped clock is correct twice each day and as Banerji says, "Roubini is the Boy Who Cried Wolf."
Merry Christmas to all the ERHE faithful....em
The Chinese must release the results of drilling to the JDA/JMC when they get the results....so STP will know what is in Blocks 2,3,and 4.
STP will know what is there,...but they are restricted to announce them to the public.
However, will we see leaks, if the News could mean higher bids for STP's EEZ?
Can STP keep the info to themselves?
The board has certainly become quite churly, of late..
If there is an abundance.....
of NG (as well as oil)....Would it make sense for the greenback rich, Chinese to build some sort of LNG facilities on the Islands?
The Island of Principle would seem to be an ideal location, since it appears to be mostly undeveloped....the Chinese could build a deepwater port (if needed)...and become a huge exporter of LNG, or keep it for themselves.
It could possible become a Hub, for Africa and beyond.
jmho
Attack on Oil Facility by MEND, not true, says Groups
Jimitota Onoyume
20 December 2009
Port Harcourt — NO one in Abonnema in Akuku Toru local government area, Rivers State or any of the oil firms could confirm the alleged attack on an oil pipeline belonging to Shell/ Chevron in Abonnema community by men of the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND).
http://allafrica.com/stories/200912210558.html
The group had in an early hour online statement to the media yesterday alleged its men attacked the oil pipeline. The statement by its spokesman, Jomo Gbomo reads in part: "The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) can confirm that a warning strike carried out by five boats involving thirty five of its fighters armed with assault rifles, rocket launchers and heavy caliber machine guns was carried out at about 0200hours today, December 19, 2009 on a major Shell/Chevron crude pipeline in Abonemma, Rivers State of Nigeria.
"This attack was carried out for the following reasons.While the Nigerian government has conveniently tied the advancement of talks on the demands of this group to a sick president, it has not tied the repair of pipelines, exploitation of oil and gas as well as the deployment and re-tooling of troops in the region to the presidents ill health."
Joint Task Force (JTF) spoke's man, Lt. Col. Timothy Antigha said the security body also had not been able to confirm the allegation. Nevertheless, he warned against attempt by any body or group to threaten the new found peace in the region.
"There is no verification yet by the JTF that a pipeline has been sabotaged around Abonnema. If this unpatriotic act is confirmed to be true, at a time the federal government is doing its utmost to consolidate on the gains of the amnesty programme, then the criminals behind the act are enemies of the Niger Delta and indeed Nigeria and they don't deserve any sympathy", Antigha said.
Mr. Precious Okolobo of Shell said his firm had not received any information on the alleged attack on its facility. "We don't have reports of our facility being attacked and cannot comment."
We would be at .80+, if the CC had never happened....em
‘Godfathers’ still key as Nigeria gears up for polls
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
01:28 Reuters
‘Nigeria has not learnt from the inadequacies of the 2007 elections’
The run-up to elections in one of Nigeria’s most politically turbulent states suggests the country has learned little from flawed polls almost three years ago and that the 2011 presidential race will once again be chaotic. The governorship poll in Anambra State in February is the first in a cycle of local, state and federal votes and is seen as a litmus test of how the broader campaign period, which starts early next year, will play out. “Anambra will be a massive battle as it focuses the machinery of all the different parties on one state,” said Kayode Akindele, a director at Lagos-based financial advisory firm Greengate Strategic Partners. “All eyes are on the conduct of the elections.” The signs so far are not good. Most of the main parties in Anambra chose their candidates without conducting primaries, sparking intra-party wrangling in a state that prides itself as the “Light of the Nation.” Political “godfathers” — powerful unelected figures who have in the past used a combination of patronage and the threat of violence to ensure success for their chosen candidates — are coming back into play. “It is not a good way to demonstrate ... Nigeria has learnt from the inadequacies of the 2007 elections,” said Abubakar Momoh, politics professor at the Lagos State University. “If anything, it shows brigandage and connection to people at the top hierarchy of power and the parties are even more paramount and more important.” The situation in the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) is perhaps the most acrimonious because some of its members believe that once an aspirant secures the party’s ticket for any election, he is guaranteed victory at the polls. The PDP in October announced ex-central bank chief Chukwuma Soludo as its candidate for the February 6 vote, barring scores of other aspirants, some of whom have launched legal challenges. Soludo has the backing of the PDP hierarchy but not of some powerful local politicians such as Chris Uba, the self-acclaimed “godfather” of Anambra who gained notoriety after backing former governor Chris Ngige in flawed 2003 polls. Ngige was unseated in 2006 after the Supreme Court ruled he had not scored the highest number of votes three years earlier. Nigeria’s 36 state governors are immensely powerful figures in Africa’s most populous nation. Some control budgets larger than those of neighbouring countries and they are key players in party conventions at which presidential candidates are selected. The ill-health of President Umaru Yar’Adua, who has been in hospital in Saudi Arabia for three weeks with a heart complaint, has fuelled speculation he will not stand for a second term. Should he decide not to, the state governors have a powerful caucus in the PDP and will be key in deciding who succeeds him. If Yar’Adua becomes too sick to govern and his current deputy takes over, the governors would also influence the choice of a new vice-president, likely to be a powerful figure who would be the de facto presidential candidate in 2011. “Godfathers” who have in the past rigged proteges into power demand influence over the distribution of government resources and contracts in return. In some cases these relationships have even included written contracts and oaths of loyalty.
The JDA, by its own hand is restricted from releasing....
any drilling data, without the consent of the Operator of the Block(s)....this is stipulated in the JDA's own Petroleum Regulations.....and this restriction is in effect for 5 years.
The JDA might know whats been discovered, by they legally can't release that information.
So spp119 can we safely say that the JDZ....
is not one giant gas bag, as you have been inferring for weeks, now?.....and Addax won't have to convert fishing trollers into FLNG and deep mine NG in 2000 meters of water?
............
Sounds like we got EARL....
spp119...I think most folks here believe, that Bumo....
was mostly gas....however most believe that Kina is mostly oil. You seem to believe that Bumo was drilled and thus Addax immediately ordered 6 FLNG floaters....most here don't buy that, me included.
Most here believe the NASI(?) numbers...and you seem to be convinced they are wrong.
Kina is tight holed right now....so why do you think your source know anything about Kina?....when NOBODY KNOW NOTHING!
The shareprice doesn't seem to know anything either!...it is behaving like ....NOBODY KNOWS NOTHING!
Face the logical conclusion, and your source KNOWS NOTHING...especially about KINA.
It is what it is.........
Since Nigeria is a member of OPEC, and STP is not.....
(at least not yet) OPEC affected!...will there be any OPEC limitations on the sale of product from the JDZ?...especially on the Nigerian side of the equation?
We know that oil has a "quota" attached to it, member states are restricted to certain quotas....but are these quotas only restricted to product mined from their own territorial sovereignty?
Condensate has no such "quota" attached, and a member can sell as much as they like, which seems to put a really favorable status on Condensate.
What about LNG....is there a OPEC quota in effect for member states?
Exxon has zip, zero........em
DRILL BABY DRILL.......
All indications seem to point to a Discovery, or...
several, in the JDZ!....Commercial Discovery(s)...at least that is the way I see it.
jmhooc
Yep, thats my take on things too, Actions Speak....
LOUDER THAN WORDS!....DRILL BABY DRILL!
MN...great stuff, thankyou......
Peter was too friggen HAPPY, for this....
to be all Gas....so sorry I just don't buy all the doom and gloomers...Nope, not one bit!
We got EARL....watch!...and a bunch of it!....We have another AKPO!...jmhooc.
....Oh, and this company can keep a secret, better than any I've ever seen....nobody even knew about MOU for the new field!...NOBODY!
Post on people!....
My gut feeling is we got Oil, Gas and Condensate....
but we know what opinions are like.
jmhooc
DRILL BABY DRILL......
MN...That was Classic, thanks....
Nothing speaks louder, than our partners deciding....
to throw an additional, 40-50 million $$$ into Block 4!
We have a commercial discovery, imo....and if they bi-passed Kina South, and Oki, and went clear out to the perimeter of Oki East, then we got a monster field on our hands.
World Class from this News, and the grin on PN face...BWTHDIK!
jmvhooc
Mark...you are the Man, thanks...em
DRILL BABY DRILL.........
Sounds to me, like Joe Shea is trying to buy...
some more cheap shares...again!
MM's making the flipper pay dearly.....em