ADI - Adelphi Energy

[chance fate]

hmmmm
i could expect an aswer like this
i know nobody can give me an anwser that rules out one or the other
but i still had to give it a shot
i m a young trader and i m on a plan to buy one stock each week
so the option for this week is wds, adi and eka
three nice picks to me but i can't makeup my mind...

always trouble with the young one hey
thanks anyway
and for all the forumlovers- writhers out there
thanks for this fantasic forum!

Hello drasicjazz... you may wish to consider the potential for further activity beyond the current sugarloaf project... in that respect if i had my time again i'd be in ADI, I hold EKA - but believe Sugarloaf could be the launchpad for that company's further development, ... so am happy to hold nevertheless...

 

[maverick11]

I've been away lately and get back to see there's been a bit of a shake-up... the cat has been let out of the bag to some extent. It will be interesting to see how the aussie JVP play this one out - and I agree with the others - i think you need a PHD to interpret the EME announcement ha!! Sitting on a massive quantity of ADI shares here, so good times ahead

 

[Agentm]

welcome back..

the best part of the announcement is the confirmation of condensate, which adds a whole new dimension to this play. Having an major oil company sitting there all this time and them having proclaimed The third-party operator of Block A has confirmed that a test well has reported flowed gas and associated condensate, and is preparing to drill the next well within 2 months means we are able to varify the couch story as correct.

it cant just be that a major oil company is not being this secretive for no apparent reason, there must be enormous credibility to both the legitimacy of the play and the size, as these majors are not going to laying low as long as they have unless they have some idea about the potential of this play.

i certainly have been adding again.. i like the idae of NT news any minute and seeing the couch statement still holding up.. it was something i could never remove off my list, it definately gave me the reasons research harder, and to hold as long as i did and to further accumulate.

 

[sting]

To clarify whats where in this situation.. the sugarloaf well is in block B and ADI ONLY has an interest in the Block B area not in block A.

Given this tho .. that since the area's are ajoining we can hope and assume that the resource doesnt stop at the fenceline

semper ubi sub ubi

 

[chance fate]

...Hi AgentM... have been following your comments with some interest... and agree that if the reservoir is connected across blocks.. the 'major' in Block A (assumed to be knowing this) may have been laying low ..so if it is a common reservoir presumably there'd have to be an agreement between participants in both blocks on the rate of drainage to ensure each get it's own fair entitlement... 16 wells in block A could possibly depressurise the whole field before Block B holders get a good return....

 

[Agentm]

hello chance..

hope you did well with gdn, its something we have luckily not had here at adi on the share so far, there was the friday spike which has not repeated and we are now awaiting the NT news, They had the pipeline finished last week, so the reporting from the flow test must be commencing in the near term,, i did invest on adi on the basis of either SL secondary or NT to be a success, a nice announcement confirming flow rates would be very nice..

AZZ both friday and today has attracted some nice turnover, i wonder if news is filtering?

SL is now "exposed" so to speak, the jvp's have made it abundantly clear that nothing about the size and nature of the secondary was to announced until acerage was secure, the best way to do that was to not flow test. The wirelines themselves gave the jvp's on both blocks the confidence to chase acerage.. if our block is 80 square kilometers, then how much is the other block? EME have gone absolutely silent on any information on that i see, and i assume the reasons for that are because they simply cant.. the reporting rules are far more relaxed on their stock exchange.. and they are not freely giving anything out regarding the second block, its amazing..

A further update will be provided as soon as confirmation of the date for
spudding the first well in this sixteen well program is advised by TCEI,
along with testing dates for the Sugarloaf-1 well.

So TCEinc is also the operator on the other side, and co ordinating the show, i cant see them doing anything to the detrament of the SL block, and i cant see any reason to assume that the entire play will be treated as one and developed in the best possible way with full cooperation between all respective jvp's..

so for now its back to silent running, no news from any jvp's and obviously back to buying more acerage leases... that is until the spud date for the other block is released and the testing dates for SL..

great buying envelope comong up...

 

[Broadside]

if Couch mentions 2TCF for the old acreage back in December can we extrapolate based on the extra ground which has been acquired since then? even 1TCF would be massive for all involved

weak close there isn't much depth, doesn't take a lot of volume to knock the price around

 

[surfingman]

so if it is a common reservoir presumably there'd have to be an agreement between participants in both blocks on the rate of drainage to ensure each get it's own fair entitlement... 16 wells in block A could possibly depressurise the whole field before Block B holders get a good return....

Okay just to clarify another thing with everyone, how i read the eme situation from a third party and quote...

"Empyrean Energy PLC on Thursday entered into an oil & gas exploration and development agreement with Texas Crude Energy Inc. (TCEI) to participate in a new 16-well program covering two projects, "Block A" and "Block B," in the Sugarloaf Project Area, Texas."

"The new agreement covers the next 16 wells to be drilled on either Block A and / or Block B."
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=44989

I read that as, eme have an interest in the next 16 wells, doesn't mean there is only 16 on the plans, and yes its possibly across block A and Block B, In my opinion only no need to worry too much at this stage wait for the production and / or exploration details to be revealed in due time. They must have a valid reason for holding back on us.

 

[nioka]

Let us hope that the directors of ADI, ARQ and AUT read this forum so that they can find out all the news about sugarloaf. From their announcements they don't seem to know as much as we would like.

 

[Agentm]

Company Announcements Platform
Australian Stock Exchange
Level 4
20 Bridge Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000​

By e-Lodgement​

Dear Sir/Madam
Following the recent release of an announcement to the London Stock Exchange By Empyrean Energy plc (“EME”), a participant in the Sugarloaf Project with a 6% Working Interest, and as a result of questions raised by a number of shareholders, Aurora (20% Working Interest in the Sugarloaf Project) makes the following statement.
1. Our release of 24 April 2007 to the ASX advised that the Sugarloaf Joint Venture's land acquisition program within the Area of Mutual Interest ("AMI") had increased the area over which the Joint Venture has rights to all depths to approximately 19,500 acres to date. The Sugarloaf Joint Venture makes no reference to a Block A or Block B. Shareholders will
recall that the Sugarloaf Project involved certain land holdings that were “deep rights” only and other land holdings that carried rights to all depths. We understand that “Block A” is a reference to land that includes land over which the Sugarloaf Joint Venture has deep rights only. We also
understand that EME’s “Block B” is the Sugarloaf Joint Venture land with rights to all depths. It is this land that was referred to in our release of 24 April 2007 as comprising some 19,500 acres to date (excluding land that does not have rights to all depths).
2. Prior to the announcement by EME, we were not aware of any Sugarloaf Project partners, other than the Operator of the Sugarloaf Project Texas Crude Energy Inc, participating in “Block A” other than in the deep rights referred to above.
3. Aurora would like to confirm that the only committed activity at the Sugarloaf Project at this time is the program for testing outlined in previous announcements. A successful testing of the Sugarloaf #1 well would lead to additional drilling, geological and geophysical activities. The
nature of this work, the number, location and design of any wells and the cost of wells will only be addressed after the testing of Sugarloaf #1.
It is our understanding that the EME release envisages their commitment to certain costs that may be incurred on up to 16 wells that could be drilled on the land they refer to as Blocks A and B. Aurora has no commitment in this regard but is optimistic that additional wells targeting the Cretaceous carbonates will be drilled following a successful testing program at Sugarloaf #1. The nature of any such wells and our financial obligations would be advised at the time of commitment.
4. Aurora is not in a position to comment on any proposed work plans by third parties relating to “Block A”. Aurora announced in February last year that a well nearby to Sugarloaf #1 was drilled and that the well flowed successfully from the shallower depths. As we are not a party to that Joint Venture we are not in a position to provide details regarding this well.​

5. Aurora has a 50% Working Interest in the Longhorn Project and 80% Working Interest in the Ipanema Project both of which are located adjacent to the Sugarloaf Project. Aurora has paid its agreed share of land acquisition costs for these two projects totalling in excess of US$7.5
million and as previously advised has a net land position to date across these two projects of in excess of 12,000 acres (more than 20,000 acres gross). Across these two projects and Sugarloaf, Aurora is participating in more than 40,000 gross acres and 16,000 net acres. Please find below a schematic illustrating the relative land positions referred to above:


refer http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/asxdata/20070515/pdf/00720911.pdf

for diagrams


enjoy!!​

 

[S_Hug]

As yet, EKA and ADI have not announced anything yet - just AUT.

"We understand..." concerns me a bit. Surely they should know what's going on..? Again, communication and relationships amongst stakeholders would not seem too strong...But maybe in such a competitive environment, it doesn't have to be. But still, could surely pose problems further down the track...?

I'm confused by this release:

1. Our release of 24 April 2007 to the ASX advised that the Sugarloaf Joint Venture's land acquisition program within the Area of Mutual Interest ("AMI") had increased the area over
which the Joint Venture has rights to all depths to approximately 19,500 acres to date.

O.K., so they have rights to "all depths". But then they go on to say...

The Sugarloaf Joint Venture makes no reference to a Block A or Block B. Shareholders will
recall that the Sugarloaf Project involved certain land holdings that were "deep rights" only and
other land holdings that carried rights to all depths. We understand that "Block A" is a reference
to land that includes land over which the Sugarloaf Joint Venture has deep rights only. We also
understand that EME's "Block B" is the Sugarloaf Joint Venture land with rights to all depths. It
is this land that was referred to in our release of 24 April 2007 as comprising some 19,500
acres to date (excluding land that does not have rights to all depths).

But they just said they had rights to all depths...?!

2. Prior to the announcement by EME, we were not aware of any Sugarloaf Project partners, other than the Operator of the Sugarloaf Project Texas Crude Energy Inc, participating in "Block A"
other than in the deep rights referred to above.

Would somebody mind explaining what the difference between deep rights and I guess "shallow rights" are?? Does that mean EME has rights to a certain "shallow" level (up to x amount of feet for instance) and then other JVP's (EKA/AUT/ADI) have access to deeper depths beneath this ? If so, how is that managed amongst all parties?

I have one other question, how does the land owner royalty system work when oil an gas is found. I think I recall this being a big vague in other releases, maybe I'm wrong.. I'm just wondering how much of the pie needs to go to the landowner in the end from the JVP's? Can this be disputed and could there be trouble down the track amongst all parties...?

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

 

[Agentm]

i have printed it up,, drawn 3d diagrams,, i have tried to understand it..

heres my understanding so far .. ??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!????????


seriously, i have no clue what they are on about.. so back to researching it more..

para 2 sounds interesting,, defensive!!

did someone at eme throw a cat amoungst the pidgeons or what???

 

[sting]

With regard to my above post, I spoke to a Director or ADI yesterday regarding the EME announcement and thier interpretation of this announcement is that they are only confirming to their shareholders there rights to participate in the next 16 wells with the operator. No actual confirmation of when or where these well will be drilled if at all. With regards to Block A /Block B ADI only has an interest in Block B

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi

 

[Sniffer]

1.
AUT: “We understand that “Block A” is a reference to land that includes land over which the Sugarloaf Joint Venture has deep rights only” FALSE
EME: “The Block A Operator has drilled a first exploratory test well on
Block A and this well is a discovery well which it has been reported
flowed gas and associated condensate on test.”
If this were true, guess they should have gone with operator A “to remain nameless”. At least they know how to test the Hosston.

AUT: “EME’s “Block B” is the Sugarloaf Joint Venture land with rights to all depths” TRUE

2.
AUT: “Prior to the announcement by EME, we were not aware of any Sugarloaf Project partners, other than the Operator of the Sugarloaf Project Texas Crude Energy Inc, participating in “Block A” other than in the deep rights referred to above.”
There logic is killing them. Do you think they actually believe that TCEI has kept them in the dark? They are participating on multiple projects with them. You would think they would pick up the phone and give Houston a call.

4.
AUT: “Aurora is not in a position to comment on any proposed work plans by third parties relating to “Block A”.
If AUT believes that “Block A” is SL Deep (which they have right to) why are they going to let a 3rd party have a go at it and exclude AUT?

Let’s hope for AUT shareholders that AUT does not truly believe what they have written in this announcement.

 

[Broadside]

I know EME has probably wrong footed the Aussie partners in this project but it is totally unacceptable for all these shares to be trading in at best an information vacuum and at worst a state of utter confusion for shareholders. EKA is down 2 cents today now is that efficient markets working on all known information or sellers oblivious to what is going on?

All I know is that EME's news shows that Sugarloaf is a goer, but as to the way forward, Block A, Block B, shallow rights deep rights, a massive 3rd party involved?.....they need to clarify what is going on sooner rather than later.

 

[barney]

I know EME has probably wrong footed the Aussie partners in this project but it is totally unacceptable for all these shares to be trading in at best an information vacuum and at worst a state of utter confusion for shareholders. EKA is down 2 cents today now is that efficient markets working on all known information or sellers oblivious to what is going on?

All I know is that EME's news shows that Sugarloaf is a goer, but as to the way forward, Block A, Block B, shallow rights deep rights, a massive 3rd party involved?.....they need to clarify what is going on sooner rather than later.

Agree Broadside, ............... I received a reply from ADI re the current situation ................ Very brief reply, but the essence was, that the Empyrean deal would not affect ADI's position with regard to Sugarloaf and their "interests" in any way .................. No real information, but at least confirmation that all is still "as it should be" with regard to ADI ............. hope that puts some minds at rest.

 

[chance fate]

... guess it's due to the absense of concrete information.... knowing there's so much time to kill until testing is going to keep the price supressed... any upward burst will get hit... so if you want to play that game in the short term .. there could be some profit.... reckon we need the actual final test results before we can rest 100% easy... that's what i need...

 

[nioka]

... guess it's due to the absense of concrete information.... knowing there's so much time to kill until testing is going to keep the price supressed... any upward burst will get hit... so if you want to play that game in the short term .. there could be some profit.... reckon we need the actual final test results before we can rest 100% easy... that's what i need...

NT testing results will soon be there. If good results are not already "priced in" there could be a price jump. Of course if the result is not good ??????????

 

[chance fate]

... agree.. apologies.. I've got EKA on my mind - responding to broadside's comment on EKA dropping 2c... should have posted on that thread... but guess due to JV's it all gets mixed in soup anyhow...

 

[S_Hug]

o.k. just spoke to AUT. Others might want to do the same as I'm far from an expert on oil and gas and it would be good for someone more in the know to make the phone-call and re-confirm.

- They have ALL depth rights to the 19,500 acres that they mention. Refer purple section in diagram..

- They have extra acreage (cannot disclose what amount) in the "Block A" region - blue section in diagram. But this is rights to the deeper areas as this was originally what they were more focused on. Since then, EME has acquired interests in this area too. Apparently in the U.S. the situation is different to Australia, tenements etc, where the owners can sub-lease land, hence the situation where EME have access to the shallower parts. Didn't quite get this.. Situation was described as a big of a nightmare to understand. Apparently all JVP's have the same rights to this area - referred to as "Block A" by EME.

- Longhorn is in the Sugarloaf area and AUT are the only one's who have interest in this. Not EKA/ADI. Hope I got this right...

- I asked out of the Australian JVP's who has the most acreage and AUT believe it is them. Access to various depths across about 40,000 acres in total across the Sugarloaf region.

Please could somebody else phone as somebody in this thread said that that they phoned ADI and they said they had no rights over EME's "Block A". Whereas AUT is saying that all JVP's do - deep rights.