Max Petroleum Discussion Board http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion http://www.iii.co.uk/icons/logos/uk_logo.gif http://www.iii.co.uk tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9672934
Ta By investmouse ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9672934&action=detail Wed, 23 May 2012 12:10:00 GMT investmouse tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9672549 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9672549&action=detail Wed, 23 May 2012 10:40:00 GMT Dr Oil tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9672475
Maybe we'd get FFD's and TPP's a lot faster with a better regulatory environment. By Drainboy ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9672475&action=detail Wed, 23 May 2012 10:28:00 GMT Drainboy tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9672354 ------
I think it'll probably be the big boys asked to contribute to the major projects. As you know, there are currently requirements for all companies to buy certain levels of goods / services from within Kaz and MXP is subject to these already. I don't see Kaz seeking to unduly alienate its largest investors by seeking to impose contentious financial burdens. The State is also very wealthy and capable of financing much of this anyway (6% growth forecast this year), so I doubt it will be too much of a drama and the benefits could be substantial if markets to both East and West are linked... By Dr Oil ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9672354&action=detail Wed, 23 May 2012 10:06:00 GMT Dr Oil tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9672208
Does that mean they'll force Max to spend money on Kazakh infrastructure? Infrastructure where the driving force will be for the betterment of Kazakhstan, not return on investment?

Sounds great for Kazakhstan, certainly, but not necessarily so great for the investors.

(unless they only intend to do it with the big players....and maybe they'll do it in ways where there will be a return on investment, but my money says unlikely) By Drainboy ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9672208&action=detail Wed, 23 May 2012 09:42:00 GMT Drainboy tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9671771
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/kazakhstan-investors-idUSL5E8GM87R20120522

http://caspionet.kz/eng/general/Kazakh_President_receives_topranking_investors_1337756360.html By Dr Oil ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9671771&action=detail Wed, 23 May 2012 08:10:00 GMT Dr Oil tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9671017 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9671017&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 21:35:00 GMT character 6 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9670837
If one type II is a duster then all of them are much more likely to be (if one piece of rock 7km down is too highly pressurised to hold oil, then similar rock nearby is likely to be the same).

The type I's are all distinct in their risk factors. They're more shallow, so don't necessarily share the porosity/permeability issue, but do have other various risks where having success/failure in one won't change the probabilities of any of the others.

This is why a failure at NUR-1 means we'll drill Kuzbak deep anyway. It's more shallow and is still just as good a target in the event of a NUR-1 duster.

IIRC the targets are at 5750m (CARB), 6250m (DEV1) and 6750m (DEV2) more or less, which means we have about 1100 metres to the top of the deepest and largest target. Whether we go all the way to 7250m after breaching the top of the DEV2 structure without finding oil, I don't know. By the time we're there, we might as well. By Drainboy ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9670837&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 20:43:00 GMT Drainboy tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9670710
Sp will go down while others buy at a lower price like they did with rkh few yes back before sea lion hit oil!

Any thoughts? By mass7t8 ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9670710&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 19:58:00 GMT mass7t8 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9670542 Next up. Mr Obama has already signed into law, that from July 1 2013, no oil may be traded belonging to Iran.
Pick the bones out of that one. By character 6 ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9670542&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 18:43:00 GMT character 6 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9670279 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9670279&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 16:49:00 GMT tvduijn tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9669944 http://www.oilvoice.com/n/FoxDavies_views_from_the_trading_floor_Red_Emperor_Resources_Heritage_Oil_Gold_Oil/46fae4a9519a.aspx By Teadrinker ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9669944&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 15:19:00 GMT Teadrinker tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9669804 jdh By jdh83 ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9669804&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 14:52:00 GMT jdh83 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9669540 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9669540&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 13:52:00 GMT gubu tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9669480
As to your other question, the reason they'd do it is money. Once the type 2's are re-risked then the acreage is much more valuable and they can sell it to a major with a much better deal for Kazakhstan. We're basically the test subject who takes all the risk and reaps some of the rewards if things go right. By Drainboy ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:MXP.L&display=discussion&id=9669480&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 13:37:00 GMT Drainboy