Petrel Resources PLC Discussion Board http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion http://www.iii.co.uk/icons/logos/uk_logo.gif http://www.iii.co.uk tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4166719 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4166719&action=detail Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:32:00 GMT trackmanbasic tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4163606
Just shows the management are too much into hypying the apparent good news and try to stay quiet about the bad news.

In the end shareholders pay for it... as they are doing now. By Simon Weis ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4163606&action=detail Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:22:00 GMT Simon Weis tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4163541
"BHP agreed to carry Pan Andean for 20 per cent through the drilling of a well. BHP drilled a well but at Todos Santos not Chipiriri. This was dry. BHP then suddenly pulled out of Chapare leaving Pan Andean with A$32 million worth of seismic. Pan Andean persisted in its belief that Chipiriri was the best prospect. It thought there could be 50 to 100 million barrels of oil and 1 trillion feet of gas in place. After much effort and delay, and the building of 29 kilometre road, it was ready to drill. This was in May 2000.

Unfortunately the well was unsuccessful." By Simon Weis ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4163541&action=detail Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:08:00 GMT Simon Weis tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4163539
KAR group have been working and are working in Iraq for ages.. so its absolute tosh what PET have told its shareholders.

There was dispute and had been a dispute with Makman and Makman have walked !! By Simon Weis ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4163539&action=detail Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:07:00 GMT Simon Weis tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4163537
How do you suppose PET will now finish the S&L contract? Makman were responsible for the engineering, security, raising capital, and transport, who is going to replace them? Makman withdrew from the contract because of a dispute with PET that is fact. The contract is now in disarray with no cash, no security on site, and no transport. PET COULD NOW GET THE PUSH AS THEY ARE NO LONGER AN ASSET TO SCOP ON SITE. Scop will now go it alone and give PET the elbow they are of no further use to them! Horgan and Teeling seem to be back in jam tomorrow mode again if what is coming back from the AGM is correct but with mixy as the messenger I would take his reports with a large pinch of salt.

Same goes for the others reporting today. Not one of them commented on the devastating news that Makman had walked which says to me to at any rate that those people are in complete denial and should be ignored at all costs! By Simon Weis ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4163537&action=detail Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:07:00 GMT Simon Weis tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4163535
The bears had been constantly stating there was a dispute yet the bulls were having none of it.....

not to forget they still have not been paid the money owed ref S&L.

The party is over now! Without Makman PET are stuffed, they have no clout with the bank of Iraq, Makman was the negotiator there and arranged the letter of credit in the first place. Now with Makman gone PET could not raise enough money to pay the milkman so they are stuck in a half finished contract at S&L without a partner and without finance! Get out of that one Davy boy! By Simon Weis ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4163535&action=detail Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:06:00 GMT Simon Weis tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4163260
1. Meeting in Istanbul starting 1st September to iron out S&L matters. There will be a senior IOM delegation and a few people from PET. The feedback they are getting is that the meeting will resolve all matters outstanding. It was mentioned that Makman JV being terminated at request of IOM. One reason being that Makman are Kurdish, and IOM want no dealings with Kurdish entities at this time. Some of the issues around S&L were discussed. One issue is that the various IOM divisions do not seem to be able to act in harmony (e.g. SCOP may already have done some developments in location where project team were told to work). Pet are very hopeful that all matters will be amicably resolved at this forthcoming meeting and than payment will be forthcoming. JT told me that work is still continuing on the project.

2. They are starting work on Dhufriya and are very excited about potential. They have given 3 separate presentations on Merjan to IOM groups, and it has been well received. Merjan is technically complex.

3. PET continue to be assured that Block 6 will be honoured. They also confirmed that the Block 6 agreement would be ratified before any development field (Merjan, Dhufriya, S&L - at deeper levels, all mentioned as possible Development fields).

4. PET have been approached by 2 US majors on the infamous list of 35, and are in discussions. No names mentioned. One major seems particularly interested. They are very complimentary about what PET have achieved, but say how much more could be done if money was not a constraint. Management will keep all options open as they see how things develop in Iraq.

5. THey hope that HCL will be passed. Best guess at the moment around end of this year. DH stated that PSAs, in some form or other, will eventually be agreed, although unlikely on existing large producing fields.

6. Jordan seems very interesting. We were shown a slideshow. These indicated several 'reefs' or 'domes' that looked very interesting. These are at shallow depths and in an easily accessible area. Could contain several BN barrels. However, it is early stages. Likely to involve either Middle East investors or a farm-in to minimise risk. The latest modelling of prospect was only seen by board today. They will prepare presentations to see who they can interest. Have had discussions with a few parties to-date but now have more (and better) information to enter discussions more actively. They said that similar structures in Libya (and we were shown slides) would likely have even money chance of success. Odds longer in Jordan, but no drilling done to-date on this play. Best way forward is to drill an initial exploratory hole. Would cost c. $5.5 million.

7. Guy Delbes attended the meeting, and he was very positive that S&L will be resolved, they will get Block 6 and they will get a Development field.

My overall impression was that we still remain on track to achieve major success in Iraq. By wow400 ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4163260&action=detail Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:03:00 GMT wow400 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4160853 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4160853&action=detail Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:27:00 GMT Profitcruncher tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4153412 ')" target="_new">http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=8817179

Associated Press - August 10, 2008 7:23 AM ET

Iraq to revive oil deal with China
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq says it's going to revive a $1.2 billion oil deal with China that was canceled after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The country's Oil Ministry says an initial agreement with China is expected to be signed at the end of August, to develop the billion-barrel Ahdab oil field south of Baghdad.

It would be the first Saddam Hussein-era oil deal to be revived. In 1997, Saddam's government signed a deal with the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp., despite U.N. sanctions.

Sunday's statement comes after a meeting between Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani and China's ambassador to Baghdad. No further details were released.

======

well the bears have been proved right. They did say ONLY Saddam signed exploration contracts will be honoured.

The following four exploration contracts were signed by Saddam and will be honoured by the IOM

1) CNPC – Ahdeb field;
2) PetroVietnam – Amara field;
3) ONGC – Block 8; and
4) Pertamina – Block 4.

HOWEVER

a) PET had no exploration contract whatsoever
b) What they did have was an agreement
c) That agreement was NOT even signed
d) And it wasnt even approved by Saddam himself !! By Simon Weis ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4153412&action=detail Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:32:00 GMT Simon Weis tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4150051 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4150051&action=detail Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:01:00 GMT osammyboy tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4149770 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4149770&action=detail Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:38:00 GMT Profitcruncher tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4149657 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4149657&action=detail Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:57:00 GMT scruve tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4145071
What the Iraqis get from Shell et al is the expertise, (and Shell will sub contract a bunch of work) but you also get the capital reserves. I understand from discussions that Shell are going to go in hard. CAPEX in billions, this is an entirely different game.

Shell's business development team will bury Petrel's in the pre qualification. One of the questions in any tender would likely be please give 5 examples of major field development that you have conducted in the last ten years, or variant of that. That is a close out question for Petrel.

They were interesting five years ago because there was a chance that they could have snuck in and got something up and running quickly before the lumbering majors could get their budgets sorted. But as the security situation became far worse than expected it wasn't possible to do normal business, hence a waiting game, which suits the big boys.

The decision to enter Iraqi was made years ago for them, they have just been waiting to pull the trigger. There is a sign that the situation has significantly improved and Shell as oil and Weatherford as service have moved first. By Oil Brat ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4145071&action=detail Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:57:00 GMT Oil Brat tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4144610 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4144610&action=detail Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:59:00 GMT tecumseh tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.4143412
Its not well covered in the press but Iraq is actually producing a sizable volume of oil, I believe in the order of 2.6m bbls/d. There is some credibility for this topping 5-6m with some heavy investment.

As I understand it the surface systems and pipelines certainly in the North but also in the south are maxed out. To get things moving in Iraq there would have to be huge investment in facility management, coupled with a well re-entry program to survey a selection of old wells and an attempt to build a half decent reservoir model (for each field). And that's to get started.

Just to give you an idea, a good reservoir model for a largeish field will cost you in excess of $10m. Quite simply Pet do not have the capital and they certainly don't have the expertise.

They may tender (more likely they will not as it costs real money to do that) but they will be eliminated at the early stages. Why would the Iraqis take a gamble on Petrel when they could use Shell (or one of the other big six or so in the running). By Oil Brat ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:PET.L&display=discussion&id=4143412&action=detail Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:46:00 GMT Oil Brat