We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
>> Perhaps I shall Genghis. By all means, please go back to whatever you were doing before I came here
>> wrongly thinking that a discussion board about HUR was the place to have some back and forth about the company.
Yeah, but it gets to the point where it's technical enough to email the company. After all, your deducing things based on a few graphs and a subset of copy. You're using that to question the company with access to live data and multi million pound modelling software.
>> I suppose your response to everyone here is ‘just email the company ffs?
Why not? I did and got a response. Takes a few days but they're pretty forthcoming.
The only way Geo that that question can now be answered is to ask the company directly.
You have had several responses from people kind enough to try and allay your fears regarding the water cut with all the knowledge that's is currently available to us. So I think your only avenue now is to email the company and see if you can glean more info from them .
You have done the subject to death here on this bb, and it really is starting to look like you have ulterior motives at this time.
So please email the company with your questions, and perhaps you might be kind enough to copy the reply on this bb.
"I think we’re all just a little tetchy today."
Not at all petethestreet, just heard it all before, total ballox tbh.
I thought the data room was deliberately closed once Kerogen stumped up the cash?
Iamluvingit - FOMO in other words.....
Geo101
It was not my intention to offend, but.....many of us have been here years and seen all this b4. Every time doubt is raised, HUR have knocked it down, So now they are actually at production, and are producing no aquifer water, and have explained why.
I have emailed them in the past, and posted reply here, as have others.
You must surely understand that keeping this going looks like someone trying to spread disinfo, rather than a genuine attempt to resolve an issue ; an issue which only HUR can address completely.
So sorry, but again, just email them, ffs! I'd do it myself, but 'm too busy to collate all your points and send them in a coherent email. So please, do it yourself.
I think we’re all just a little tetchy today.
Perhaps I shall Genghis. By all means, please go back to whatever you were doing before I came here wrongly thinking that a discussion board about HUR was the place to have some back and forth about the company. I suppose your response to everyone here is ‘just email the company ffs?’. Perhaps LSE should just close the site and have that as a big banner when anyone tries to access this page?
As I keep saying.....The MMs etc like 'Geo101' and 'Luck Counts' are trying to spook all of us. Negative cloudy comments to play the mind games they are so practiced on.
Considering the amounts of cash they have to play with they can make £½ million on a 2p move. Volumes are relatively small due to lack of markets news drivers so they are out in force. They have been in this position a hundred times with other shares in their speciality(oil and energy stocks)...they are knowledgeable, no doubt.
Best not to even look at the SP. Fat chance of that!!
Only believe the RNSs. ONLY !
Geo
Then FFs why not email HUR on these pointsa, rather than keep restating them here? Clearly ou have your view and won't be shaken by anyone here, so ask HUR to clarify.
Their clarifications so far are good enuff for me, and I think for almost everyone else here ; tho there mb some lingering doubts within Big Oil.
So do us all a favour, email HUR.
adoubleuk,
Thanks, I’ll take a look at that.
Biffa,
I appreciate you repeating that quote. My response would be that that yes, the wells are nowhere near the OWC that hurricane and RPS believe is present. My point was that, given the 4Z well on its second DST produced 20% water at a depth within structural closure, combined with the knowledge now that 7Z is producing water, perhaps there’s an alternate interpretation to be made about where the OWC really is. As I said, to even begin to contemplate this option means throwing out lots of evidence (resistivity and NMR logs, oil swab, hurricanes interpretation of pressure data etc) which is a stretch but I believe a case can be made to null and void each. I mean, take the swab. Can anyone else on the board name a single occasion where a swab of oil has been used to constrain an OWC? It could just as easily be residual oil trapped in fracture below the OWC.
My concept of what Lancaster may look like would be this:
A zone of fully oil saturated fractures down to somewhere slightly shallower than structural closure at 1380m TVDSS. Let’s say 1350m just to use round numbers. Above this level, all flow is 100% oil. This would be the 6 well, and the small part of the 7 well that produced oil. Wells that go below this point, the 4, 4Z and 7Z (assuming some part of the horizontal is below this) all produce a mixture of oil and water, much like the Warwick Deep did.
Below this depth, perhaps until 1678m or so, you have a zone of residual oil. This depth could be related to where migrating oil enters the basement. Is this the sort of depth that the Kim Clay or potential carrier beds for oil charge on-lap the basement? Perhaps you have present day oil migration through this column of the basement - enough to give some hints of oil on the NRM or by swab etc, but not enough to flow oil without water too. It’s this sort of ‘transition zone’ to badly use that phrase that perhaps the Warwick Deep well intersected - hence the poor DST results.
Below 1678m: unblemished acquirer, 100% water.
So, I think that’s a fair outline. And let me state again, this is just one interpretation of the data, a potentially unlikely one at that. But ask yourself this, given that everyone man and his dog (almost) attended the dataroom and no one (until Spirit much later and not for the Lancaster area) farmed in, is it possible that those attendees had similar doubts about where the OWC really was?
Goe101,
On reflection, I think I'm going to give you benefit of the doubt here, because of your apparently objective outlook.
That having been said, I don't agree with your implication that OWC is considerably higher than published, and also that I take Dr Trice's explanations of 'perched water' at face value, for the simple reason that I don't believe the man's a charlatan who would deliberately try to deceive shareholders and the market. The water cut is indeed minimal, and within the percentages predicted pre-EPS, and if they remain unchanged are not any cause for worry, in my opinion.
As a result of your questions I've gone on yet another (so far fruitless) search for the 7z TVDSS. But have found something different which I think will interest you and a few others, though it'll go over most lay-peoples' heads. (No offence meant, people unfamiliar with thechnical oilfield stuff !)
It's in the tech library on the HUR site. https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/assets/technical-library The most recent addition.
Although first published in 2018, it was revised in July this year, and was only downloaded from the 'Llyell Collection' to HUR on the 6th of this month.
Happy reading! One thing 'new' I did pull from it is that (as I suspected), realtime data is being directly transmitted from the FPSO and fed directly into the Schlumberger / Hurricane 'modelling' programs, for direct model / 'real thing' behaviour comparative purposes.
Geo101,
The points you made were read and considered by many posters on here.
It would appear that the majority did not agree with these points and some went to considerable effort to politely explain why your key points were invalid or misplaced.
A number of examples were given to you whereby HUR have made categoric statements which do not support your hypothesis.
I'm going to quote part of the post by Genghis15 at 09:39 today, as I feel it hits the nail on the head.
"For all the detail in there, I cannot see how you can be taken seriously. the producing wells are nowhere near OWC, how can the tail of one be in contact?
But the main point is, if you're right, RT is wrong, and HUR are lying to us. They are saying pretty categorically that it is perched water. They have said that any deviation from projection on the EPS will be RNS'd when known".
I'm not sure there is anything much to add to that.
GLA.
Then do as I said in my separate post ( I get fed up with 80+ post threads!) and email HUR for an answer. Continual posting on here looks more and more like manipulative trolling.
Geo, if you think the Company has set to deceive, you should sell up.
Why, instead of waiting for the CMD, don't you write to them now and ask for clarification? I don't think it's to do with the current EPS as such, more to do with previously published info so expect that they will be happy to clarify.
I'm all for dialogue and discussion and look forward to you feeding bask to is what you learn. Otherwise, I'm happy to accept the statements from the BoD at face value rather than look for spurious "issues" that haven't been notified to us.
That you think it’s raised solely off an illustration just shows that you haven’t understood my points SIPP. I won’t bother labouring it further.
There will always be questions.
This one, raised off the back of an illustration, and despite the BoD seriously going out of its way to alleviate doubt, is meaningless. Imho.
adoubleuk,
Thanks for the reply. I share your frustration about the scale on diagrams. I understood why diagrams of the wells had to be fairly cartoonish back in the early days when Hurricane was small and first trying to demonstrate a concept. Now though, with an expanded team and an eager set of investors, the fact they’re still churning out this quality of content is frustrating.
A nice, to scale diagram showing the projected depths of each well, which also highlights the intervals across which the DSTs were taken would do a lot to alleviate my doubts I’d hope.
Regarding your agenda question - quite strange the mob mentality a lot of people have after I posed a few questions. Not much point coming here if people repeat the same opinions, or minor variations thereof, day after day. I’ve seen enough in the oil industry to always have that nagging feeling of doubt, especially in relatively uncharted territory like this. It’s our job as investors to weigh up that risk/reward for ourselves. I still think that ratio is positive for now and I hope that further information from the EPS will be able to kick that doubt out of my mind for good.
Tg you imply there is some logic to SP movement. I am clearly missing something here.
Is it simply that AIM investors are Chartists?
Dumbfounded.
A long drill though, so why rush? I'm sure there will be more attempts to drive the SP down. After many years of inertia I am learning to Hedge on way down ( for openness ) but passionately believe in Hurr to pay off my mortgage in two years time.
Mandrill: "Hope I'm right with my prediction of it only falling to 41."
Why is that then? So you can look like mystic-fkn-meg?
I read somewhere that the drill bit was allowed to drift down with gravity between fractures, hence the inclination in the horizontals
GF,
"You hit a big fracture at the heel and the rest of the well may as well not exist initially."
Yes. Succinctly put.
Biffa,
"I note that you (Geo101) spent the majority of your time trading and posting on PMO and have done for years."
Thank you for that information, because I personally hadn't researched that. Am I maybe engaging in BB conversation with someone who has an 'agenda'?
Coincidentally, somehow PMO seems to have crept (in references) into quite a few peoples' post here of late. But maybe it's just that: coincidence.
Geo101,
" The question that comes to my mind is - why are they misleading us all with that diagram?"
I don't know. I too spotted the anomalous y-axis header on the CMD slides, meant to write to IR about it and then forgot to do so! Maybe I will now.
However, in my post I didn't say that it was axiomatic that the water coming from 7z was 'perched water' . Simply that it has to be coming from somewhere along the horizontal! And this raises another curious point about those CMD slides. That on page 9 show lanc 6 & 7z shows èz as not being horizontal as such, but slightly inclined downwards. But is this correct? Or instead, is it a way of trying to put a bit of 'perspective' into a 2D graphic, showing that 7z heads in a different direction?
Either way, and given that those slides are very much not to scale, they beg the question of why a scale bar is included. Because if to be believed, the horizontal in 6 just exceeds 2km in length, while we know it doesn't!
So while I don't think the company is trying to deliberately mislead anyone, I do find some of the 'graphic representation' powerpoint slides rather sloppy. And I still haven't found a proper text quote for 7z's TVD...