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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
"Showing my workings!
API 38deg converts to 0.8348 SG
Volume constant 6.29 (M3 to bbls)
(51,247 x 6.29)/0.8348 = 386,132 bbls"
Thanks for that!
However, being a bit bored, waiting to sign-in to my habitual latenight online poker game, I thought I'd check your figures, out of curiosity. And I get the SG of 38degree API crude to be 0.8820
No sweat, doesn't matter. Same ballpark.
Might be just that a few cumulative reasons line up
1) Definitely want another offload before the CMD for 'political' reasons ie looks good in the presentation. Do a short load now to ensure a full load prior to CMD
2) Price of oil is down atm
4) Tanker availability
5) Did wonder if the refinery needed HUR's premium oil on the quick for a feedstock (not sure it happens for Oil though)
6) All other reasons this BB can think up
" Maybe they didn't take as much as the price they are getting is low and they expect an increase and have the capacity to store some"
I note this is your first post here. Welcome aboard!
Your idea is a novel one, and something which never even occurred to me! But it does have a rather neat kind of logic to it! Ithink it enters the category the Mythbusters would call 'plausible', and not 'impossible'. In fact it would bring a huge grin to my face if proved correct. Dr T does have a sense of humour, and it might even explain AS jumping ship...
Seems like now it was yourself and I writing at the same time!
Maybe they didn't take as much as the price they are getting is low and they expect an increase and have the capacity to store some
I've been wondering again about this 'light cargo' on the tanker. Obviously yesterday's news about the CFO's departure is another pause for thought, but it can only be speculative, and I don't think we'll find the reasoning for it easily. Whereas the offload is an operational thing, where a bit of logical thinking might bring one close to an answer.
In fact I was on the phone last night with someone else who's preoccupied with the conundrum, and it's a puzzler, for sure. And despite the call (s) being quite long, we could draw no conclusions.
But now, I feel one of those 'instinctive feelings', and I'm trying to pick holes in my own argument, but finding it hard to.
The cargo load is something around 360,000 bbl. Which is very odd. Is that all the fpso had in her tanks? I don't think so. Because that would imply two things. (1) that the wells have been producing significantly less than 'guidance' over the last month. but the company have not given any indication to that effect, whereas they said they would if that happened. (2) that the tanker was called out prematurely, 360,000 bbl being much less than the optimum 'offload parcel size', and also far less than both the AM's storage capacity and the tanker's transport capability.
So, I'm inescapably drawn towards the idea that this was just a 'partial offload'. Now as 'Londoner7' has pointed out, the tanker was by the fpso for 23 hours, compared with the more usual 25. But the volume differences aren't proportional to the time difference. But again, that's just a couple of hours. So I think we can eliminate some pressing tanker scheduling from the equation. They're not going to take a partial load instead of a full one just for the sake of a few hours. Also, from someone else here (Pisces, I think), we've learned that the weather was pretty good, so if we can believe his information, we can discount a weather-related issue.
So, my feeling is that there was some sort of technical problem with the offload. That sort of thing can happen. A pump going down, some sort of hassle with the hose equipment, could be anything. Wouldn't like to guess. Could be the tanker's dynamic positioning catching coronavirus and unable to keep them properly on station, so far as I know. But some sort of technical glitch preventing a full offload.
Does anyone else here see a fault in my reasoning?
Of course, and before people start calling me a 'superramper' (and no, I bear absolutely no physical resemblence to Adolf Hitler!), I cannot 100% discount the possibility that the field has somehow 'underperformed' over the last month and the company hasn't informed us as they said they would. Even if it would go against the two points I enumerated above, and would shake my confidence as a shareholder considerably. But I do feel that the AM's probably still got a good amount of oil in her tanks, and as Cebo said, we may see another offload fairly shortly, like in the next couple of weeks.
Over to the res
Second reading of the 29/1 RNS indicates they may have ceased pumping between the last offload (22/1) and the end of Jan while testing happened. So if they went to 20k bopd on 1/2 then they should still have pumped 500k barrels by the time of the recent offload
I see we have a port number - 51,247 MT. Thanks to who ever got that. My conversion is a bit higher than the numbers I've seen.
Showing my workings!
API 38deg converts to 0.8348 SG
Volume constant 6.29 (M3 to bbls)
(51,247 x 6.29)/0.8348 = 386,132 bbls
Average for period 11,032 bopd. The #6 well had been averaging 12,500 bopd.
This leaves open the questions, was it a partial load or is/was there a delay getting up to 20K? Time will tell.
If past form is anything to go by we should expect a tanker offload in the days leading up to the CMD 25th Mar, but hopefully well before then if the latest was a partial offload.
AD... you've been skipping your medication, or your local Tabac shop is closed.
I myself am occasionally absent-minded, Double.
No point in being modest about it.
"A bit absentminded on my part, but I'm led to believe occasional absentmindedness is another symptom of genius."
Or, we're just getting old
And again !!!!!!!!!!!
We were obviously writing at the same time. Not only did I get the date wrong by a couple of days, but also I'd forgotten that it was Missdosh who posted the link, and not myself.
A bit absentminded on my part, but I'm led to believe occasional absentmindedness is another symptom of genius.
Doh, obviously posting at the same time ADK
"Asking for a simple link, to the official document put out by the harbourmaster's office at the tanker offload terminal, you can't provide; you try to weasel your way out by suggesting I use Google, genius."
Wasn't hard to find from someone else who doesn't know what dropbox is! Found it even though ADK gave the wrong date and it's not a link, he just spelt out how to find it. Easy peasy 51247MT due in at 15:00 today (although there was another column that had '19:45" and todays date but my german is crap so didn't know what that was for)
No axe to grind either way, just thought I'd do a bit of due diligence on BB and ADK although I always knew where I'd put my money
"Asking for a simple link, to the official document put out by the harbourmaster's office at the tanker offload terminal, you can't provide; you try to weasel your way out by suggesting I use Google, genius. "
What flattery, referring to me as a genius. Sometimes I like to think I am, but modesty prevents me from advertising the fact.
OK, if you're too thick or lazy to do some simple google research, try this, which is slightly easier. The relevant link was posted on this BB by 'missdosh' on the 24th December. I'm not going to post it here again. Especially as you'll probably act like Dspp and deliberately ignore its existence, anyway.
In cricket parlance, I'd say you're on the back foot, it's really not that difficult to back your statements up with fact, even for those with no knowledge of dropbox and so on... We have your mysterious source, more Samuel Beckett than Franz Kafka perhaps.
Asking for a simple link, to the official document put out by the harbourmaster's office at the tanker offload terminal, you can't provide; you try to weasel your way out by suggesting I use Google, genius.
The word charlatan springs to mind; a person with knowledge that they do not really possess.
I've just re-read your message.
".if you have an official doc....upload it to; Mega, Dropbox or any cloud storage provider, then we can all take a peek...."
Don't you know how to use google?
What the heck are 'Mega' and 'Dropbox'? Whatever they are, I'd avoid 'em on basic principles.
Have fun on facebook. Google my facebook page, and surprise surprise, you'll find nothing, 'cos I don't have one.
"Aduk....if you have an official doc....upload it to; Mega, Dropbox or any cloud storage provider, then we can all take a peek....Bet you don’t......"
A guaranteed lost bet.
Or go back through my posting history, sometime around 22nd December, and you'll find the link as you're obviously too lazy to do the google search.
I'll leave it at that. But if you're not prepared to do some legwork, I ain't going to do it for you.
Aduk....if you have an official doc....upload it to; Mega, Dropbox or any cloud storage provider, then we can all take a peek....Bet you don’t......
"Let's do something radical; ditch the guess work and wait for the facts. Two to three offloads ago, how far out...tutt tutt...."
Yet more idiocy. For the last offload to Germany your pal Dspp on TLF got the figure wildly wrong (about 200,000 bbl short), and even having been pointed in the direction of the real figure, refused to admit to having made a mistake. And also didn't retract his absurd hypothesis that maybe it went to Germany rather than Holland to 'cover up' a large proportion of the cargo was water. Which of course it wasn't.
Your choice. You can wait for the OGA figures (3 months in arrears), you can believe a number pulled out of the hat by a poster on a notoriously 'deramper' website, or you can believe an official document put out by the harbourmaster's office at the tanker offload terminal...
I know which one I believe.
Let's do something radical; ditch the guess work and wait for the facts. Two to three offloads ago, how far out...tutt tutt....
Maybe reduced offload because of oil price slump. Make room, hold some stock back in the hope poo rebalances in the next few weeks.
"ADUK... what's this, more news from the serveur de bar ?
No. Check the tanker's destination, then do a google search using the name of that place. With a bit of patience you'll find a document showing the cargo tonnage. I'm not going to do that work for you.
ADUK... what's this, more news from the serveur de bar ?
"I have very good reason to believe the load is approx 355,000 bbl. But sorry, not going to name my source."
More nonsense.... think; WD ... "I heard a whisper" and so it goes on....