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.
"hope for your sake you have a light bulb moment soon and see the shenanigans at play here..........."
That's quite a statement isn't it? Suggests you are aware of something mysteriously awful about to happen - infers some kind of deception by someone but actually says nothing at all of any substance.
I'm happy to hear other view points - go on now, tell us exactly what you mean? Not able to? How surprising.
AK, Goodnight, off to Bed now.
'Unknowingly'?????????? that made me laugh, i do agree though.
Re:That would be childish. We've been told there will be an EPS update sometime this month. I look forward to it, and equally hope it's simply as detailed, factual and honest as poss. But the actions of some vocal stock-traders should have no influence on WHEN such a report is released.
Sounds just like President Obama, we will respond at a time of our choosing :O)
But in the meantime, the Trolls are in possesion of the ball?
Hey, the nightshist's at it again, isn't it? But I replied to your last post without killing two birds with one stone.
"It is now up to Dr T, to rebuff their allegations and issue a statement forthwith!"
That would be childish. We've been told there will be an EPS update sometime this month. I look forward to it, and equally hope it's simply as detailed, factual and honest as poss. But the actions of some vocal stock-traders should have no influence on WHEN such a report is released.
"I actually think that Lemon Fool has actually unknowingly trashed the HUR SP. "
That site is populated by all sorts of dubious characters, seemingly 'experts' in all sorts of things, who seem to be 'well connected' to all sorts of people, or so one sometimes finds out. A number of them having been chucked off other BB's due to assorted misdemeanors. And I'm not just referring to O&G here.
But yeah, some people (or brokers) have recently 'trashed' the SP, but don't care, 'cos they make money whether it goes up or down.
Beware, and also, be cynical! Only way to keep sane when so many conflicting messages are being bandied around. Or at least, that's how I look at things.
Oil's 'out of favour'? Not for me, it isn't. My car doesn't run on wind, so I'll continue filling the tank with diesel. And if Greta Thumbsuck and her followers tell me I'm being a naughty boy by doing so, well f*** them. (Not that I'd be so perverse to think of ever doing that.) If I ever want to go by sea across the Atlantic, I'd prefer it to be on a vessel which has got more than a bucket as toilet facilities, thanks.
"There is no specific mention of ‘perched water’ or ‘stranded water’ in the CPR for Lancaster that I can find. "
I take it you are referring to the 'latest' 7 May 2017 Lancaster CPR, of which I have a printed bound copy, and yes, you are correct. I spent a while this evening searching through it with a fine toothcomb, and can't find a mention of the phrase 'perched water'. However, there are numerous references to 'formation water', and its possible percentages during relatively 'new' flow rom the two wells involved in the EPS. So again, to my (confirmation-biased?) view, this refers to water-bearing 'zones' maybe intersected in the horizontal sections, and nothing to do with the far lower-lying aquifer which is providing the pressure-drive.
To revert to some simplified models of how FB works, the very fact that oil can be found in them is due to that very coarsely-described 'top downwards jellyfish effect'. Effectively ,meaning that the likelihood of oil filling up the 'buried hill' without some water getting in there as well is terribly slim.
But it's got nothing to do with the aquifer, and absolutely nothing to do with 'draw-up of water from the aquifer once the well is put on production, neither.
I'd suggest some people do some re-reading on the background to Bach Ho. Developing that field ran into a lot of water problems, 'til the remedies were found. But peak production about a decade ago was in excess of 200, 000 bbl/day. And not even Piper Alpha achieved that.
I actually think that Lemon Fool has actually unknowingly trashed the HUR SP.
This BB is read by all and sundry including MM's and idiots like MTV adding their guessed non factual diatribe.
It is now up to Dr T, to rebuff their allegations and issue a statement forthwith!
Appreciate that. I did notice somewhat that your last question / query to Lemon Fool was left in my mind somewhat short shrift/unanswered?
Further, I am not sure what Lemon Fool's discipline is albeit somewhat highly respected it would appear throughout the O&G BB's.
Is he a Petro Physicist or a Oil Analyst or O&G Statiscian , I am not so sure on that score and his credentials?
"Do you believe in Dr T's assessment or LemonFool's graphs ?"
I trust my gut-instincts. Which can be wrong, sometimes, but as I don't try to influence others, and if my gut-instincts are wrong, I've only got myself to blame, and if I lose, it's just me that loses. Nobody else, I hope.
Our friend is obviously a very knowledgable person, technically. But someone who writes on many BB's and suspect does so pretty much fulltime. Even more than myself, and with far more detail, cobbled-together by himself from public-domain stuff, but 'enhancing' it.
Lately, with an implicit 'negative slant', even if its only linking the OGA graphs (adding others of his own design), and saying there may be 'cause for concerm'.
I write long, and go into 'technicals', but that's because I'm retired, and have time on my hands, except when I'm on the road or playing cards. Or chatting with waitresses young enough to be my grandchild, or other fun things like that.
I took the time earlier to put forward my own point of view regarding DSPP's 'statistical analysis', because frankly, I think it's full of holes.
Take of this what you will.
Do you believe in Dr T's assessment or LemonFool's graphs ?
I personally will readily accept that the Dr's view above and beyond an outsiders view at this juncture is soley based upon a limited amount of data ,the good DR is sat at the coalface, the outsider is not.
Whilst the Lemon Fool has presented a case that may well be worth 'Considering' until such time that HUR responds and am sure they will and given that they have already have in previous communications, my view is that WC is a NON Issue if it was they would have been legally bound to an issue an RNS forthwith and that has not happened as yet.
Bottom line is simply this folks:
Do you believe Dr T or LemonFool?
Thanks, Happysurfer, Thunder, and Double.
Sanity (but not share price) restored!
"no issues based on trusting what Dr Trice has been at pains to repeat in all the presentations and updates that have been given since June"
Or along way prior tho that!
It's a crucial thing.
I write fast, as joining in an online poker tournament in 3 minutes.
Do people think Dr T has been deliberately LYING to us? Do they believe that the lack of rather more technical detail in the PR is some sort of cover-up?
Personally, I don't.
There is no specific mention of ‘perched water’ or ‘stranded water’ in the CPR for Lancaster that I can find.
My assumption is that the water saturation figures in Table 7.4 are probably what RT refers to in the CMD presentation. It has a ‘worst case’ of 10-15%. Hence any suggestion of a 15% water cut (pchima) is at the extremes of the model.
Just to note, I agree it is difficult to draw conclusions based on the limited evidence we currently have.
Thanks for taking the time to post your reply, it does help put DSPPs thinking in perspective also. I take the simple (and arguably lazy) view that there are no issues based on trusting what Dr Trice has been at pains to repeat in all the presentations and updates that have been given since June - it's not a concern.
That said it can be helpful to cross reference these figures with OGA data etc but as Aduk points out, and funnily enough I do share his thinking there, we may not all be working to the same time periods and data points so actually we may not be able to arrive at any accurate understanding on our own. Which brings me back to lazy, I'll wait for an update from Hurricane.
Long term holder with 3 posts, pull the other one. Water cut is irrelevant if the production guidance is reaffirmed. Had all this b*llucks over at enquest earlier in the year - its total tosh
In the March Corporate Presentation 2019 on page 11 it quotes Post- start- up water production as being 0 for Well-6 and approx. 8% for Well -7z.
Subsequently in the H1 Interim Report dated 20 Sept 2109 on page 5 it states " Notwithstanding the increase in aggregate perched water production to a sustained rate of approx. 7,5% , water cut remains within expected ranges and is not impacting oil production levels or the cost of production". It goes on to confirm that Well -6 is still dry and therefore all the water comes from Well -7z.
I was confused by this as 7.5% is not an increase on 8% and to me aggregate tends to mean the sum of the two wells which could have indicated a decrease rather than increase from 0& 8% to a total of 7.5%. No company however is going to label it an increase ( negative) rather than a decrease (good) unless they have to and HUR confirmed that Aggregate in Water Production terms indicates the average over the producing wells thereby meaning that if -6 produces 0 water then -7z is producing 15%. They do however reassure that this is within their expected range and and is not a concern to them. They also state that their findings since the CMD reassure them that it is indeed perched water. It would seem that the 7.5% average has since increased to 8%. I can also assure that I am a LTH and have absolutely no desire to paint a negative picture of the situation nor to talk down our prospects, only to openly and honestly discuss and debate information that is openly available to help our understanding.