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.
This presentation may only account to results up to and including the September OGA figures, or indeed they are a snapshot of the EPS at a moment in time as yet defined before September, but regardless they make for interesting reading and seems to contradict the analysis of some, assuming that the company were reporting worst case.
Presentation date 7th October 2019
Pre EPS model flow 20k p/d on EPS
Post EPS 20k p/d natural flow
Pre EPS model per well natural flow 11820 combined
Post EPS >16.5k per well
Pre EPS model combined best case water saturation 5-10% (2017 CPR)
Post EPS well 6 WC -NIL
Post EPS well 7 c.8%
Pre EPS model PI Well 6 160std/d/psi Post EPS well 6 205 stb/d/psi
Pre EPS model PI Well 7 147std/d/psi Post EPS well 7 190 stb/d/psi
Time will tell of course.
ww, you appear to have overlooked the footnote on pg11/26:
Note: Based on preliminary analysis: Post-start-up metrics/observations are as at 11 July 2019 Capital Markets Day.
The H1 Report updated this info in September, but it's not reflected here...
Thanks Joe.
From RNS 2nd December
“ "Further progress is also being made in our understanding of the Lancaster reservoir. Uninterrupted vessel uptime combined with good well productivity have allowed us to carry out additional data gathering whilst remaining in line with guidance for Q4 2019. We will provide a further update later in December.”
If water is an issue then its being rolled into the phrase “good well productivity”
From the RNS 2nd December: "Further progress is also being made in our understanding of the Lancaster reservoir. Uninterrupted vessel uptime combined with good well productivity have allowed us to carry out additional data gathering "
These couple of sentences lifted from the 2nd December RNS lead me to believe they've been able to acquire more data than expected in a shorter period of time than expected. Seem's they may have originally factored in interruptions and and less than 'good' well productivity at an earlier stage. Sounds to me like they've got enough info to make some judgements ahead of the original plan. I don't see anything negative in this statement about the Lancaster EPS.
Interested to hear other peoples opinions on this.
ltcap - that was how i read it too. I suspect we could see the all clear on lancaster. Unfortunately the SP has been decimated so much that We need to rise 50% to be where we were before all this shenanigans. I am in for the long term so won't matter but not nice portfolio view
Acquiring data is what they (we)are doing, I'm not sure what the fuss is about , the price has taken a battering originally due to the results of the final well test in this years drilling programme, from what I gather they've tested WW to gather as much data as possible which will help with FFD in the future. (hopefully near)
Also a bit of scaremongering (imho) re; coning.
C A don't help the price by selling into pending results but that's how they make there money.
If there were issues with Lancaster wells 6 & 7Z they'd let us know in good time ,(hopefully) meanwhile we just have wait for any official company updates, as deemed necessary.
Meanwhile here's my unofficial update the well which is online is producing @ 25% above the Q4 guidance & the OiW is in line with company expectations.
Its a difficult game to understand when the bad news affects things more than the good news does (the good news is we've been producing for more than 6 months now) so we have a constant cash flow, but that's the way it is with this share in the current market conditions.
Have peaceful festive period from a very stormy north sea.
Apologies, I meant water cut not OiW
Prover,
Agree with you, but just to add:
"C A don't help the price by selling into pending results but that's how they make there money"
They're worth less than they were 6 years ago, so maybe you were being a bit kind to say they "make their money"
Bit ironic if they are actually helping to drag down the SP of their biggest holding...
Not if they fancy increasing their holding at the lower price, knowing that they will sell into the rise. Its easy when you already have money.
CA, like the rest of us are entitled to sell and buy when we want and there can and will be many reasons for that. I have no issue with the way CA are operating at all just now.
Yes the SP took a hit when the Warwick West results weren't initially as great as we hoped althoughI think it was way overdone - but that's just my opinion.
Again, in my opinion only, the scare mongering about Water Coning is what is hitting the SP the most. - as I said in a reply to Reverend Andy a few days back - Hurricane stated in presentations September and October that the produced water is perched water, not coning - I would rather take RTs word for it, rather than some random posters on here that have no clue about the industry what so ever.
The perched water, approx 8% is what is expected over the lifetime of the EPS, it may be 16% from 1 well or 8% from both and will fluctuate , but who cares at it is normal perched/trapped water.
All IMO
Just a reminder, it also took a hit on;
1. WD results
2. Kerogen reducing their holding
BB, of course it did and rightly so, so not sure what your point is to be honest.
For me, just the 6 year EPS alone more than underpins the Share price here and all the scaremongering is not going to change that in anyway, so fill your boots.
bartlebobton
"Just a reminder, it also took a hit on;"
Would you also remind us as to when you sold out.
Morning All,
Seeing as the onslaught of negative posts has subsided somewhat, now would seem as good a time as any to put the coned water (water produced from the aquifer as opposed to perched or stranded water) rumour started by dspp to bed once and for all.
I know he's a messiah to many on here but that doesn't mean everything he posts is the bloody gospel. I've noticed more than a few errors or false assumptions in his previous posts over the years. How many of you have even met the guy ?
Firstly, his workings on percentage of water cut were plain wrong and misleading.
He took volume of water and divided by volume of oil to give a percentage of total water cut.
Wrong. The correct figure comes from dividing volume of water by the sum of volume of water and oil.
dspp used the latest OGA figures and did not have any additional information to base his theory. These figures show that the average water cut was around 16% across two wells but did not give any insight into the source of the water or the split between the two wells, so absolutely no base for the coned water theory.
Why everybody is doubting the following statement from HUR issued as part of the 20th September Half Year Results, I do not know.
"We have gone to great lengths to explain why we do not expect to see coned aquifer water during the lifetime of the EPS, under our base case. This is our continuing expectation. The perched, or stranded, water we have experienced is consistent with our reservoir model and since our capital markets day presentation this interpretation has been reinforced by the Company's technical work. Notwithstanding the increase in aggregate perched water production to a sustained rate of approximately 7.5%, water cut remains within expected ranges and is not impacting oil production levels or the cost of production."
In addition, HUR have categorically stated that if there was a significant change to the performance of the EPS (aquifer water break through would certainly be classified as significant) they would issue an RNS. No RNS has been forthcoming.
I look forward to seeing dspp and the many others that have been actively promoting the water coning propaganda with egg on their faces very shortly.
The level of misleading information on here of late and the constant slamming of this share by the likes of bartlebobton, EV, TDG is obscene.
Having said that it's down to the individual to decide whether HUR is finished as a company, as these posters would have you believe.
I'm out of here as can no longer be bothered to post given the toxic nature of this board. It's a shame as it used to be a great place to exchange information and views.
GLA.
Biffadog
Couldn't agree more. As to:
"The level of misleading information on here of late and the constant slamming of this share by the likes of bartlebobton, EV, TDG is obscene."
The question that really needs answering is whose or what agenda are they serving? Any detectives out there?
Biffa
I am behind the curve here, where has this 16% figure come from? Can you provide a link?
I am/was/maybe thinking of taking advantage of the current SP but don't want to wander to my doom blindfolded.
Ta
EV. Biffadog has listened, then clearly he has arrived at the conclusion outlined in his summary
My biggest concern is not the oil but the joy which you clearly derive from causing others worry over hard earned money.
I just hope you don’t have or don’t plan to have children. What a terrible upbringing they’d have.
Real figures, out of date, what are you on EV?
Are you suggesting the company is lying to us and the OGA? And further suggesting that they have a known problem which they have not announced to the market against the commitments they made previously...and that they will have to eat their words about coning previously stated?
I think the more likely explanation is that the water cut fluctuates a bit, as expected in a young well while testing different flow rates, and there is nothing to worry about.
I guess some people like conspiracy theories...although in fairness sometimes they're true and sometimes companies lies to investors. However, if you think that you should be out of here rather than trying to play the good Samaritan. All in all it suggests you have an agenda to be negative on this share.
EV, your credibility went on this board when you started slating Hurricane to buy into I3e before it went belly up, you then did the same with Tullow just before it dropped 60-70%. My only concern with Hurricane would be if you decided to put whatever you have left from I3e and Tlw back into Hurricane, given your share picking record.
I am a frequent though not constant visitor to this board (hence being a tad behind the curve, I haven't the time to read hundreds of posts). I have held a reasonably substantial holding for as log as my withered brain can recall. I do think that this board has become a not particularly attractive place to visit of recent days/weeks due to all the sniping and name calling.
Can everyone call a truce please, if only because its the season of sodding goodwill to all chaps/chapesses?
Cebo
I very much doubt that EV is actually an investor in any shares.
Correction: 8% average water cut across the two wells (not 16% as stated).
My belief is that one well is a dry oil well and the other has been producing a 16% water cut but that is only my opinion.
Perched or stranded water will vary throughout the life cycle of the EPS by its very nature. Stranded pockets of water randomly dotted around the FB reservoir.
Apologies for the misleading 16% total water cut figure.
Now I am really out of this mad house.
GLA.
Biffa,
Would also been useful to have included the last paragraph from the Sept20th interim report as I have on at least 2 occassions.
ie, Now that both flowlines are in operation again, we can see that production from the -6 well continues to be of dry oil.
Given the proximity of the wells and strong interference between them, this is supportive of a stranded pocket of water being intersected by the -7Z well.
Hurricane’s analysis suggests that current production is only coming from a relatively short section of the borehole in the vicinity of the heel in each well.
Over time, fractures further along each well bore are expected to contribute to production, reducing the impact of any individual water-bearing fracture.'
16% aggregated to 8% between the two wells is nothing and if perched water as I believe it to be is of no concern whatsoever once confirmed presumably in the next few days. There are wells that produce 80% water that are still viable so 16% if confirmed is negligible compared to the oil and revenue.
Be prepared for a saturation % that isn’t ZERO and don’t be panicked would be my advice such as it is.
Not understanding the maths here. And I've got 2 degrees in the subject.
If we assume equal production is obtained from two wells, the product then aggregated into a single accumulation.
If Well 1 produces with 8% water and the Well 2 is 0% then the aggregated 'pool' is 4%.
If Well 1 produces with 16% water and the Well 2 is 0% then the aggregated 'pool' is 8%
If Well 1 produces with 8% water and the Well 2 is 8% then the aggregated 'pool' is again 8%, not 16%.
If there is 16% in the 'pooled' oil then there is a problem I would have thought - hence my earlier question before I buy more HUR shares from my earnings as a geriatric rent boy.
Has there been any actual data from any source on water production in the last 3 months or is this all mischief making by deramping rogues?