Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video 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.
One things for sure, 115m shares traded (most of the liquidity from sellers and even LTHs), yet SP only dropped 17%.
Yes, we may see further downside tomorrow, but on just todays' performance, who's actually bought these shares?
This new management team have just about destroyed the company.
Maybe that's what they wanted.?..
New brushes sweep clean scenario...
Now they can build on this shambles, get producing , reduce the water, and get the sp going north..
Without any brownie points going to previous tenants...
The new team want all the adulation
"I hoped the PR disaster was over but it seems like more of the same."
I have an average that we will *hopefully* see again and even then i'm very angry at this RNS.
I can't imagine the betrayal felt by long term holders.
The quotes on deep oil samples are correct from several wells. But the difficulty is that despite multiple attempts HUR has never managed to flow any oil from below structural closure. In my mind it’s ‘perched oil’, but that’s only my way of visualising it.
Another way to visualise it is HURs original interpretation (pre-2016) of a jelly fish model with tentacles of Oil in fractures below the actual OWC.
Fwiw : my feeling is the September technical review will contain some bad news (higher owc) but also proposed remedial action (7z sidetracked or 8-well).
Today's RNS almost stinks of new management team trashing expectations (and share price with it). Get all bad news out the way then they can pull rabbit out hat next month.
OWC per fracture network will rise with extraction of oil because of cohesive and adhesive forces of the fluids with the fractures due to pressure differentials along the network.
It is also strange that the RNS had 2 independent pieces of news. Which one was it that drove the issuing of information today rather than any other day (say when we're back online, or when we can confirm if the September shutdown is still needed). Very strange. I hoped the PR disaster was over but it seems like more of the same.
@sailplane. Good reminder. Something doesn't add up... Potentially OWC not uniform across the field? Today's negative RNS was odd, not least the fact that it didn't really contain new information.
“ Wireline oil samples 205/21-7 Deepest at 1,669m TVDSS”
Confused. Was there oil at 1669m at the time or not?
Page 13
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/download_file/force/109/222
So, can there really now be a " reasonable probability " that the data gathered from the 7 vertical pilot well (and as you can see from the RNS extract below, there was a lot of data from numerous tests) - can all this now be considered as probably wrong?
- so, a bit of history for newcomers to HUR: this part of the RNS is for the vertical 7 well, which was later sidetracked to give the 7z horizontal production well -
" RNS Number : 1708W
Hurricane Energy PLC
07 February 2017
Results of Further Technical Analysis of Lancaster 7.....
......The previously published minimum oil down to from the Lancaster 205/21a-7 well of 1,620m TVDSS has now been revised to a best technical case oil water contact of 1,678m TVDSS, with an associated hydrocarbon column height in excess of 670m TVDSS.
This revised interpretation is based on the integration of wireline sample oil analysis, wireline logs, gas chromatography data, sidewall cores and the integration of Lancaster pressure and fluid data.
The revised OWC (1,678m TVDSS) can be correlated with the Company's previously held high case OWC from the 205/21a-4 well (drilled in 2009).
Consequently, the Company believes that the revised 205/21a-7 OWC can be treated as a flat OWC for the Lancaster field.
As such, the Company believes that its previous management resource guidance for the Lancaster field being in excess of 300 million barrels is conservative........ "
And a link for those interested in the deeper history and geology of HUR:
https://pgc.lyellcollection.org/content/8/1/385