The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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.
dspp is a ****ing charlatan pushing his agenda with ill conceived diagrams and graphs based on meagre data in which he uses to try and add credibility to his posts and fool the uninitiated and not so well informed.
His latest diagram used to show his theory on the water cut of Well 7Z is a ****ing joke.
dspp claims there is an entire layer of water running across all the fissures (yes the full 1km horizontal) at the exact height of Well 7Z.
dspp is basically saying the OWC is at this level. The OWC has been established at around 1678m and this is way, way below the height of Well 7Z. If in doubt, read the CPR, read the company presentations etc.
He also lied (or made a serious error) by stating categorically that water coning could not be reversed but back tracked on this to say that it could, but was not an easy process, when his error was pointed out to him. As aduk rightly says, anybody that doesn't know the horizontal is "barefoot" is demonstrating a lack of basic knowledge on HUR's FB efforts.
If you haven't worked this out by now then perhaps its time you boned up a bit more on HUR.
Nobody is saying that there are not some doubts hanging in the air but the likes of Nimrod and dspp are deliberately undermining HUR and are running a concerted campaign to do so.
If you are fooled by them, then more fool you.....
GLA.
Not looked at LF for weeks once his game became so very transparent.
Does he still claim to be invested? ??
Only thing I’m unsure about is what exactly is motivating his posts?
It seems that the HUR share price is low because the 'market' believes DSPP and disbelieves RT!
As Double observed some time ago, people simply don't understand the water issue.
It's rather like the lunatics taking over the asylum and then declaring non-lunatics to be mad.
It doesn't matter how many times one points to HUR's growing income, absurdly-low P/E ratio, and resources/prospects, because the rejoinder is always a reminder of the share price and that it 'proves' that there 'must be something wrong.'
Having just read dspp's diatribe worth pointing out to him that his statement "From a reservoir appraisal perspective almost the most important well test HUR ought to be doing is to produce the wet well to determine which of those two extremes is more applicable. Instead they are preferring to test the dry well" is inaccurate. The individual well tests concluded before the 12th Dec, announcement on 2nd Dec read "As part of the data gathering exercise for the Lancaster EPS, the Company has been carrying out periods of production from the 205/21a-6 and 205/21a-7Z wells separately, to assess fluid dynamics and measure reservoir performance without the impact of interference from the other well. An interim update will be made WHEN THESE flow periods HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, which is expected to be LATER in DECEMBER 2019." Hence the 12th Dec signalled the end of individual tests, and the higher producing well of the two with minimal water cut is being run to maximise income whilst the data captured from the test period is fully analysed to optimise flow rates once both wells are running which makes perfect commercial sense to me.
biffadog - good post.
I had a look at his lemon post and gave up as soon as he posted
"Since they are not revealing the data itself we are left with the unpalatable choice of believing or not-believing their interpretation."
If this was a Lenigas company fair enough. However Hurricane is a serious company who have made it clear they are operating under main ftse guidelines. Trice has always been conservative in his reports. also look at how quick they were to dispel positive rumours.
I am afraid I am left with the very palatable choice of believing the world class fractured basement expert or the dspp's delusions of grandeur ........complete with scattergraph and crayons.
Captain, surely the most appropriate response to dspp 'unpalatable choice of believing or not-believing their interpretation.' would be something like 'what is perhaps more unpalatable is someone trying to convince others of their interpretation based on far less data'
Or perhaps 'what is perhaps more unpalatable, is someone using the anonymity of a bulletin board which cant verify the posters background, skill set or experience, trying to convince others that he/she can provide a more accurate interpretation based on a fraction of a data set'
Previously about the water- the aquifer it comes down to how the cracks matrix are distributed in the FB and connections which HUR have previously spoken about and that is an unknown hence the EPS, but IMO that would initially be coning as the aquifer is much deeper than the high producing wells and there is no way the water would come up like a rising tide.
The perched water can just be that - perched water and for sure the possibility of it being different water from the aquifer is a possibility as this perched water in the mountain that is now totally underwater could have been there before it went underwater IMO - get my drift!!
Several of you chaps have corresponded and had recent 'dialogue' with DSIPP and proved him wrong (more than once) this is a guy who is meant to be in the oil patch with extensive experience - then why the simplest of mistakes - is it to take a 'RISE' out of you chaps or he believes what he wrote or has fallen out with HUR or another?
In his post he mentioned you AD about the heel - now I thought about that for a nanosecond and he is either trying to get into your good books or he was just being stupid!!!!!
Have a read it interesting - unless your just here for a trade then stick to the MACD
https://nerc.ukri.org/planetearth/stories/1916/
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/47/8/700/570815/Natural-fracture-propping-and-earthquake-induced
An old hurricane - handing back a licence.
https://itportal.ogauthority.co.uk/web_files/relinqs/nov2015/P1368.pdf
Personally, having reread DSPP's posts I find it hard to believe he is trying to discredit Hurricane. I would prefer to believe he is genuinely trying to make sensible appraisals of the current situation. 1) He claims to be a LTH, 2) the consistent style and response - appears analytical, methodical and fair in approach.
It is more likely others have used DSPP's posts to their own ends. Anyway, that's what I'd prefer to think based on what I've read.
Albi,
'Personally, having reread DSPP's posts I find it hard to believe he is trying to discredit Hurricane. I would prefer to believe he is genuinely trying to make sensible appraisals of the current situation.'
Albi, how can you discern that.?
Has anyone verified DSPP's credentials? Is he a practiced Reservoir Engineer, A Geologist? I don't know do you?
Albi1
That would be nice to believe and I have to say I would like to believe dspp is being purely objective.
The problem is that he must have realised that the tone of his posts over the last couple of months would create doubt in the minds of readers and at a time when the sp lacked support. It raises the suspicion of a motive.
DiveCentre
Obviously the ensuring 'gossip and speculation' can be attributed to DSPP's posts but he may be as mortified as any one of us if our posts were used in that way. Just saying -benefit of the doubt until proven (underlined) otherwise. I don't agree with anything he's posted because it simply doesn't align with operational updates and presentations from Hurricane and, as I said a while back, is not based on the complete picture - or dataset - as others have said here today.
I suspect his motives are not to bring the SP down but other motives which are more personal in nature, either to appear as an authority in this area or otherwise, but that's assumption on my part, nothing more.
At the end of the day I genuinely believe the SP today is no surprise at all to certain folks in the City who have played this long. I note as IJWT reposted a day or so ago, Morgan Stanley quoted 25p bear case. Mmmm - and look where we are. Funnily enough! I've seen posters who clearly short post this will hit 10p. Well, if it breaks 24p it may do just that. I'm not discouraged by that as equally bull case could see us above £2 or £3 at some point in the future based on Lincoln/Lancaster and I don't forget Halifax!
Jiffybag
No idea as to DSPP's credentials other than I vaguely recall something about working in this field in his day job and possibly for BP? I can't be bothered to read through every previous post again right now to be honest.
Just saying, main point, - the MM's are the ones who have orchestrated this from the get go a long time ago. Don't ask me how, but it's the only rational explanation that makes sense to me. They will have a clear picture of various factors that can be played to their advantage to drive SP or ride SP down at certain points in time that we simply don't. I personally think DSPP has just been used as part of that, probably quite unwittingly. Entirely my own view, yes, but prefer to look it at that way for the moment.
Albi1,
"Personally, having reread DSPP's posts I find it hard to believe he is trying to discredit Hurricane. "
Despite the obvious 'slant' to my own posts which others may interpret as disagreeing with your phrase above, I remain slightly sitting on the fence, but definitely leaning in a certain direction. If Dspp is not deliberately trying to discredit the company, posting his latest 'slide' (which I consider to be rubbish) is certainly doing no credit to himself. For those interested in the technicalities, I'd recommend they read the fine print on top of his 'presentation', which illustrate some of his 'conclusions' regarding his latest theories.
He overlooks one basic fact. The reservoir's 'pressure-drive'. And in the case of Rona Ridge, the 'drive' is from the underlying aquifer. It ain't gas-cap driven, nor is it something like deep in the GoM, buried beneath miles of undercompacted sediments with overlying salts or adjoining salt-domes adding to the fiendish mix.
So he's mistaking OWC and ODT, and coming up with gloomy conclusions: maybe deliberately or not. Sure, if we have 'perched water' (as seems to be the case), little 'compartments' of the reservoir will have different pressure gradients, due to the composition of the fluids intersected by each individual wellbore. Which explains why one well (6) produces essentially 'dry' oil (no intersection with a perched water zone) whereas 7z does. But that changes nothing relating to the OWC (where the oil column stops and intersects the 'drive' aquifer), which is some 600 m below the wells' TVD.
Also, in another part of his post (or maybe in a different post but on the same page), he asserts that water-disposal (or an increase thereof) increases Opex. I can't for the life of me think of any reason why that might be the case, other than maybe having to add an extra drum or two of chemical (costing a hundred bucks or so) to the treatment before the produced water gets chucked over into the 'oggin. An infinitesimally small cost increase, in other words.
Here's a curious thing. When I open Lemonfool (on rare occasions), it goes to page 3, in other words 2017. I have to click another tab to get the latest stuff. But there, back on page three is Dspp, and also his seemingly mirror-image, Peter Grey! Same old, same old...
BobHope1,
"There were a few on here in big profit having bought at current price, must be crying in their beer now if they didn't sell in the 50's"
And you're trying to say... what?, exactly?
Yes, I did a cheeky little sell at 55p, and rather regret now that it wasn't a far bigger one. But it'll get back there one day.
Crying in one's beer? C'mon, some of us are big boys here. Crying in one's beer just dilutes the stuff, making it even less help!
Let's give DSPP the benefit of the doubt. He's a tech driven investor with both knowledge in the field, and an interest in both the geology and his investment.
That doesn't excuse however, arriving at conclusions without any alternate hypothesis especially when that conclusion had been arrived at with scant and lagging information in contradiction of explicit company guidance AFTER the lagging data being used was issued.
PS he's not entirely incorrect about the charge system. The summit of the buried hill is above the Kimmeridge source and as such the oil has migrated up into the lifted portion of the ridge.
"Personally, having reread DSPP's posts I find it hard to believe he is trying to discredit Hurricane. "
I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt ...but I am afraid that his continuous inference that Hur are being dishonest now seems to suggest an agenda to me. saying he is still invested may or may not be true ...but it does not give him a free pass.
Wellwell,
"PS he's not entirely incorrect about the charge system. The summit of the buried hill is above the Kimmeridge source and as such the oil has migrated up into the lifted portion of the ridge."
Yes he is, and not it didn't (migrate up). Look at the stratigraphy and the (very very simplistic) seismic maps. Of the stuff further west, and relationship with Rona. Kimmeridge is THICK. Overlaid with sands. Then came the 'upthrust' (over a few hundred of thousand years or so, give or take). Now look at the strat on Rona crest. NO Kimmeridge! Where did it go? (Remember, the 'Victory sand' still holds oil.)
Actually the oil done both
DSPP would be taken far more seriously if he didn’t claim to be a long term holder. Who in their right minds would hold shares in a company for which they had as little confidence as DSPP has in Hur?
shedful,
"The perched water can just be that - perched water and for sure the possibility of it being different water from the aquifer is a possibility as this perched water "
It's not just a possibility. The company has gone to length in RNS and presentations to stress it's done all the most basic stuff (temperature, chemical analysis, etc.) to discern whether the watercut is the same as the aquifer or not. And it has said it ain't. And this really IS basic stuff. I'm sure they've gone to great lengths to ascertain that before saying they're 'confident' in their claims.
Heck, I'm sure you've seen one of those TV programs where a criminal has been caught because the mud on his shoes shows he was at a certain place at a certain time? It's the same sort of thing. Oil companies don't just dip their finger into a sample of water, lick it, and say "this comes from the aquifer", or "this is 'perched'". It's a bit cleverer than that.
This, essentially is what bugs me about all of Dspp's arguments. They've got something which looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like one. Even if they were out shooting for geese. And Dspp's saying, "because you've shot a duck, there are no geese around anymore", despite all the evidence to the contrary.
It seems Hurricane is keeping everyone warm and excited in this cold weather. Looking to make an entry...
Question, is this downtrend likely to stop at around the 24p support? Or there are fundamentals to take the price back around the 9p mark where it was in 2016?
Thanks for the answer! GL
buyinmay,
" Who in their right minds would hold shares in a company for which they had as little confidence as DSPP has in Hur?"
You're assuming that Dspp is in his 'right mind', which is something I wonder about, sometimes. I mean I know I sometimes write at length about HUR, and so on, but I don't start making powerpoint presentations about it. You've got to pay me before I go to that sort of trouble.
Yes I agree with you about the water being different and perched its simple analytical testing at the minute where I am the island has no fresh water as the aquifer which is quite shallow has been contaminated by salt water (sea) later in a couple months time hopefully the TDS will be low enough for drinking water. IF it came to water or oil -water to drink would win
regarding the oil migration both of you are correct the oil has came in from the sides and moved all over then later in geological terms has been buoyancy driven and come from the head at least that's what I gather.
'Question, is this downtrend likely to stop at around the 24p support? Or there are fundamentals to take the price back around the 9p mark where it was in 2016?'
No-one can tell you where or when the decline will end.
History consists largely of unlikely events and the same applies to the stock market.
What I can say is that after reaching 64.5p on the day before first oil, no-one could have anticipated a share price of just above 25p after more than seven months of steady production - and production exceeding expectations.
The last major correction - from 67.5p - ended at 24p, but that was after a placing at 32p.
HUR no longer needs to raise cash as it has an income.
As for the previous low, which was at 8.85p mid-price, that was where it bottomed after falling from the high forties (although one poster was quite definite that he had bought shares in the 50s), at a time when there was uncertainty about funding.
In answer to your question about fundamentals: the fundamentals cannot justify a price of 25p, let alone a price of 9p!