Member Info for adoubleuk

Goe101,

On reflection, I think I'm going to give you benefit of the doubt here, because of your apparently objective outlook.

That having been said, I don't agree with your implication that OWC is considerably higher than published, and also that I take Dr Trice's explanations of 'perched water' at face value, for the simple reason that I don't believe the man's a charlatan who would deliberately try to deceive shareholders and the market. The water cut is indeed minimal, and within the percentages predicted pre-EPS, and if they remain unchanged are not any cause for worry, in my opinion.

As a result of your questions I've gone on yet another (so far fruitless) search for the 7z TVDSS. But have found something different which I think will interest you and a few others, though it'll go over most lay-peoples' heads. (No offence meant, people unfamiliar with thechnical oilfield stuff !)

It's in the tech library on the HUR site. https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/assets/technical-library The most recent addition.

Although first published in 2018, it was revised in July this year, and was only downloaded from the 'Llyell Collection' to HUR on the 6th of this month.

Happy reading! One thing 'new' I did pull from it is that (as I suspected), realtime data is being directly transmitted from the FPSO and fed directly into the Schlumberger / Hurricane 'modelling' programs, for direct model / 'real thing' behaviour comparative purposes.

GF,

"You hit a big fracture at the heel and the rest of the well may as well not exist initially."

Yes. Succinctly put.

Biffa,

"I note that you (Geo101) spent the majority of your time trading and posting on PMO and have done for years."

Thank you for that information, because I personally hadn't researched that. Am I maybe engaging in BB conversation with someone who has an 'agenda'?

Coincidentally, somehow PMO seems to have crept (in references) into quite a few peoples' post here of late. But maybe it's just that: coincidence.

Geo101,

" The question that comes to my mind is - why are they misleading us all with that diagram?"

I don't know. I too spotted the anomalous y-axis header on the CMD slides, meant to write to IR about it and then forgot to do so! Maybe I will now.

However, in my post I didn't say that it was axiomatic that the water coming from 7z was 'perched water' . Simply that it has to be coming from somewhere along the horizontal! And this raises another curious point about those CMD slides. That on page 9 show lanc 6 & 7z shows èz as not being horizontal as such, but slightly inclined downwards. But is this correct? Or instead, is it a way of trying to put a bit of 'perspective' into a 2D graphic, showing that 7z heads in a different direction?

Either way, and given that those slides are very much not to scale, they beg the question of why a scale bar is included. Because if to be believed, the horizontal in 6 just exceeds 2km in length, while we know it doesn't!

So while I don't think the company is trying to deliberately mislead anyone, I do find some of the 'graphic representation' powerpoint slides rather sloppy. And I still haven't found a proper text quote for 7z's TVD...

Simon_Said,

I won't disagree with you. Though I personally feel that 'rushing' a CPR rather than holding off a few weeks for at least a minimum of flow data would be a mistake.

I do however fully agree with you that many people (espcially PI's) put too much emphasis on flow numbers, and often expect too much.

West Newton has sometimes been cited as comparable to Wytch Farm. But somthing mustn't be forgotten. Wytch Farm's peak production of 110,000 bbl/day was only reached 25 years after the discovery! Plus development took place durin 'boom days', in a different economic climate, and when the tree-huggers and nimbys weren't so prevalent as they are now.

Bloobird,

"So why do you think GLA will cost as much as the other 2 put together?"

Because the GLA is bigger, much bigger, if it extends all the way to Halifax.

murray604,

"In the next month or two I'd expect to see an rns saying that technip have been awarded a contract to install a tieback to solan"

Tie back WHAT to Solan? Not Warwick Deep, 'cos that's full of cement and there's no wellhead there any more.

Warwick West?

I doubt that anyone's going to sign any contracts for tying it back anywhere 'in the next month or two', given that it'll be a couple of months before there's even a DST result...

yasirasmi,

"Is it Trice's decision to sell or otherwise? "

In all interviews I've seen with Dr T or AS, they've refused to be pressed on 'possibilities' of buy-outs, takeovers, or selling their acreage licences to someone else. The nearest they've come to that has been postulating a farmout or finding partners.

Plus the only word I've heard used by them in the context is 'monetize' (as in 'monetize the assets'), not 'liquidate', which actually implies selling something to realise cash. 'Monetize' is a very broad-brush buzzword, which just means 'making money' out of something which is considered an asset. Sure, that might be by selling the thing, if it's an asset one owns which has appreciated in value according to current market terms. But maybe it can also mean getting the asset to be profitable rather than a liability, by getting it (such as an oilfield or a gold mine) out of the exploration / appraisal stage and into production.

My opinion (underline 'opinion', please) is that a takeover is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of PI's, if admittedly a rather pleasant thought. But we've got more immediate stuff to think about, such as the result of Warwick West. And WW doesn't really enter into any 'takeover' scenarios, given that half of it is already spoken for by Spirit. So that leaves GLA (and Whirlwind), and I doubt anyone will be even thinking about which drawer their chequebook's in before the EPS findings are released, which won't be for a while yet. And certainly not before WW's been done, which should be within the next 80 days.

murray604,

Crikey, you're almost as pigheaded as I am!

"But I digress, ever connection in a subsea stack if api flanged, you may not see it because its a studded block but its still flanged, and obviously this is terminated with a wellhead connector to match the tree your connecting too"

Yes. Agree. Fact. And yes, the whole subsea BOP stack is put together and tested onshore, and consists of flanged connections.

But you're still missing the point. It's the wellhead connector (an H4 or similar, as Wellwell said) that's the 'closest' to being vaguely comparable to the 'connection' between an FPSO mooring buoy and the turret. But it's only 'comparable' in the sense that one might make a similar comparison with the 'docking' connectors that latch a Soyuz to the Space Lab. Or screwing a lighbulb into its socket. Or sex, come to that.

All completely different things, though.

The discussion evolved from some daft rumour about moving the Aoka Mizu elsewhere. And that's all it is, a daft rumour dreamed up by some keyboard jockey on this or another BB. There may be a grain of truth that other FPSO's are being given some consideration, but (assuming Warwick comes in), it'll be for GWA, almost certainly. 'Cos if a FFD is going to happen, all the signs are it'll be on GWA first, not GLA.

DeniaPi,

" So will the CPR be released before EWT or after? Opinions and thoughts?"

I disagree with grewber, who says " I doubt they will play it that way as it carries the risk of the EWT not producing the desired result. "

My own opinion is that the CPR will have to take into account the EWT, or at least its initial stages until some steady flowrate is established. Doing other than that would mean it was based on incomplete information. A CPR is supposed to be an objective analysis of the well's overall 'performance' and the data gathered from it, and an extrapolation of what that may mean in evaluation terms for the whole field. Going off at half-**** might (rightly in my view) be seen as a lilly-gilding exercise.

That's my opinion anyway. Could be wrong.

Either way I don't anticipate reading a CPR in the next few weeks. Once commissioned, such reports aren't just thrown together overnight. A CPR for another O&G company I hold shares in took about three months before publication.

Having said that, I'm unsure whether that's 'normal' or not, so yet again , could be wrong.

murray604,

Re this BOP thing.

I'm sorry, but Wellwell is correct on this one. A SUBSEA BOP connects to the wellhead with a connector such as the H4. OK, a SURFACE BOP may be a flange connection, but given the Hurricane context of discussions here, let's keep things subsea.

However this particular digression (about BOP connectors) stems from discussion about a different FPSO being able to use the AM's buoy, which is an idea I still rate as being absurd. No halfway intelligent engineer would try such a thing, and no finance dept with the least sense of due diligence and appraising the risk factors would approve such a daft plan.

But a subsea hub connector (or a surface flange) is a mass-produced object. There are thousands (no, millions) around. Manufactured to close (and standardised) tolerances, for sure. But the tolerances are such that there's nevertheless some 'wriggle room' built-in, so that assuming the right procedures are applied, such things will fit together fine, first try.

I maintain that FPSO buoy / turret mooring / loading systems are NOT mass-produced items. They're one-offs.

WWN,

Earlier you wrote:

"I do recognise that articulating this ‘issue’ will not be welcomed by some. "

'This issue' being the WD result, and how it may possibly / eventually affect overall recoverable oil volumes.

Yup, it seems to be a 'touchy' subject.

I don't have answers, either; but I tend to agree with you that a more detailed explanation of WD's non-commercial result and possible implications will be welcome. But it's all very recent stuff, and there's no way the company's going to reveal their conclusions until they're fairly sure of things.

But until such explanations are forthcoming, WD remains a 'niggle' which can't be ignored. Irrespective of the result of the new Warwick West well. Because although not entirely a 'duster', given that an oil column was found, it can still be thought of as a 'dry hole', given that the results led to it being PA'd.

And there's an odd coincidence at work. Not that I'm superstitious, because I believe that being superstitious can bring one bad luck (!). But the company's most notable previous 'dry hole' was Wellington, which people don't like to mention these days. And the WWII Warwick bomber was something of a trouble-ridden failure, and an attempt to improve on the Wellington, which wasn't much better. Whereas the Lincoln was an updated development of the Lancaster, in the early days simply called the Lancaster Mk IV & V, and was a success...

Geo101,

"At what depth did well 7 produce it’s oil from?"

Quoting page 28 of the CPR: "The PLT runs demonstrated that 100% of the flow (under DST: my addition) came from a short 8m interval (1,368-1,376 m MD) near the top of the open hole section."

(Another addition of my own: 'well 7' was only marginally deviated, max 20°, so we might round the MD off to somewhere around 1300m TVD, or 1150m TVDSS.)

"At what depth is 7Z producing its water from?"

It's axiomatic that 7Z is producing its 'perched water' componant from the 'horizontal', and I haven't found an exact TVDSS for that. However it appears to be around 1250m.

"At what depth did 4Z produce it’s water from?"

The water content of 4Z which was only 'traces' (15 bbl/day) was 'considered to be likely drilling brine rather than formation water'. On DST1, conducted 4563 ft (nb FEET!) - 4950 ft MD. DST2 was 4563ft - 5180ft and flowed 2500 bbl/day oil + 500 bbl/day water.

(4563ft = 1390m, 5180ft = 1578m)

"What does the MDT data tell us about the OWC?"

Not very much, in my opinion! Obtaining valid MDT data in FB has proved equivocal and unreliable.

Biffa,

"WD was 40 API and Lincoln 43 API. Therefore they are broadly similar."

Yes, they are broadly similar, but no, the RNS did NOT say that WD was 40 API. It said it was APPROXIMATELY 40. That's important.

Also, you're right, whether the WD sample turns out to be 40, 43 or 38, makes no difference to the Lincoln tie-in.

SIPP,

"The contribution was NOT even vaguely interesting!"

Well sorry, I thought it was. If only as an object lesson as to why one should take 'stock analysts' sayings with a big pinch of salt. At least (amazingly, and naively) the person involved admitted to owning one of the shares mentioned. Most of these outfits proclaim that their spokespeople have no holdings in any of the companies discussed, but we've only got their word for that, and do you believe them?

How very odd.

Five minutes ago there was a post here from some 'share analyst' company promoting their own podcast, which included HUR.

It also provoked a (negative) reaction from a regular poster here.

Now the complete thread has disappeared. Possibly (probably, I suspect) because the thread originator was indulging in outright advertising for his own company, which is against LSE rules, of course.

But it was (vaguely) interesting while it lasted!

feelinlucky,

"obviously get a great look at the cards you're holding......and do you really think they're not earning extra reporting that to someone else? just an observation"

And a wise one! But any halfway decent player 'peeks' at his cards so quickly and in a way nobody behind or beside him (or her) has a chance of seeing them. Though even that can have its downfalls. More than once I've played 6-9 or A-4 (both essentially worthless hands) thinking I was holding 9-9 or a pair of aces. An easy mistake to make.

JS490,

"Based upon what I've seen so far, ...these California properties are looking like 'small potatoes'."

I guess your comment is prompted by today's RNS. And suspect quite a number of people will be disappointed by the production figure stated. But that's the sort of ballpark one should have expected from Munroe Swell.

W.Brentwood is an order of magnitude greater, though.

Also, and to be realistic, there's no reason to expect phenomenal flowrates from W.Newton or Parta, either. The important thing on both of them is volumes in place and longterm deliverability. If you want thousands of barrels a day, invest in Tullow or Hurricane instead.

Longwait,

"With customers (I use the word cautiously) paying the equivalent of 90 euros per minute, I would have thought the masseuses could have afforded to be rather more broad-minded."

90 euros an HOUR!

I worry that living in a freezer is affecting your sense of time, rather like one of John Lilly's 'sensory deprivation tanks'. Or your typing abilities.

SIPP,

"Try again, my Sweepstake choice was for people to give to their OWN charities, x 2"

In that case, there's been a misunderstanding. But I've donated (x2) to the Rev's cause, which appears just as worthy as my own, if not more so, which is for a cave rescue organisation. I've been involved in cave rescue, and ther are times I've felt the only bit of 'rescue kit' we should have taken with us was a .45 revolver.