Member Info for adoubleuk

Wellwell,

"I’d love someone to show me some available information on HUR/FB that has not been paid for by HUR! "

No free lunch.

No doubt such material exists, but locked up in safe places by assorted major investors and people like Spirit. And various majors who may be 'looking at us'.

We won't get to see it.

Though hang on, if you want some non-Hurricane info on FB, try 'Unconventional Petroleum Geology' by Caineng Zou et al, pub Petroleum Industry Press. Mind you, it'll knock you back 120 dollars or so, but well worth it. Or of course you could type 'Fractured Basement Reservoirs' into Google... Cheaper...

Oh bother, hit 'send' prematurely. There must be some keyboard shortcut to send I haven't noticed.

...The temptation to seriously damage my piggy bank and top up some more is great at present, but that would stretch my finances rather dangerously.

(And by the way, although I agree that a 'balanced diverse portfolio' is good financial advice, I'm one of those here who has about 80% riding on this particular horse, but that's my business and the way I want it.)

Then of course, there are people who misuse the term 'de-risk' when what they're trying to say is simply 'banking some profit'. 'Top-slicing'. And there's nothing wrong with that.

edyscot,

"de risk is shorthand for sell at a loss"

I don't think that's entirely true, though it may apply in some cases.

De-risk can also mean selling at somewhat less than one's initial target price, if one has reason to be worried that the target might not be attained.

Or there's another meaning, illustrated by my own actions in mid-late 2016, which was buying more than one was aiming for (I had the cash available back then), and trading the surplus to cover the intial investment one intended to keep. Making things thereafter essentially a 'freeride'. At least one poster here said I was dreaming, and woln't be able to do that, but I did, though it was hard work. What helped back then was the SP being nicely volatile, but very news-related during the drilling campaign, and so I was able to anticipate a lot of moves based on personal technical forecasts (not to be confused with financial TA).

Right now things don't seem to be like that, and we're not drilling, so I'm just sitting on what I have. Though The temptation to seriously d

Thank for the link, Missdosh! I'm beginning to get the impression that EnergyVoice is pretty 'close' to Hurricane!

Btw, thanks to everyone posting links to pics of the AM coming in this morning, and that youtube clip. Missed it all, but I have to sleep sometimes!

persimmon,

"Am I correct in assuming that even if the necessary permits to go ahead with the Wick drill it would take about 2 weeks to get the ENSCO72 rig to the Wick field and spud."

Yes, or at least it's a reasonable ballpark figure. Dependant upon tugs used and weather, the tow should be 7 - 9 days. Positioning, preload and jack-up maybe 1-1/2 days. Then getting all required material on board, rig acceptance, and being ready to drill another 4 days or so.

Sipp,

Tks for the update. We were writing at the same time, and I hadn't looked at the AIS. Now heading (as I write) for Rotterdam at 6.1 kt. Looks like they're Sneakin Sally up the Alley undercover of darkness. So webcam-watching might be futile. Whaaa!

Oh, and while on this topic, before signing off, stuff such as that referred to in those articles underlines why I was somewhat vocal two or three years ago about the way Hurricane was presenting 'Fractured Basement', and the inevitable fact that some people might associate that with 'fraccing', shale oil, and so on. But since then, they seem to have stepped up the emphasis on' NATURALLY Fractured', and that what they drill into has nothing to do with shale.

Though it's quite possible that such confusion still subsists in a lot of peoples' minds, simply because they don't spend the time to read the technical stuff properly.

Mr Toad,

Thanks for the link you sent, as well! It took me two or three attempts to open it, though.

I read the opening paragraphs, and started scratching my chin. But then the author continued with:

"the information Pioneer published above wasn’t all that technical, but it was full of BS. Anytime the industry uses terms like “Version 3.0+ completions” to describe shale wells, this normally means the use of “more technology” equals “more money.” As the shale industry goes from 30 to 60 to 70 stage frack wells, this takes one hell of a lot more pipe, water, sand, fracking chemicals and of course, money."

Which is in essence true, though I'm not sure about the 'more pipe' bit. But that doesn't matter. On thing he left out is that more 'gubbins' is needed, and also more TIME to do the job. And a frac-fleet doesn't come cheap: they've got their own debts to pay.

The important thing though is that using terms like 'Version 3+' frac-jobs is pure BS. But bankers like BS, because they then get the feeling they've got a vague idea about what's happening, when they haven't a clue, really.

Oh, and wrt Escargot's comment "$70 Will be just fine ??" (regarding US shale production). Yes, approximately. For breakeven. But remember, that's WTI, not Brent.

SG2,

An excellent article regarding US 'fraccing finance', and thanks for the link.

(Except for one reference: Alice didn't learn about having to run faster and faster to stay in the same place in Wonderland. It was during her adventures Through the Looking-Glass.)

OK, it's esy to share 'confirmation bias', but a lot of people have been saying the same for quite a while of late. But the USA now has a President who quote 'Loves Debt' unquote, so any nummber of shale producers and associated drilling and service companies are just going with that flow.

It's all rather reminiscent of the ultradeep gas boom around 1980 which led to the collapse of the Penn Square bank and the shockwaves that sent though the entire US finance community. Sure, as a result, major changes were made in US banking regulations, but that didn't prevent 2008, did it? Nor the Enron scandal. The whole edefice is a lot more fragile than many people think, especially as so much of it is handled by 'bots' these days.

Here's some good reading about what happened back then and the ultradeep gas story. 'Funny Money' by Mark Singer, pub Picador. It's probably no longer in print, but worth looking for secondhand. An invaluable (and in many ways entertaining) insight into yankee 'oil think', which is mainly based on 'jam today and the heck if we'll have no bread to spread it on tomorrow'.

Nigwit,

" I correctly foresaw the recent falls in September."

It's against LSE rules to copy/post from the premium board onto here. But I've found the post you made in September. Init you said it was unwise to believe the SP would rise before FOIL, and that it might drop due to II's de-risking. (You also said that CA were doing so, which I find interesting.)

However, we're not yet at FOIL...

Nigwit,

"Furthermore, none of those who have challenged me correctly predicted the share price would be as low as it is "

I must have missed something. Was there a sweepstake about what the SP would be in mid / end November?

Sure, I'm a but unhappy with myself for not having spotted 57p as being a temporary peak, 'cos I would have traded. But I saw no reason to believe it was one, And naturally I wasn't going to sell on the fall!

If you've 'been selling (lastly at 60p)' that must have been last May, 'cos it hasn't been back there since then. And I did the same thing. But bought back in on the low, of course.

Nigwit,

" The board have been criticized for wanting to control the train set before. "

No they haven't. The train set analogy was made by Richard Bernsteain of Crystal Amber in an ill-advised, unprofessional and rather purile press-release to the FT, and was aimed squarely at Dr Trice, the CEO.

Now you seem to be saying the BoD should be criticised for 'running the train set'.

If you don't like the idea of the BoD running the show, who the heck would you like it to be? The laundry-boy on the Aoka Misu?

This latest report we've just read has given the opinion that any upmarket move probably won't happen for a year. In the meantime, Hurricane remains AIM-listed, for which a lot of the codes and governance requirements for FTSE listing do not apply.

No doubt things will evolve in this respect during the next twelvemonth. Plenty of time. Interim discussions and deliberations might be considered confidential, though.

Nigwit,

"“Following the Chairman's appointment, the Company will seek to appoint additional independent non-executive directors, such that the Board becomes compliant with Provision B.1.2. of the Code. Such appointments will be made with input from the new Chairman”

Why has this not happened?"

See Moonlanding's post five minutes before yours.

It strikes me as not impossible that the 'new' Chairman has guided that no further appointments are required in the immediate future after all.

Just my opinion, of course.

I note that the 'Society for the Posing of Rhetorical Questions on the Hurricane BB' seems to have increased its membership over the last few days.

Hip hip hurray! At last, some detail on commissioning and start up sequence!

Boyzee,

"Is it a ' paid for ' research note?"

It strikes me there's a bit of a logical corollary here. That being, the valuation mentioned might be considered as Hurricane 'naming its price'. Interesting...

Wellwell,

"if quoting posts directly is now di rigour"

'De rigueur', please.

JayKay1,

"FFS... Aren't we all trying to make a shilling?"

Yes, I see your 'voice of reason' motive for posting that. But some people want to make pounds or guineas, and might be perfectly prepared to stomp the shilling-people into the ground to do so.

Compared to the Kerogens and CA's of this world, I'm definitely in the shillings category, personally. Or in fact, pennies. But we've all got a share in the same currency (in this case Hurricane shares), no matter what fractions we hold.

Those who do actually have a shareholding and post here of course, which excludes those simply betting on the SP who have no actual 'skin in the game'.

I find the ongoing discussion about the 'big boys' fascinating. Every extra bit of knowledge (or hint of what they might be up to in order to steal our shillings) helps...

PS

I hope CA dumps a whole bunch of their holdings on the market on opening tomorrow to save their CEO's sorry arse.. Even if the SP goes real low as a result. Because they'll be instanly snapped-up.

Wellwell,

"Crystal Amber has been hit just like the wider market - the fact this gives you some sort of perverse satisfaction is odd. "

Wrong phraseology. It gives me IMMENSE satisfaction.

"The quality of mercy..." etc.

But not yet.

Folk his 'activism' and the horse it rode in on. Backfired, hasn't it?

SXX,

"I suspect the answer is that it should make no difference, but also aware that the new code may commit the company to increased shareholder communication/additional guidance, and disclosure of remuneration incentives etc."

I think I agree with your 'suspicion'.

But nothing coincides like coincidence.

Personally (underline personal opinion only) I feel that ongoing operations won't influence corporate 'organisational' issues, nor vice-versa. But given that we're still not a 'producing' oil company, news from one dovetailing with 'administrative' news it might come as a surprise. I don't know.

I'm rather glad to see that the new Chairman retains a low profile. In true Hurricane style, we don't know what's happening in the background...