Member Info for adoubleuk

bartlebobtom,

'Brilliant band'?

I think that's exagerating things a bit. No bunch of Mozarts, even though their concerts were sometimes fun.

Brilliant management, though. Profiled the customer-base exactly.

Margin call tomorrow, maybe?

Oh, by the way, has anyonone looked at the share chart of our favorite major shareholder recently? Heartbreaking, isn't it?

Someone's over-leveraged.

Wellwell,

"They’ll (Bluewater) do everything possible to expedite this I am certain of that."

So why are you suggesting they haven't already done this?

Nigwit,

"If there’s an early weather window (and I’m not sure how anyone knows what the height of the swell will be on 4/12) then I’m with WW in the belief that, within reason, Hurricane should throw as much money as necessary to meet it, especially given the time of year. There’s lots of value in getting in early and killing uncertainty."

Another ridiculous post.

I notice that the 'gang of three' are going great guns, all of a sudden.

What on earth makes you, wellwell, or ricfle think that the Rotterdam stopover hasn't already been 'optimised' in terms of cost-effectiveness and so on? Within the lumpsum Bluewater contract.

You'd think that this were some 19th-century canal-building project, where the more men you could hire, the quicker the cut would get dug.

You're making laughing-stocks of yourselves, gentlemen.

Wellwell,

"Why do you keep on making daft statements. There’s money on the line here. Cost burn v revenue missed. An FPSO against the wall is not good business so if they can get her out to a weather window they will as who knows when the next one will appear."

It's you who's being daft. There is no 'cost burn'. The FPSO is still on Bluewater's payroll, covered by an essentially lumpsum agreement until latched-up WoS.

The company has guided FoiL for H1 2019, though it might possibly be before then. Maybe Q1 has been hinted.

There is no 'lost revenue', and any suggestion of such is (as you perfectly well know) is not the philosophy behind the initial stages of EPS, which is not revenue-driven. Otherwise, and if that were the case, they'd get the boat out there asap and open the wells to max flow immediately. But we know that's not how it'll work.

Once again, why so antsy? Over-leveraged, with Christmas approaching?

Yeah, who knows when the next weather-window will be? Maybe January. Who cares? Other than day to day running costs, having the boat at anchor in Lerwick for a month will be a heck of a sight cheaper than trying to rush things and then getting it wrong, which isn't Hurricanes's modus operandum anyway.

And it's all on Bluewater's tab, anyway.

Wellwell,

"Why would you not try and make a weather window if it can be achieved? Double shifts, expedite, make it happen. I thought you’d know that."

Now you're being silly. Everything's on schedule already. The 'workscope' will already have been planned months in advance. Financially everything's covered. What's the point in trying to 'hurry things up'?

Why are you getting antsy? Everything's fine.

Woops! ....'Stiff', not 'Stiffs'!

Hawkspear,

An interesting post, and enjoyable to read. I've stayed away from this TOTALLY O/T topic about The Staranglers, but can't help joining in now!

I remember seeing them at the Camden Roundhouse supporting Patti Smith for he first UK tour. (1976?) They also popped up here and there as part of an 'immediately post-punk' thing which gave a platform to all sorts of amazing bands and people, some of them subsequently earning worldwide fame.

Heady times. 'No more Heroes'? If Hurricane Energy were a rock band they'd have been recorded at Rockfield on the Stiffs record label.

fitguy,

Your post is assuming a topsy-turvy sort of planning. The weather-window will not dictate the work to be done. Instead do the stuff necessary on the boat, then wait on Mother Nature to have done HER work, and give us the green light.

Ridfle,

"Who had heard to the GPS works?"

By this I'm assuming you're referring to the 'final testing and certification of the dynamic positioning system'.

I see no way that this can be considered 'additional' work. The positioning system has of course to get through final testing and certification before the FPSO assumes its duties in the field.

I have a rudimentary knowledge of how DP functions. And can thus understand why the final testing and certification has been left until now, rather than done in Dubai. That being, the DP will have been 'locked on' to the same geostationary satellites in orbit over Northern Europe from which it will be receiving its positioning signals during the FPSO's working life WoS. And thus accuracy can be checked very closely. And no doubt the spot where she's been anchored the last couple of days will be known in positioning terms to within a few metres by the people doing the certification, and checked with their own instruments as a datum point.

This is in no way some sort of extra thing tagged onto the 'workscope' by Bluewater / Hurricane.

Disclaimer: (espicially in reference to comments made by you in a recent post). No, I am not a 'surveyor'. But have seen (and been actively involved with) rig positioning both offshore and on, and no doubt using the same equipment as will have been used to check the FPSO's DP. Though of course on the AM there will have been additional tests to see how well the DP's hardware reacts to minor position changes, via her thrusters.

Rodney,

"I seem to remember discussion of this months ago"

And yet more recently.

I had a 'semi-firm' idea of driving up there, but given timings and other commitments which have come up, have decided not to. Because much as I like driving, 4000 kilometers in a week sounds like rather a lot, given the mischief and late nights Rotterdam might involve and the (certain) mischief and late nights I'll be up to down by the Spanish border.

So I'll leave it for sensible people and just watch the webcams when I can!

'Arbitrader' mentioned he might go there a couple of weeks ago.

Of course, due to the costs, the boat won't hang around in Rotterdam for a day longer than necessary, so then it'll be All Points North. Wich means Lerwick if the weather's too sour for latch-up. So there's another opportunity, possibly just as accessible to people from Great Britain, especially the Scottish part of it.

Mind you, anyone who voluntarily travels to Lerwick at the start of winter without being paid to do so is either plumb off their rocker or is determined to win the 'Dedicated Shipwatcher of the Year' award!

boyzee, genghis is cprrect. xmas, new year, whatever, business as usual.

This is a real long-shot!

https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/united-kingdom/england/deal/deal.html

The weather will have to be really good and she'll be right on the horizon if visible at all...

Lady S,

"The question mark we're all waiting on is partly due to any gaps in "correlation" between 3d models and 205/21a-6 and 205/21a-7Z"

Dunno about that being THE question mark. But it's part of the 'data gathering' which will be interesting to her about. But I doubt that'll happen for at least six months post-FoiL. Unless at the AGM, which will almost certainly (imho) be heavily biased towards EPS results.

PS I've never met an oilperson calling themselves 'Lady' before! But use of the phrase 'waiting on' (rather than 'waiting for') is a giveaway...

SG2,

" the 'fidelity' of the model of course depends somewhat on the data used to build it, which comes from 3-D seismic,...etc."

Ignoring Ricfle's utterly predictable and tediously smartarse response, I'm afraid both you and Camdenlad have misunderstood the thrust of my post on this subject, which was specifically about 'ullage margins' and tanker offloads. And I'll repaet, within the context I believe RPS is making unsound assumptions about, and creating problems where they probably won't exist. Within at least the first few months of EPS, shuttle tankers will almost certainly be arriving on a callout basis, taking into account actual production rates, those anticipated, and above all the weather. Such callouts will be based on decisions people take at the time. And those people won't be so stupid as to leave it so much until the last moment that they risk having to shut in production 'cos the tanks are full.

Of course, there is an optimal 'package size' for offload, which is based on economics. Offloading an earlier, smaller 'package' is obviously less cost effective. But it may have to be done from time to time.

I've had other comments on this from someone who actually works on FPSO's. Reminding me that yes, of course, offload can lead to downtime, but this is nearly always due to unforeseen equipment breakdown, and suchlike. Not because somebody has miscalculated (taking all factors into account) when the operation should be done.

At no point in my post was I casting doubt on Hurricane's 'modelling' of reservoir characteristics, predicted flowrates, etc..

SG2,

" the 'fidelity' of the model of course depends somewhat on the data used to build it, which comes from 3-D seismic,...etc."

Ignoring Ricfle's utterly predictable and tediously smartarse response, I'm afraid both you and Camdenlad have misunderstood the thrust of my post on this subject, which was specifically about 'ullage margins' and tanker offloads. And I'll repaet, within the context I believe RPS is making unsound assumptions about, and creating problems where they probably won't exist. Within at least the first few months of EPS, shuttle tankers will almost certainly be arriving on a callout basis, taking into account actual production rates, those anticipated, and above all the weather. Such callouts will be based on decisions people take at the time. And those people won't be so stupid as to leave it so much until the last moment that they risk having to shut in production 'cos the tanks are full.

Of course, there is an optimal 'package size' for offload, which is based on economics. Offloading an e

SXX,

"Anyone able to comment on 'Ullage' ? "

Yes, but this should be taken as opinion, nothing definitive.

Also within the specific context you are referring to regarding offload. And the RPS remark " RPS believes that the two days of ullage could be tight".

Without having checked via google or wrongopedia (honest), I seem to recall that the word 'ullage' is an old term derived from breweries and beer-making, relating to excess space in a barrel. Wooden barrels were made by hand, and so their volume might not be exact, so tended to be made slightly bigger than the volume of liquid they were supposed to contain. But of course beer would spoil if the barrel wasn't completely full and contained some air. So that excess amount of beer (directly proportional to the extra size of the barrel) would be referred to by publicans as 'the ullage'.

But here, it refers to remaining space in the FPSO's tanks between offloads. Because if bad weather hits and the offload becomes delayed, production might have to be slowed or even stopped once the tanks become filled to the brim, obviously.

Once again, I think this is an example of RPS being extremely cautious and conservative in their advice, and is also taking a theoretical 'assumed value' delivered to them for data purposes by HUR as being the way things will actually be done. Which won't necessarily be the case.

Because the tankers won't be working to a fixed timetable like a train. They'll be dispatched (especially to start with) on an almost ad-hoc basis, relating to production volumes, and various other things. Including anticipated weather conditions and possible weather-related downtime if the timing is wrong.

So to put it another way, I reckon that if prolonged bad weather is forecast which might prevent an offload, the people responsible might call for an earlier offload at lesser volume, to ensure that the ullage space doesn't get used up and production has to be stopped.

RPS are mistaking the map for the territory here in my opinion. A mathematical model is not the actual way the thing works.

There are other contributors here who know a lot more about FPSO's and production-related stuff like offloads than I do. It's not my zone of proper expertise. But I suspect that further input from them will confirm my suspicion that it's very rare for production to be stopped because the tanks are full and the shuttle's delayed by weather.

I don't believe it's an issue to worry about.

Wessex,

Why didn't I think of that?

(At least I did cover my tracks by saying there were other possibilities, though!)

SXX,

""FPSO arrival and buoy pull in, which can be carried out autonomously by the Aoka Mizu"

Anyone able to elaborate on "autonomously" ?"

Nobody's replied, which I find strange, so I will.

The boat's equipped with a winch (a big one!) whose cable runs down the centre of the turret, is attached to the buoy, which is then 'sucked up' into the turret and latched.

EnergyVoice says this can be done 'autonomously', which means by definition the AM doesn't require 'outside assistance' to perform the operation. Such as a dive-boat alongside.

OK, it raises all sorts of little detail technical questions in my head! 'Cos I don't know the boat (other than published stuff) and haven't seen the kit. But can figure out one or two ways (there might be others) the actual hookup of the winch to the buoy can be done without 'outside help', and that's the crucial bit. Remember, the buoy's just 'hovering' 20m below surface. 66 feet. Not far. So all that's needed is a camera to see what's happening, maybe mounted on a small ROV piloted from the locking deck within the turret. Because come to think of it, an actual shackle to attack to the buoy's lifting-ring (or bar, or whatever, I'll have to look at the photos again) might not be required. Maybe just a lockable hook on the end of the winch cable.

All fairly 'easy' stuff, really.

Except for the people actually hands-on with the work, but they're oilmen, not burger-slappers, and are probably looking forward to doing the job!