Member Info for adoubleuk

Wellwell,

"Now Morgan Stanley says that "Hurricane carries high geological risk" and suddenly everyone says they've been aware of this all along!"

No they don't! Or at least, not me. So that's 'everyone minus one', and maybe there are others.

I contend that Morgan Stanley in their attempt to appear unbiased have used a misleading and near-meaningless phrase. 'Geological risk' can only be interpreted as implying that Dr T and friends don't know what sort of rocks they've been drilling through. Which is a patently absurd sort of thought.

But that's only to be expected. People who prepare press-releases for outfits like Morgan Stanley probably wouldn't recognise a bit of Lewisian Gneiss if it fell on their foot. Or at least, wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a chunk of limestone.

But just for the sake of 'balanced debate', I consider their possible future share valuation of 381p equally meaningless and absurd. What hat did they pull that particular rabbit out from? I'd love to see their figures and sums used whereby they calculated such an exact number!

Hey, it's just another broker's note, anyway. To be consumed with the same bucketload of salt as all the others.

The biggest 'risk' involved here is that of having invested one's money in an industrial share listed on the London AIM market. A parlous construct whose continued existance relies on a wing and a prayer, and not much else. And anyone who doesn't understand that would be better advised to go and withdraw all their money from the bank and shove it under their mattress. For what good it'll do them.

I'm unable to attend, unfortunately. But would (probably like others) be very grateful if someone who does go could be kind enough to post a 'write-up' here.

shedful,

I owe you an apology. Because my last two posts were just nit-picking. But somehow I'd missed out on the presentation from some months ago to which you've posted the link. For which a million thanks. I've just watched it start-to-finish.

I might be sounding a bit smartarse by saying this, but most of what Dr T is saying will probably be way over the heads of 90% of contributors to this BB, who are more interested in things like daily share-price movements than tectonic stress-patterns.

But that presentation was Dr T at his best, and I'll sleep easy tonight. As I say, I hadn't seen it before, but he mentioned stuff about which I'd wondered. The SWC log correllated with UBI, for instance. Now we know why Seven seemed to take such a long time before being sidetracked for the 'easy' thing, Seven Zed.

And at last! Contribution of hydrothermal activity to the formation of the entire structure. A couple of billion years ago. I posted about that here a couple of years ago! Now I've got a partial answer...

And I'm particularly intrigued by Dr T saying at one point that the reservoir might still be in the process of being 'recharged' further from the source, which is the Kimmeridge Clay formation. This amounts almost to petrophysical heresy to state in such terms! Or not quite, but they're dangerous words. Because assuming the EPS works, BP, Shell, TOTAL & co are going to have a hard time explaining to their shareholders why they're spending so much money on ultra-deepwater when the same volumes of oil can be found so much cheaper and easier...

shedful,

"From 38 minutes DrT talks about water, make your own mind up on the RISK"

Fook that. Watch the whole thing. And I'll bet that 90% of people contributing to this BB will be lost from five minutes in, having no understanding of the language used.

Makes me laugh, really. Playing the waiting game. But what word appears with increasing frequency? Risk. Risk, risk, risk.

Some people LIKE risk and embrace it.

Don't let the fearmongers grind you down.

shedful,

"However, there has been a suggestion on here that the 'de-bottlenecking' action may be ongoing. That would be an interesting development as it is not scheduled until after the first-phase GWA drilling results, but we know that gas will limit the EPS. So, if the action is being taken now, imo it will all be at Hurricane's expense and they suffer the delay. "

I have it on good authority (though will not quote my sources) that nothing is being done to the FPSO which could be considered an 'add-on' due to the deal with Spirit, and thus additional duties which may be demanded of the vessel in the future.

Furthermore, you refer to a non-existant 'delay'. Everything's still within the 'window' published.

Wellwell,

" if you or others resurrect the notion there is no risk that is.....?"

A few years ago, Shell (or rather some of the fresh out of university people they tend to employ) put forward the notion of 'aim for zero risk in the workplace', with the usual posters plastered in the coffee-shop of oilrigs, and so on. No doubt at huge cost, but that's the sort of madness the 'majors' get up to. And if the shareholders knew about it and all the details, they'd probably petition Shell to get rid of such whizz-kids, put em back on the street selling the Big Issue, and stop wasting money.

I happened to be consulting for Shell at the time, in a remote location in the Gabonese jungle. Or rather, semi-remote, because Addax were also there, about 20km away. Along treacherous 4x4 dirt-roads. And I knew a few people on their site, so when times were quiet would go visit for a coffee and a chinwag. But then they suffered a blowout on their well, which amazingly caused no loss of life, nor the rig. (No, not quite right: a man got killed felling a tree on the relief-well site.) We could hear the escaping water-gas and oil from the damaged well from my site, and it was spectacular, so my coffee-visits became more frequent! Earplugs plus earmuffs, but still loud. Plus the guys there from Boots and Coots were interesting acquaintences to make....

Meanwhile, here was this new 'zero risk' poster appearing in the dining-hall.

We didn't half laugh. Especially when someone a piped up with the question "what about the elephants"? Because there were a lot of them there.

Zero Risk? It simply doesn't exist.

But that's no reason to exagerate it. Plus put on a high-viz jacket and it'll probably annoy an elephant.

Wellwell,

"I can only assume it ('near term catalysts) means that there is nothing on the short term horizon to move the investment case that hasn't happened already. That's just my take on it though. It's not news really and just jargon as you say."

Thanks for your reply, and agreement that the term is probably just broker's jargon! Which I agree with, in fact. You (Wellwell) are notorious here for exagerating potential 'negative points', though I haven't a clue why. But at the same time, Morgan Stanley have to cover their arse as well, and not appear too 'rampish'. And doing so by saying not much will be happening in the next few weeks (barring surprises, of course!).

And (barring such possible surprises!) I think they're right. Or at least., until the boat's in European waters.

I can see that this is going to be another long winter where patience will be the watchword. My sweepstake entries were FoiL SP 88 and FoiL itself March 31st, and as things go on, I feel yet more comfortable with those guesses.

But around those dates I might be able to get back to 'trading' this share, something I haven't done for almost 18 months. But looking forward to it....

wellwell,

"he phrase was "near term catalysts" and the wording was lifted straight from the Morgan Stanley note."

Ah, OK, my mistake. I was dog-tired last night.

Nevertheless, as you chose to use that quotation, it would imply you know what MS were banging on about. So maybe you could explain what a 'near-term catalyst' is, and why I should be worried if Hurricane hasn't found any. I'm not much good at accountant-speak. But it sounds like meaningless jargon to me.

Oh Bother.

I've got back to my hotel, tired and very weary from truck-racing activities under blazing heat in S-W France. And idly logged on here to see what's happening.

Not much, or rather, just the usual stuff.

Plus I'm highly disappointed to see that Wellwell hasn't answered my question about 'high term catalysts', what they may be, and how Hurricane doesn't appear to have found any of them. Nor whether that's a good or a bad thing.

Should I worry and fret about this? Will there be an RNS in the morning from Hurricane apologising for their not having any of these things, causing the SP to plummet? I think not.. Reckon I can go to bed and sleep easy...

Wellwell,

"Hurricane carries high geological risk despite what some say here. This is an opinion shared by many outside this BB. It has no near-term catalysts. "

What an intriguing post. It contains some terms I don't understand. Maybe with your experience as a completions engineer you'd like to expound on them, not just for my benefit but that of other contributors.

First,, 'high geological risk'. Does this mean that somehow Dr Trice and his buddies in Schlumberger who've poured millions into seismic, drilling, collecting cuttings-samples and so on somehow don't know what sort of rocks are down there?

Lancaster just as an example, comprising two production wells both DST tested at greater than 10,000 bbl/day oil with no water-cut ,comprising 1000m horizontal sections which are advertised as having been drilled in fractured Lewisian Gneis, with some dolomitic intrusions and (as might be expected) the occasional crystalline seaming, such as quartz bands.

In geological terms, where is the risk? Have they maybe got it wrong? Are they maybe drilling through sandstone instead? If so I hope they sack the mud-loggers yesterday, and I'm selling tomorrow.

Secondly, "Hurricane (or maybe the geology???) has no high-term catalysts"

What does this mean, please? I mean, I could say "My hovercraft has no ear-wax', which would sound pretty crazy to most people. But the intelligent ones would start asking questions, such as whether hovercraft have ears, and maybe therefore suffer waxy ailments.

So please explain these rather negative-sounding statements for us simple folk, please, otherwise we might get tempted to sell because the drilling never intersected any high-term catalysts. Whatever they might be.

PS "This is an opinion shared by many outside this BB." I don't want to speak for others, but I doubt that anyone contributing to THIS BB gives a monkey's about opionions expressed elsewhere. We've got enough opinions posted here already to be getting on with, thank you very much.

shedful,

"49p"

When? Tomorrow? What a shame. A whole load more stop-losses hit, and spread-bets lost.

Who cares?

More.

"HUR have not managed any of the AM works nor the SURF. Why have a dog and bark yourself. "

Cripes, I've just seen this.

""HUR have not managed any of the AM works nor the SURF."

Balls. They've managed the whole nine yards.

"Why have a dog and bark yourself?"

Quite true. But who owns the dog? Who feeds it? And who gives a big pull on its choke-chain if it seems to be acting out of hand?

You seem to be confusing Management with 'management'. Now I'm dam sure you work (or used to work) for BP, Wellwell!

Management (in the case of a company like Hurricane) equals the BoD. And the method of Good Management (be it oilfield or a pizza-parlour) is to delegate, but to ensure absolute honest reporting back up the line, and immediate response back if something seems wrong. With suggestions as to how to get things back as they should be. Or actual intervention, if required.

Which is what that ancient-history warrents thing was an example of, imho.

shedful,

"Hur are the client and they probably had a few people on the works in the NS and DDD making sure their contractors were doing a proper job."

You stand to be corrected on this, but I can't be bothered to look up the references. Wellwell is correct when he mentions Hurricane being 'small' with its 15 salaried staff (maybe a few more these days). So none of those people are out on docksides wandering around holding clipboards. But equally he's slightly off-target when he refers to 'outsourcing', because that means putting things into other peoples' hands and hoping for the best.

There's such a thing known as 'oversight'. And this is where because of the quality and experience of their BoD, Hurricane is well positiioned.

Furthermore, we are living in 2018, not 1958. By delegating managemental stuff to others implies win-win, and research into Hurricane's documentation (for those unfamiliar with it) shows what this is what they've sought for and achieved all the way down the line so far.

In simple terms, it's obvious they don't 'micro-manage'. Something which some posters on this BB would be excellent at, though!

Or alternatively, more on the oilfield theme,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6VCYDm25UI

Been there, done that! (In my 'formative' days).

Biffa,

"The EPS project is on schedule. FACT."

Post of the day.

Doc,

"One of my biggest problems is I've now run out of alternative words to describe drifting when my wife keeps asking me "how are our Hurricane shares coming along?"
Any other suggestions greatly appreciated!"

May I suggest this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyKLcQq7WeY

I've changed the header because a thread titled 'Re:Hurricane' seems a bit daft to me. Instn't everything here 're Hurricane', except when it goes off topic? And anyway (O/T), 'Performance' is one of my top twenty films of all time...

Wessex,

"I would expect the drift to remain as a feature until we move to the main market. Even FOIL won't stop it, as once FOIL is announced, it will then be some months until any production figures or reservoir performance is published."

There I beg to differ with you. Though it's a matter of my own speculative opinion and nothing else, so maybe worthless.

I agree that 'twixt now and FoiL, there will probably be 'drift' periods like right now. Which are frustrating, but in some ways understandable. Why should SURF completion have really moved the SP? All the RNS told us was that Technips (a reputable company) have done the job they were paid to do. The shorters might have loved it if one of the boats had sunk, of course, but otherwise it's just business as usual, and planned. A 'milestone', sure, but what percentage of investors actually look at or understand the tech stuff?

That might also apply to 'sailaway' and even arrival of the FPSO in European waters. It's not something that's likely to be written-up in the Sunday Times.

But after hookup, I strongly suspect the FOMO' crowd and traders will be getting in with a gamble on their minds. Which should lead to some much-welcomed SP volatility.

And as regards productivity at FoiL, that's (imho) when we may see some real fun!

Of course, Hurricane's IR dept has been very coy about how 'first oil' will be defined and an RNS issued. (Though the 'shipwatchers' may very well get a jump on it!) But when that RNS comes, I find it inconceivable that it won't mention something regarding production figures. Even if it's something along the lines of 'one well opened @ 10,000 bbl / day'. Which is what we're expecting, anyway, to start with.

Which ought to attract more 'fomo'!

SG2,

"Spirit 2018 vs Statoil 2016/7: I guess Equinor (Statoil) intimated their ball-park equated to too much pie for too few bucks, and they didn't make the negotiating table."

You (maybe inadvertantly) raise an interesting point. Or rather, your post intimates that last year there were actually some figures being bandied around by parties who had access to the data-room.

I'm surprised nobody has replied to your post saying "but at the AGM RT (or AS) told me that definitely no offer had been made for farmin" or something like that.

But I've been thinking. And I reckon so long as no FORMAL offer had been made, to the extent of a piece of paper on the boardroom table meriting discussion, a 'no offers yet made' response would be quite justifiable, and not being economical with the truth, neither.

But the SP spike early last year (yet to be matched) must have had a cause, despite the CFO being interviewed and talking about a fundraise and a 'slug of equity' being issued, which is what actually happened. And despite this and other BB's being awash with talk about an imminent farmout or even takeover, which of course is what didn't happen.

Followed during the ensuing months by an odd question at the AGM, the CoB resigning and a whole bunch of unpleasantness on twitter and in the press.

The thing about 'no smoke without fire' is untrue. (If in doubt look up an ancient magic trick you can do at home on google!) But you know how rumours and misunderstandings can start? "Send us three and fourpence, we're going to a dance", that sort of stuff?

And how about that recent upward 'blip', for no obvious reason other than maybe an article in a red-top mentioning BP as a partner?

Rumours generally have some starting-point. My guess was that's what caused the 'spike'. Maybe at the Petroleum Club, or an overheard airport business lounge conversation, or the thirteenth hole at some golf course...

That's what I really really like about the Spirit deal. The way it was kept under wraps and has blindsided everyone, essentially.

Keep up the good work at Lower Easham, guys an' gals!

Mil62,

"Aye,I gave up after a few minutes"

Me too. Reminded me of that 'Doc Holliday' joker. Barely able to string six meaningful words together, let alone put an original slant on an RNS, which is all they're rehashing, anyway. Staring at a blank wall for six minutes would be time better spent than listening to such stuff.

extrader,

"What scenarios for hanging around do you have in mind"

Ok, you asked. This is purely imaginary, of course, might be waay off the mark.

My bet is on the boat travelling under her own steam. But what if I'm wrong? Scenario 1: waiting for a tug. Scenario 2: waiting for the Rotterdam shipyard to have a berth available. Scenario 3: Boat being physically 'ready', but awaiting issuance of assorted certification paperwork before setting out for ocean travel.

Etc.....

All completely fictitious constructs in my mind, of course. But just thought I'd point out that little word 'ready' in the presentations. Might not mean anything, but just in case...