Member Info for adoubleuk

Wellwell, "I noted someone on Lemonfool saying that as long as DrT isn't hit by a train in the next 9 months every should be rosy or words to that affect. I see no downside risk even if he left tomorrow. DrT might have been the driving force but there's sufficient knowledge been gleaned by 'others' to pick up the baton" I think that gains the first prize for 'in worst taste posting' seen her for a long time! Though it's true that Antonio Gaudi was run down by a tram. His edifice the Sagrada Familia will soon be finished at last, and what a thing it is. I don't know which poster on Lemonfool you're referring to, but I can guess. I look at lots of BB's, but only post here. However, your post piqued my interest, and notice that 'dspp' is now touting his wares over on Lemonfool as well, instead of keeping to advfn. As for " DrT might have been the driving force ", I would like to remind you that he is still the company CEO, and is very likely to remain so until he maybe takes a voluntary 'sideways move' to a different position sometime after FOIL. Despite all attempts by a 'major shareholder' (aka bigtime trader) to try to convince people that he knows better... Same old, same old...

Wellwell, I was about to reply to SotB (over a much-deserved aperitif after a long drive), but didn't know how to phrase it. But your post brings up something which remains in the back of my mind all the time. " they and a few others have 75% but HUR could, on their own, own 25% of all the remaining recoverable oil" Though I don't quite agree with the ' remaining recoverable oil' bit, for let's face it, the old idea of 'peak oil' has already been recognised as the nonsense it was. 'Peak Oil' was based on the knowledge and technology existing at the time: old, 'conventional' stuff. But time rolls on. 'Fracking', 3D seismic, long-reach drilling abilities, etc., put that idea in its grave. There are lot of people who will be horrified to see that Hurricane's EPS works! It's shallow water, UK waters, involves no 'special' technology, with absolutely the 'best' fractured basement geology on the planet. Utter dynamite, in other words. And it will put a LOT of peoples' noses out of joint WHEN it succeeds. Why spend billions on ultra-risky deepwater stuff in politically dodgy places when you can do it cheaply off the Atlantic shelf where there's nobody around to picket the roads or shoot your personnel? I think that's why Dr T frequently smiles. Of course, the idea of 'unlimited oil' is dangerous, because then the POO drops down to nothing, or about 20 dollars. But of course, that's what KSA might like, really. Balancing act, really.

Funny things, these BB's. I read the excerpt from the Mail article posted by ReachForTheSky a few hours ago, and this little phrase stuck out like a sore thumb: "Even with the recent uptick, Hurricane�s rating is �far lower than any peers� according to Cantor " It reminded me of something a different poster who Counts on Luck (he'd be a loser at poker) wrote a couple of days ago and caused a bit of a fight at the wedding party. "Hurricane Energy is desperately underperforming its peers". Hmm. Hmmm. Hmmmm again. Has someone doing a classroom test been looking over the shoulder of the pupil at the desk in front? But deliberately ommitting to copy the second part (" the broker expects this discount to be unwound as project milestones are reached") of the phrase here? This stinks of a certain media pundit who goes under the media name of Doc Holiday. I wonder if he and 'Luck Counts' might be related? (Remember, the original 'Doc' Holiday was a Wild West figure notorious for the part he played in the 'shootout at the OK Corral', and a cardsharp know throughout many states, though he masqueraded as a travelling dentist. 'Luchk Counts' is just the sort of thing a cardsharp of those times might say when he'd just dealt himself four aces and the joker. He (the original 'Doc') died at an early age of syphyllis, or cyrrhosis of the liver, or both, if the stories are correct. Nothing coincides like coincidence... PS Just before hitting the send button, I've suddenly realised this. I'm sending a post about the Wild West, but mentioning a poster called 'ReachForTheSky' ! How weirder can that get? As I said, these BB's are odd things.

Missdosh, To quote Jacdaniels, "Superb Daily Mail article, thanks for posting." I echo that. (Just home with another 400-mile drive under my belt: couldn't open the link on my phone and wasn't going to take time attempting to do so, 'cos when I'm rolling I keep fuel and other stops as brief as possible.) Not sure about Jacdaniels' use of the word 'superb' is entirely correct. Because why oh why did they put that photo of one of the Heerema crane brages and a platform at the top? Some people (nitpickers like me) might say it's a bit misleading and nothing to do with Hurricane. But it's great to see such a lengthy (and mostly correct) article in a rag like the Mail. Giving Hurricane good 'racing form'. I still find it amazing that when mentioning Hurricane for the first time to occasional oilfield people I bump into, the percentage who've never heard of the company. This is better publicity than a dozen mentions by Malcy!

SotB, " Do you think they will come clean at the AGM on next years drills?" That crossed my mind as well. It would be a very worthwhile question for someone attending the AGM to put forward, in my mind. It's public knowledge the company has taken options on the rig, so no reason for shareholders being told what those 'optional projects' my be, to my mind. Surely they not going to use the PBLJ in the winter West of Shetland ?" I hope not. She was supposed to go to Invergordon last winter, but got diverted. And she can't stay out at sea indefinitely. 'Cept try telling that to BP! They'll run equipment 'till it drops. Or whatever. But the winter 2018 no longer seems to be within a Hurricane 'window' (as regards the rig), so it shouldn't be our problem... PS. Amused by your differentiation of 'ale' and 'Tennants'. What I should have written was a pint of 'beer'. Tennants is something with which I am familiar, and should fit into the generic term 'beer'. Though sometimes one wonders if that's entirely true...

Sotb, "3 month well must be Warwick ok that�s a drill and a 2 month well has to be a return to Halifax for the DST" Want to take a little wager on that? To the tune of a pint of ale, or something like that? WTF would the company have in mind wasting 3 months over a well on Warwick for? When a 'quick an' dirty' thing like Lincoln would suffice? It's going to be classified as 'exploration', remember, with all the regulmentary mud densities that requires, and twice bitten (4z & Halifax), four times shy. I don't think Hurricane's going to bother DST-ing (or trying to) an exploration well again. So I reckon the three month thing will either be a further producer on Lancaster, though that seems a bit too soon, or getting serious with Lincoln. Maybe the 2 month slot for Warwick. And Halifax? Hmmm. Maybe won't be TO that gets used. Dunno.But that puppy is 35 km distant from where the real action's at, and nothing's going to change that. So maybe it can wait, even if writing that seems to be a turnaround from some of my earlier posts.

Hecate, A ver poetic post! However, when you bring up the possibility of some catastrophic 'fumble factor' such as the potential for large consolidated unfractured areas of granite existing unsuspected within the Lancaster stucture, I think the cution you're expressing in that regard is flawed, very heavily against the odds, and flies in the face of logical thinking. Why? OK, I'll explain. You seem to know what your talking about in general oilfield terms. And you're quite correct in saying (I paraphrase) that if modelled to scale with the entire structure, the two existant 'producers' are approximately the diameter of a boar's whiskers, and no longer than the same animal's tail. (In fact that's a neat analogy, now I come to think of it: Imagine the entire structure being the rest of the boar!) But they haven't been some 'lucky find'. The well trajectories (Six in particular) were planned to traverse a 'representative slice' of the upper reservoir. (Seven Zed's though was planned partly due to its relationship with Six, and with the EPS in mind, to measure interactions between the two wells.) But whatever, their trajectories were based on interpretation of seismic data, and 'mapping' of the fault / fracture / fissure network as a whole. Over the whole structure (and before Halifax even came into the picture. And such interpretation and mapping is still being fine-tuned, as the company has told us. Also the company has been good enough to share with investors some of the 'seismic mapping', not just through simplified graphics in their own presentations, but also via the CPRs, which go into details which I'll readily admit start getting into technical detail which goes over my head, as well. I'm not a geophysicist. And the thing is, no big 'blank spots' show up. If they did, and nobody spotted them, between Dr T, Schlumberger, and RPS, I'd be more than a bit surprised. And I don't believe any of those three are in the habit of throwing a veil over things they don't want to be seen There are enough AIM-listed O&G companies around who do that already, and of course Schlumberger isn't AIM-listed. (Oh yeah, on the subject, I see from that 'shipwatchers tool' the Kingfisher bulletin that the Bentley wells are currently being permanently abandoned.) Call it confirmation bias if you want. But a 15,000 bbl/day light oil with no water-cut DST speaks (or rather shouts) to me in a very loud voice...

OK, this thing about the 'turret plate' . It's all a tiny detail, but it's got some nice 'tech discussion' here, so I've decided to pursue it a wee bit more, 'cos it's been niggling me slightly, during a 400 mile drive. And on 400 mile drives one has plenty of time to ponder niggling thoughts. Also, I've driven the 400 miles to a 'tech' thing, which I'm journalistically covering for a magazine. Utterly daft, and not my usual thing, but why not? I'm getting paid to do it. If anyone's interested, check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg9DQBy0Ugg It's now the weekend, so O/T is OK here, usually! So this evening in my hotel room, I've gone to the company website, and checked page 2 of the EPS gallery with the picture of the 'plate' prior to fitting. See those 12 roughly-welded 'uprights'? Then I looked at the 'overhead view' on page 1 of the buoy 'dry fit test' in Dubai. How many hydraulic 'locks' are there? Twelve. And yes, the 'plate' has a 'chamfered edge', same as the top of the buoy. So no guesses as to how it's secured within the FPSO! But the buoy's 'locking ring' (to which the 'plate' very roughly corresponds) and the 'locking deck' is a shade above the FPSO's waterline when loaded. And when she's in transit, her draft isn't anywhere near as deep as her 'working waterline'. Which means that the plate isn't flush with the bottom of the hull (obvious when you look at the diameter of the thing compared with that of the actual buoy). Which means that the boat when sailing still has a 'hole in the bottom'! So possibly all of us who've been involved in this nautical correspondence have been wrong, but at times partially right. Or just completely off the mark! Maybe the Suez Canal authorities insist that all ships with 'moonpools' blank them off so they can't be used for covert mine-laying, or something like that. I don't know. And it's too late to start checking on that particular wild goose chase, 'cos I've got some equally daft stuff to go and watch in the morning...

wellwell, "It�s kind of redundant in relation to buoyancy if the water pressure is equal on both sides!" Precisely! Sorry, I was writing on my phone so normal typos happened. And having lunch at a motorway service area as well. Now at destination (400 miles from home) and have realised others were saying the same thing. Apologies about that. The only thing a phone is really good for is talking with people at a distance...

Replying using my phone, pls excuse typos! The only way the plate may have an effect on bouyancy is if it's fitted with a cpletely watertight deal. I doubt this is the case.

mrJimV, "This HUR has more spies than MI5 what with SIPP with the photo`s and shipwatch giving updates ." You'd better believe it! The CFO may have referred to the shipwatchers as 'lunatics' during a presentation given in London during December 2016, and raised a laugh from that, but we're Serious Lunatics, so took his comment with good humour. Glad to have our existance acknowledged, in fact. Plus over the upcoming months, 'shipwatching' is going to become more interesting than ever. And 'our' numbers seem to be increasing rapidly! I won't divulge my sources, but today I've seen two separate photos of PBLJ anchors on the deck of AHTS vessels which are now out pulling the things on Shaw. And more lately today, a couple of photos of the Normand Installer going about its work in the field. Again, no names, no packdrill! Hopefully in a month's time or thereabouts, we'll have a picture of a flare resulting from 'well cleanup', 'cos I'm 99% convinced it'll be done while the rig's doing the recompletions. Hopefully 'we' (and I UNDERLINE, I'm personally just one 'shipwatcher amongst many) will beat the RNS service to it once again! Some things are just too big to hide.

Dicky H, "I think you misunderstood my comment re the plate. " With the greatest of respect, no I didn't. The thing being, the 'hole' doesn't 'communicate' except via various very tightly-sealed means with the rest of the parts of the hull which keep the boat buoyant. This is where 'HangininThere's' comment is completely wrong. Think of the turret as being yourself, happily floating around in an inflated inner-tube on a river, or something like that. When you get out, the tube doesn't sink, does it? It's all a question of topological geometry. The hole isn't part of the donut. Float the donut in a cup of coffee and put a pingpong ball into the hole (an absurd idea, I know), the ball isn't part of the donut, still. And neither does it contribute to its buoyancy.

Though I do like this bit: " These operations will start with the installation of an FPSO mooring system, with activities involving the wet storage of mooring equipment, the installation of mooring piles" Except in regard to the latter, it's already started! Seems like the 'shipwatchers' here are quicker on the draw than anyone else...

Wessex, Oh bother! I looked at Kingfisher this morning, but it didn't yet have an update of the May 3rd bulletin. Seems like you caught the 'scoop'!

Andhere.) I've just received another photo from the same source! A picture of a PBLJ anchor on the deck of the Magne Viking! (The anchors have 'PBLJ' roughly written on them in spray-paint, so there's no mistake.)

""Re the plate atached at Rotterdam. " Though thinking further, part of Wellwell's wanswer seems correct as well. Regarding 'streamlining' the underside of the hull. Going through the (shallow) canal, having the turret opening open would produce turbulance and drag, which in turn would tend to stir up the canal bed more, which no doubt is something to be avoided. I don't however think it has anything to do with avoiding getting water up to the decks: don't see how that could happen with the turret itself in place. And drillships and dive-boats don't put plates on the bottom of their moonpools when moving, do they?

Dicky H, Wellwell, "Re the plate atached at Rotterdam. " I'm sure I read (or heard) a different interpretation of this, either in an RNS, an interview, or a presentation. The turret protection plate was rapidly fabricated and fitted in Rotterdam as a necessity for travelling through the Suez Canal. The canal is very shallow in places, so my understanding of that statement was that the plate would ensure that silt and crud generated by the vessel's passage wouldn't get thrown up into the turret moonpool, which contains a lot of moving parts, of course. Moving parts don't like getting covered in silt! The ship didn't sink when being towed to Gdansk, did she? Nor on the leg between Gdansk and Rotterdam, where the plate was fitted.

In fact I've just been sent a photograph by PM of one of the PBLJ's anchors on the deck of the Njord Viking! Thanks, you-know-who! (*_*)

The anchor-handlers have arrived and are at work for the PBLJ at Shaw. The rig's still down at drilling draft, and probably a good 24 hours before she starts moving. Interesting to see that her AIS is showing destination a 'NA OLM' which is 'unrecognised' by marinetraffic, so for now it's not possible to say whether she'll head directly for Lancaster or maybe stop off somewhere en route.

Slugworth, "To say that the SP performance absolutely is or absolutely isnt related to the PoO is, quite frankly, daft." At long last! An opinion on this perrenial subject I find I can agree with. It seems perfectly obvious that the Hurricane SP cannot relate to POO in the same way as that of a producing company whose profits are directly related to the sale price of the product marketed. But at the same time, the POO itself is a reflection of global market sentiment, especially in the futures market. And that's affected by any number of things, not simply daily production capacity, but exploration discovery rates, geopolitics, financial news, and so on. They're interlinked. My own belief is that this is why sometimes IT MAY SEEM as though HUR's SP correllates to POO. But to explain that, one should also be asking why the POO itself is changing in the way it does. The oil industry has over the last four years or so suffered possibly its biggest 'crisis' ever. The 'upturn' is slowly starting, but everyone has realised that it's all quite a fragile edifice. Currently M-E tensions (again) are partially driving POO higher. But at the same time, the fact that OPEC is generally sticking to its promises of limiting production. Plus even if the price rocketed overnight to $100 / bbl, the US shale sector couldn't suddenly re-emerge in a 'boom' such as was seen ten years ago. Too many people are still licking their wounds and struggling to pay off debt for that to occur. And also let's not forget that lame duck Venezuala. The oil's there, all right, but at the rate they're going the country's soon going to be unable to afford continuing getting the stuff out of the ground. It costs money to keep an oilwell in production. Plus (little known fact), Angola's hitting trouble in production terms right now. Hurricane's SP only goes up when people want to buy the shares! QED. And some of the reasons are probably the same as why the oil futures traders gamble on being to sell the oil in six months' time (for instance) at a profit on what they're paying for it now. And finally, Hurricane's SP, same as the POO, don't exist in a vacuum. They're not autonomous robot-like entities. Somewhere down the line they're dictated by decisions made by people, even if some of those people are just setting the controls on trading algorithms. It's almost superfluous to mention some of the aces HUR holds. Potentially ginormous resources, (the surface of which has just been scratched so far), in UK (politically stable-ish) waters, three years of exploration discovery going into stagnation worldwide, and so on. But these are some of the same things driving POO.