Member Info for adoubleuk

Despite all the banter and entertainment, especially later in the evening, I reckon there's a good way to think of the EPS if you 'believe' in Hurricane, Lancaster, and all the rest. It's the foundation stone. Once that's been laid, you don't go putting up the bay-windows of the conservatory next.

But surely you'd want to buy a new and bigger fridge? To keep the extra stock of beer?

Or rather, removing and taking with you the central heating boiler would have been a better analogy.

If someone offers you a fortune for your house, including all furniture and fittings, do you want to keep the fridge?

Someone else has told you to 'behave yourself' today, and I'm going to repeat it! But for utterly different reasons, which I can think you can guess. ;-) You know perfectly well that if / when EPS 'proves' the whole thing, nobody's going to go faffing about EPS-ing the other fields. Why bother? And anyway, with the lead time to FFD, just leave the AM where she is, like the sturdy old cow in the paddock, providing daily milk, while you go about your business rearing the heard of prime beef- steers which will earn the real money. Stop encouraging them, mate.

Ricfle, "One solution may be better then the other but so what?" Usually finding a solution implies that there's a problem. So please, what's the problem? Why tie in anything other than Lancaster to the FPSO when there's already enough oil in its 'home' field to keep it going for the thing's designed lifetime (six years, maybe ten)? Why complicate things? Don't you LIKE the idea that the company wants to 'deliver an acceptable return on investment' using the EPS as the basis for that?

Ricfle, And a lot of 'shipwatching' takes place in red rosette land, and 'elsewhere'. Don't worry, we've got it covered. On the subject of 'elsewheres', someone (who also posts here) has just made a very pertinent point, and I hope he doesn't mind me repeating it here. That being, the talk about a bigger FPSO is nonsense (like lots of the things chatted about here like tying in Warwick or drilling 6km stepouts). It's simple: if the EPS doesn't perform as expected, we won't need a bigger boat. And if it does, bigger development of the GLA will be sold off or farmed out to a major. So it won't be 'our' problem!

Ricfle, "Firstly Dssp has not criticised Adoubleuk's posts." Probably because nobody has quoted what I've written here over in the land of foolish lemons. Or at least not naming me as author. Nevertheless, this LSE BB is a source of quite a lot of information cited later on other BB's. So I'm sure today's highly entertaining discussions won't have escaped notice. It'll be interesting to see which way the cookie crumbles.

Ricfle, " how far can they drill horizontal?" NOT 6km where they are! That's a long reach even in easy stuff like the Permian shale. However, just having returned after a fun and profitable time online, I would refer everyone to the Header of page 15 in the presentation. It says 'What Comes Next - Wells' And the page shows quite clearly which way the focus is going to be near-term. Lancaster, and amortizing the investment. It has occured to me (during the hourly breaks) that this strategy may not be completely unrelated to the fact that the company should be announcing who will be sitting in the hot seat 'very shortly'. Maybe this evident move towards the production side (even if it's 'only' EPS) is a 'requirement' for whoever the Chairperson may be. Sure, Dr T might love exploration and science-projects, but I bet he's not averse to money, either. Laphroag ain't cheap. This stuff about tying Warwick into the FPSO is utter nonsense. Literally. No sense in it. Why try to run a pipeline that distance with all the expense and worry when you can drill a 'guaranteed' producer close to home, and increase the field's cash generation and overall value at the same time, a lot cheaper? And anyway, Warwick won't be drilled as a producer, it'll be an exploration well. Most probably just like Lincoln, which was a stroke of 'quick an'dirty' well-architecture genius. Essentially 'disposable'. All it has to do is confirm hydrocarbons in place, which can be done through cores and logging. Don't necessarily have to do a DST. Whatever's down there becomes 2C resources, and marked as such in the asset-books. And further drilling can be financed by the EPS! What's wrong with that picture?

Ricfle, "Lets not have any more excuses." No need for them. Having read his post (and quoted parts of it here), I have no intention of engaging directly in debate with him on what now seems to be his preferred BB. For a simple reason. I don't post here (or elsewhere) with the intention of 'debating' anything. Sometimes it turns out that way (very often between you and myself), but instead, more to inform (when I can), learn from others (when I can), or sometimes just to exchange information so we can figure out what's happening. If Dssp has any issue with my comments just posted about his views, he can come here and do so. Other than a very occasional post on ADVFN I don't write on other sites. And the other sites usually come here to find out what's happening, anyway.

pijoe, "that made me LOL...black kettle and all..." Thank you. Personally I rave coherently.

Back again, folks! From the land of the lemony fools. First two paragraphs of dssp's post (the relevent one to discussion here, with comments in parenthesis by Adoubleuk)) "I know I've mentioned this before when I posited a 5-10 mile tie back. I have now got my ruler out again and I reckon you could get to a drill centre on Lincoln fairly close to the top structure with an 8km step out, and to Warwick top structure with a 10km stepout. Depending on exactly how one wished to take the trajectory into each of the structures and which bit you wanted to target of course, as that could complicate things - if you are prepared not to be top structure it could be closer. Lincoln has a well in it already that seems to be a 6.5km tie-back if reused but it may not be in a good enough place (or condition) to reuse, or maybe it is, in which case simples. (Our friend Dssp seems to have overlooked the fact that the Lincoln well was pemanently plugged and abandoned, and thus as a re-entry point no longer exists. Furthermore, he's stretching the distances beyond those stated as the limits for tie-back to the FPSO in the recent RNS. Maybe he knows something Dr Trice does not.) Either way I am pretty sure that's where two of the next appraisal wells will go. They don't need to get flow assurance for all of the well lives, just for a few years. Nor do they need to get them assured for all rates (so for example they could take the view that they don't need flow assurance under only natural lift, just under ESP lift; and would circulate the flowlines to a stable fluid if both ESPs ever failed). Or they could make more pigging or chemical injection provision. Whichever way I highly suspect that will give them the scope to stretch the tie-back distance far enough out to prove up these two in an appraisal campaign in 2019. Plus a re-entry on Halifax. (This is smoke and mirrors, using tech language which many won't understand, but conceptually makes utterly no sense whatsoever. And it's also blindly, factually incorrect. Warwick will NOT be an 'appraisal' well, it will be an Exploration well as the structure has not yet been drilled on. ) I'm afraid Mr Dssp has slipped a notch or two in my estimation, writing such stuff AFTER the latest RNS. And why's he writing on Lemonfool, anyway, consorting with some people who've been chucked off other boards? I thought he used to write on ADVFN. I rest my effin' case, m'luds an' ladies, and anyway I've got better thing to do now. An online poker tournament calls...

Ricfle, "you could post a reply to him on The Lemon Fool pointing out where, you. think he has got it wrong." Just for once you've had a good idea, mate. I was planning to do just that. But I'm not sure I'm registered on that place, usually it's read-only. I don't really want to register with a thing called 'Lemonfool'.

I have returned to my penthouse suite abode, slightly merry from two or three beers at an earlier time than is normal for me, and with slightly hurting chest muscles. From hysterical laughter provoked by some recent posts. In fact the barman at my last stop (who I fortunately know well) was rather bemused by the fact that on arrival I was swearing at my telephone (I finally got it to desist from its predictive text) but shortly afterwards doubled-up in uncontrollable mirth. He asked me what I was looking at, and when I said it was a chatboard about oil company shares in London, he just shook his head and didn't ask for further explanation. Which I would have been hard-pressed to offer. However, before penning an email to Lower Eashing to ask for clarification about this tie-in of wells beyond 6km question (and others, such as whether Dr T sang 'Message in a bottle' and whether Technip offer 'fanny additions' as a perk for buying their Xmas trees), I grasped my printed copy of the recent presentation from beside the computer and turned to page 15. Class, please do so yourselves. Look at the bottom section, 'Well placement considerations'. Bullet points: 1 Maximum stepout from the Aoka Mizu is ~6km (based on current understanding of flowline solution). 2 Wells intended for exploration or appraisal, rather than long-term production testing, could be drilled beyond this range. 3 Future Lancaster development well placement will be optimised by EPS results. (editor's note: ie those that are within the 6km range.) Goddit? Also, nb (editors note), specific mention of Lancaster in point three. Not Warwick, not Lincoln. Now turn to the right of those three bullet points. The 'conclusion', in other words. CERTAIN WELL LOCATIONS MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN OTHERS IN THE NEAR TERM (my capitals). OK. Now look at the top of the page, and the 'conclusion to the first three points. 'Any further appraisal/development cannot risk these objectives'. The third of which (if you're paying attention) is 'Deliver an acceptable return on investment'. ( "Oh for he's a jolly good fellow", etc.) Conclusion to next section: 'EPS drives schedule for further work'. And round it goes... I don't think I'll bother writing to Lower Easham. They've got better things to do with their time than explain a quite explicit and easy-to understand PowerPoint slide to people who think a chain-tong is a Chinese meal.

Pijoe, What a good idea. Use the excess gas to heat the extra few kilometers of flowline. Somehow... I'm sure some bright spark here can figure out how to do it: without contributing to 'global warming', naturally. Alternatively, I've had a nw idea for making money from crude produced during DST's on outlying exploration wells. Cool it down! (Shouldn't be too difficult Wos in the winter.) Then cut it into big waxy iceberg-like chunks and TOW it to the FPSO for processing. The Aoka Mizu's got a couple of cranes, hasn't she? Always wondered what they were for.

Ps My phone has gone mad. Pls excuse bilingual spellcheck nosing in uninvited.

Extrader, I think it all depends if you're reading something more into the text than is actually there. Ex or App wells could be drilled beyond this range... Fine we know that. Do you somehow want to add something implying that there's somthing 'spcial' about such wells which means that the limits of flowline length get magically extended? Suit yourself, but to me such an idea is simply daft.what are they going to do, lay a heated, insulated flowline over that distance, do boulder-clearance and trawl protection jus for a DST on an appraisal well? No, the whole idea is quite absurd. It don't. If you want Fanny additions, what Dr T is Sting is that no well drilles beyoond 6km will be tied back to the boat. Which précieuses tiebacof of Lincoln (excepté maybe à well on the extrême northerrn flank), Warwick, and Halfax. Not sure about Whirlwind, though. It'll bet anyrhing you want on this. Check with Lower Eashing if you want. No, dammit, I'll do so, requesting à reply I can quote. Which I'll post here, assuming I get one.

PS The buoy does not 'wear against the turret' (or at least not significantly). The two are locked rigidly together. The turret does however wear agaist its housing on the FPSO: hence the bearing replacement.

Ricfle, I did not 'pour scorn' on dssp's post. Merely pointed out that it was in contradiction to both the RNS and presentation (both in printed and audio forms). Wrt the turret: the main swivel bearing required replacement. I'm on my second beer: suggest you take another tablet.

Ricfle, Replying using phone so please excuse any typos: today's 'buoyant' posts have driven me to the cafe for an early beer. 1 Nobody (or at least certainly not myself) has said the 'spare' connections will not eventually be used. Two more producers plus possibly a gas injector is quite feasable during the EPS lifetime. 2 The old buoy has most likely been scrapped. 3 See (2). The old one was probably 'worn out' or at least would have cost more to refurb than building a new one. Or something like that. Nb these are personal opinions only, with no 'inside knowledge'.