Member Info for adoubleuk

pijoe, "hope you playing nicely in the playground before poker" No, I was at the barber's. And if it interests you, this evening I drove the extra distance down to Royan this evening, where the game starts earlier, so I'd been at the table for an hour and three quarters when you posted that. Then left (nicely in profit) at 23:30 (local), went to Chatelaillon and finished the session there (similar profitable result) before driving the final 50 miles home. I note your posts about putting excess heat from the GT's to possible use for dewaxing our terrible 37 degree API Lancaster crude. Couldn't excess produced gas from the reservoir somehow be put to a similar use? If you don't have a ready answer to this I can think of one regular poster here who might be able to find one. ;-))

IJWT, "The revenue could provide a cushion for a Senior facility to fund LinWick EPS' etc.... If Linwick (and come to that, Halifax,) are so analagous to Lancaster as the company seems to believe (and that could be easily ascertained once DST's have been performed on them), I can see absolutely no reason why the company would faff around going through the EPS rigmarole again. Straight to FFD, instead.

IJWT, " I think the reference to the range of the FPSO for a new well is not accidental in the recent update." Definitely not accidental. In fact I found it very significant when taken in the context of other things mentioned, such as re- entry of Halifax, further drilling on Lincoln, etc.. It's the first time I can recall the company giving out so much information on such subjects. Though they've been the subject of much speculative discussion here. Generally ther appeared to be a slight 'consensus' that the two further options for the rig next year would most likely be a re-entry of Halifax and an exploration well on Warwick. But now in the light of the RNS I'm not so sure. Warwick, maybe, just to get it properly 'on the books'. But I get the impression the company's considering a third production well on Lancaster, which would make a lot of sense. It would add a redundancy factor into the EPS which doesn't exist with just 6&7. And would add further robustness to the proof of the viability of Fractured Basement. Plus come to think of it, unless I'm much mistaken, 4z was left 'suspended', not plugged and abandoned. So a re-entry and further sidetrack to horizontal would be quite feasable, cheaper than a new hole, and within easy distance of the FPSO. Hmm. Interesting...

haggis_trap, "some joined up thinking, or a take over, is required for full field development of this size." Yes, absolutely. However it mustn't be forgotten that 'collaboration' is the name of the game these days so far as WoS is concerned. Just think of 'BP's Quad 204'. Sure, BP has the lease on the blocks and is the operator, but Shell has a huge stake in it as well. For this reason, I think it's quite possible that a takeover as such may never happen. Instead I could see a huge buy-into the assets by a major (or more than one, say 97%, with them acting as FFD 'developer' and Operator. And also something tells me that Dr Trice may not actually want to give up Hurricane as an entity in itself. As someone once said, it's his 'train set'. I once made quite a lot of money from holding shares in a company which became the subject of a takeover 'bidding war', and wouldn't mind doing so again. But it might not end up being as simple as that. Just a thought...

Nen2319, Yes, I sold within 24 hours of trading coming out of suspension, the bought back in here as soon as 'imminent spud' was announced. And am now wondering if that was such a good idea, once again. Spud was not 'imminent' after all, We've essentially been told by the CEO via RNS that there will be no interim drilling updates, and the SP is not behaving in the way one might 'normally' expect, as 'phnom', another poster here, has also noted. I also now find bringing forward the date of the AGM very peculiar indeed.

Ricfle, "To summarise your reply, you have no answer." Yes I do. And it is "why not, if circumstances dictate that I do so?" (Dammit, I should have been a politician.) Now go back and read your own question.

Ricfle, "The last time there was a discussion on flow rate you stated that you could not run one well on its own as it would be analogise to a twin engine boat running only one engine." No I did not. Go back to that post (which I remember writing) and read it properly, and in context. Also look for others I wrote on the same subject. You will find that I have ALWAYS said that startup will be performed one well at a time, just as Dr T has confirmed. Furthermore (this is new) I suspect (opinion only) that there will be swaps from one ESP to another, to check that control settings for one correspond to similar outputs when switched to another. And furthermore, what I wrote back then had absolutely nothing to do with your rediculous idea today that startup would be done beginning with natural flow, so you're just being evasinve. Which won't work. I've just now received an SMS from someone watching this BB who says he's p*ssing himself laughing watching you and I going at each other like 'kids in a playground'. Which although slightly hurtful, is understandable. So I'm going to desist for now and go and wash the ducks instead (aka go to the caf� for a beer, despite the early hour.)

Ricfle, " why would you let a few days work prevent the start of all these works?" It's not a question of 'preventing'. I don't know what consruction vessel has been earmarked for pile / surf installation. I'm sure one (or a choice of a few) HAS been earmarked. But these things don't grow on trees, you know. Maybe the boat isn't yet available. Maybe they're dickering ofver charter cost. I haven't a clue. But the 'weather window' has only just opened. The play only starts when the curtain goes up, not when all the audience is seated. And the decision to raise the curtain is not made by the audience, or in this case the shareholders. In fact a bit of suspense beforehand sometimes makes the show even more enjoyable. Sit back, leaf through the programme, get comfortable, and make sure yer mobile phone's ringer is switched off. It'll all happen in good time. Stop fidgeting.

Ricfle, "Unfortunately, people just wish to shout down any potential problems" I wonder who you might be referring to? As it happens, I completely agree with Wellwell's phrase which you quoted. It's pure Voltaire (I paraphrase) "I might not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to do so". HOWEVER, when people (not Wellwell in particular) raise 'problems' which are based on technical non-facts (or untruths), they deserve such misinformational views to be shouted down with extreme prejudice, unless they are presented as purely speculative opinion.

JoeSoap, "The gas issue was raised by Edison in their November analysis, suggesting drilling an injection well in 2022." Forgive me for splitting hairs, but Edison did not 'suggest' this: they simply mentioned it as a possible pathway to resolve the gas-flaring issue, IF it becomes an 'issue'. I suspect some non-technicnical people on this BB might be starting to feel bogged-down by this gas subject, and possibly wondering if it's some new 'risk' we haven't been made aware of before. Which isn't the case. So I'm going to stick my neck out and try to clarify and simplify things for them below. Comment / correction by other 'techies' is welcomed, of course. 1 All oilwells produce 'associated gas', which as the oil rises up the well comes out of solution and assumes its true 'gaseous' form. 2 If the production train at surface is equipped with the right equipment and the proper export facilities (piplines) are in place, the gas can be compressed and sold to market for cash: it's an energy-producing hydrocarbon, after all. 3 If such facilities are not present (Hurricane's case), the gas can either be flared (cheap and easy, but a waste of an energy-source), or re-injected into the reservoir (expensive, and may compromise the reservoir's production characteristics). 4 In the UK and elsewhere, there are regulations in place regarding limits to the amount of gas which may be flared. 5 The amount of gas produced (and flared) is normally directly proportional to the flowrate the well (s) produces at. 6 Dr T says that the intention is to try to obtain maximum flowrate through the FPSO. Also he says that he doesn't want to re-inject the gas. However, gas production at maximum flowrates may exceed the regulatory maximum that can be flared, and so the wells may never be flowed at maximum crude production volumes after all. Unless, (smiley emoticon!) a pipeline is installed to solve the problem. 7 Now the kicker, and the unpleasant bit. Because of the 'climate change' mob, the regulations regarding flaring may possibly change (downwards) in the next few years. This is a 'political' issue which cannot be ignored, and a very good reason why O&G shareholders should be very careful to read candidates' energy manifestos before they go to the polling-booths...

phnom, "The old adage of buy at spud and sell at the casing point above the reservoir seems not to have been heard by the sav crowd or either that too many have been burnt too often before." Just to re-iterate: you and I are obviously reading from the same music sheet. It's a complete effin' mystery. Had I forseen this, I wouldn't have bothered buying back in.

pijoe, "my understanding the GOR will NOT vary with well flow rate (in the early / mid days) as it is solution gas. it is about what the GOR is and what is the oil flow rate that results in gas to flare " In that case my apologies. And in fact we're both in fact reading off the same page. I agree that this (from memory) is that this is the first time that flaring restraints have been so explicitly mentioned in an RNS. But also I think it's the first time Dr T has been so explicit about incresing FPSO throughput to max, which is the point where GOR may become an 'issue'. We're now treading on unstable ground here, mate. Because I can think of one regular contributor to this BB who's going to pipe up, saying "I told you so! Hurricane should have chartered a bigger FPSO!", or something like that... ;-))

wellwell, " Anyone heard of a 'bankers burn' out of interest?" Yes I have, and refused to perform one once! And I was offshore on the rig, and the company owner/CEO wasn't, so there was nothing he could do about it short of getting on a boat and coming out and taking charge himself. And anyway even then he'd have been wasting his time, because I'd already started packing my bags and had ordered a boat for myself the next day, in utter disgust. You weren't onece invested in Regal, by any chance, were you? Dryest hole in christandom, but the company was making out (in the national UK press) that it wasn't. I got to know the lady who wrote the Prufrock column quite well after that: some people might remember the stink that blew up after the scam was discovered. I believe the expulsion of various executives from their hotel, and journey to / departure from Athens airport (under police escort) was quite a spectacle.

wellwell, " But that (the thing fizzling out in a month) is a risk that can't be brushed under the carpet like AK has just done. I do my vacuum-cleaning as assiduously as the next person, and do not brush dust under the carpet, as you put it. But neither do I get down on my hands and knees inspecting the floor with a magnifying-glass to ensure that it's surgically clean. The risk of the EPS 'fizzling out in a month' is so infinitesimally small that it can be ignored completely. It's an absurd idea. Dr T isn't some sort of Elon Musk who only gets his rockets to fly after he's had half a dozen of them blow up upon takeoff or shortly afterwards.

Ricfle, "the natural flow rate is some 6.4k bopd for each well, which would seen a reasonable starting point. Hurricane have started that they will start with one well, so we can assume 6.4k bopd. Once the above succeeds, then turn on the ESP and increases the flow by appox' 50% to 10k bopd, would seem another reasonable step. " You are talking technical nonsense here. The wells will not be opened up under natural flow, and neither will initial flow be so close to the lower safe limit to prevent flowline problems. I don't know what your 'speciality' is, but I know it's not oilwell engineering, and would humbly suggest you stop presenting suppositions on the subject based upon minimal understanding as though they were fact. Because they ain't.

pijoe, " it is simply a risk (constraint) as are water breakthrough and wax" Sorry mate, but I cannot agree with you on this one. In fact from the comments here, it seems to be SIPP (who isn't an oilman) who appears to have best understood the reasoning behind GOR getting a mention in the RNS as it does. OK, this is opinion only, but my understanding of why GOR is considered 'relevant' has nothing to do with constraints to how much a well can flow before it becomes too 'gassy' (your example), but instead the question of gas disposal according to regulations. I agree that GOR can only be measured during a DST in a very ballpark manner, and it may change once the well is on longterm production. And for that reason if the EPS approaches upper allowed flaring limits, a worst case would have to be throttling the wells back until a different disposal method is found (export pipeline, re-injection). However I personally see this as part and parcel of the EPS's 'experimental' nature, and thus not a problem as such. Also, one mustn't forget the longterm 'Hurricane Hub' concept, with both oil and gas from Lancaster going to shore by export pipeline anyway, but that's all further on up the road.

IJWT, "There is a risk it fizzles out in a month" No there is not. Behave yourself.

Ricfle, " It is therefore clear that the pile fabrication is not advanced enough to start as the weather WoS is relatively benign." I'm just back home, but have been reading this on my phone and decided to leave replying until I was at a proper keyboard. What you say above and in an earlier post is incorrect. Pile fabrication takes only a matter of days: it's just a matter of welding up some dumb bits of iron. So for 'fabrication' read 'installation'. Wrt SURF equipment, the bits like Coflex hoses and the manifold were ordered about a year ago. We haven't had any specific news about them, but remember, the detailed newsflow only started a few months back. Of all that gubbins, only the manifold is probably true 'custom build': the hoses / flowlines are production-line stuff, with their lengths being the only Lancaster-specific specification. So again, in all likelihood it's installation rather than fabrication which we're now waiting for news of commencement. We're only just into April, so the start of the weather window. There's no reason to believe there's any delay with these items, nor their installation.

Crikey, Ricfle, you're on fine form today! OK, maybe I don't know what the rig's situation is, but at least I tried to find out. And anyway, 'well control' is a subject which interests me technically, especially when a company meets with such an incident and tries to cover it up...

IJWT, "Any word from those in the know on timings here?" I put out feeler via email to a couple of very well-placed people in Aberdeen to see if they could find out anything, but the answer was no. The whole thing's under tighter wraps than the Pont Neuf in Paris after Christo paid a visit. Nobody's even saying what the original problem was.