Member Info for adoubleuk

JB,

"The question in my head now is: Do I spend $60-70 M dollars on a water injection system, or do I drill a conventional well into the lancaster Sandstone?"

This is the dilemma now facing the company. And they may now be scratching their heads as to what way to turn. Because it all revolves around cost-effectiveness. Make-or-break, to get themselves out of a rather tricky situation, mainly driven by finance now. Because whatever they do, it will cost lots of money. And either a new well, or 'intervention' on one of the existing ones, probably 7z. But 'intervention will mean production shutdown, with resulting loss of revenue. A terrible plate-spinning act, and I'm happy not to be on the BoD of HUR right now, no matter how much they earn.

The thing is, Fractured Basement is NOT 'out of the window'. The RNS said that Six is producing at around 15,000 bopd, which is a heck of an oilwell. Commercial rates. From FB. So Dr Trice's hypotheses have been proved correct, which is why he formed his company to start with, obtained financial backing, etc..

HOWEVER, there is no escaping the fact that recent re-analysis has cast doubt about the OWC depth, which immediately impacts the 'sustainability' of the resource (based on the current two wells) at present rates. Even if the overall resource may be still great, though maybe slightly less than (maybe optimistically) postulated.

In short, I don't have an answer. In the past, I may have 'poo -pooed' dspp's ramblings over on lemonfool discrediting the 'perched water' theory. And in fact, still do, because he was coming at it from completely the wrong direction.

But that page 11 of the presentation made me sit up and hit the sell button instantly.

I don't know where the thing will go next, but fear the worst, given the current uncertain economic climate.

Jiffybag,

Yee Ha! ????? That was dreadful.

Try this for size instead (turn up loud). Posted here before, but what the heck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK8Fn9ge6UU

Jiffybag,

Thanks for the link, which I hadn't seen before.

However Romalia is a strictly 'conventional' oilfield. Lancaster is not. I'm in full agreement with contibutor 'Slift' on this one. Talking about water injection on Lancaster and even mentioning the sandstones is pure flim-flam.

By the way, look at the company website. It's changing, day to day. Hurricane Energy is seemingly no longer a company dedicated to exploring and developing Fractured Basement reservoirs.

mjga786

"It will be more easier if you stop your rubbish posts, I rarely read them."

Sorry, me ol' jumpin' bean, but you've just shot yourself in the foot and revealed yourself as an illiterate fool.

Instead, try

"It would be easier if you STOPPED your rubbish posts"... etc.

But as you rarely read them, that's not my problem. You don't have to.

Instead I've just filtered yours.

littlened,

"But what is ‘actually happening’ Aduk ?"

So far as I can see, the SP's going to hell on a handcart, the company's in something of a financial bind regarding future bond repayment, the bondholders are selling out at a loss, the BoD is coming up with nonsense about the Victory Sans and water-injection, the world is selling in to a non-lethal pandemic scenario which is purported to be lethal, and a global economic crash which will make the 30's look like a picnic in the park is not an impossibility within the near future.

That's what I think is 'actually happening'.

Amongst other things. Like myself looking forward to next Sunday's poker game in La Rochelle (take note, mjga786 !) , and the fact that I really MUST get round to changing the oil in both front and rear axles of my rangerover, Long overdue.

mjga786.

Just 'filter' me. It's easy.

mjga786,

"With 1 share in this Co,. taking negative all the time in the evening, looks like a frustrated lonely person passing time, always talking negative nonsense as he knows it will draw attention as people are not frustrated and lonely like him, talking nonsense about Bridge"

Does Steve over on ADVFN play Bridge? I never did understand that game. Maybe I should start reading his posts.

Slift,

Sorry for tardy reply.

"But what's piqued my interest is regarding slide 11 of the presentation, why have they not shown all the data points? They have used data points that suits their agenda it seems like, or am i misinterpreting something?"

Sorry, mate, but you're not 'misinterpreting', just missing something. Go back to RNS's about well 7 'pilot hole' and the CPR. There were only 5 valid MDT data-points. As might have been expected (and had been experienced before), it's well nigh impossible to get a packer-seal in FB.

But you're right about that page 11. A shocker, and what made me hit the sell button instantly. Because unless I'm very wrong (not the only one), I don't think we'd seen the oil / water 'percentages' mentioned in previous documents, with the deeper MDT samples.

And despite having thought I'd done my homework properly, I'd personally overlooked the fact that analysis on 4 and 4z was done with IFA, which means the data (or rather its interpretation) is meaningless because it's like trying to fix a cylinder-head gasket with a bicycle tyre repair kit. Schlumberger sure sold Dr Trice a pup with that one.

You have to have worked in the field to actually understand the relationship between geologists and the logging companies. Preferably to have worked on the drilling side, so you're wary of both geologists and logging companies, but assuming you can understand their language ! :-))

bransonbull,

I'm sorry, but I consider Steve's post the most worthless piece of pseudo-knowledgable semi-technical bit of s*** I've read since Friday's RNS.

'Re-purposing' 7z as a water injector? Utter poppy**** and wishful thinking. Smoke, mirrors, and a large explosion detonated in the wings to distract peoples' attention from what's actually happening.

Albie,

"Class Action against Dr Trice / HUR anybody?"

On what basis ?

Dr Trice is no longer a member of 'salaried staff', nor a board member, just 'retained on an advisory basis', which I take to mean as an ad-hoc consultant, maybe paid for such services, maybe not, we don't know.

And on what basis can you sue the 'new' BoD ?

If there are court cases to be brought maybe it should be against the Brokers. But that won't work, neither.

Grow a pair, act like a man, and accept your losses if you have some. Nobody forced you to buy this stock to start with.

Slift,

"But what's piqued my interest is regarding slide 11 of the presentation, why have they not shown all the data points? They have used data points that suits their agenda it seems like, or am i misinterpreting something?"

OK, good 'reflections'. Have we seen then all ? But these shown are ones getting me running to the hills. Not tyhe only onr.

"The 2017 CPR says that "oil swabbed into the well bore of 205/21a-4 and circulated to surface from 1,597m TVDSS demonstrates movable oil."

Evne if it may be considered hindsight, I have always taken that statement with a HUGE pinch of salt. Wells 4 / 4z got me interested in this thing, but it was six which got mr hooked.

"Why isn't this shown at sub 1600 TVDSS on slide 11? This was the main reason why the CPR even considered the previous OWCs. It seems like the new BOD have not included this in the diagram."

I don't know. But it was that page 11 slide which made me say goodbye.

"Surely this is more critical data than the wireline or IFA samples? as this was real oil that flowed to surface from 1597 m TVDSS."

Flowed to surface? Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong. But 'blackstuff' seen by the mudluggers or on the shakers don't necessarily constitute 'downholr samples'.

"In fact, they have made a statement to say that "There are several potential mechanisms which might explain this (palaeo OWC, perched oil, migrating oil and contamination) but they remain difficult to explain"

So it's about time they find an explanation, if they're so smart.

"Isn't this just the opposite of what Dr Trice had said? I.e. perched water to explain the watercut --> now the BOD are saying perched oil to explain the oil deep within??"

Yes. The company as represented by the BoD is saying that the 'model' is wrong. Woithout any backup.

The trouble is, that page 11 slide might show them to be correct in their assumptions. I don't know. But a risk I personally don't wish to fight.

Slift,

'Hurricane have not relinquished this yet."

Wrt 'this', ie everything N. of Lancaster boundry.

No, but have announced they will, Also P&A'd the Halifax well using the 'Seawell', unannounced in RNS, but should have been, and it's an utter disgrace that it wasn't. In fact, I now reckon that the new incoming BoD deciding it wasan't RNS'd was why Stobie quit.

DC

"Beverly was very careful to say that the data changed"

Huh? Please send link amd time-mark for this ! So I can get on the phone to her and call her a stupid woman. Data is data, and cannot change. Interpretation of it can, of course.

Greenmachine67,

"We, the enablers of this enterprise deserve at least an apology for what has transpired......somehow I don't think anyone has the balls to do it .."

Understand entirely. But equally, I don't really think that 'apologies' are due from anyone. I have financially lost over this overall, admittedly not to the (evident) extent that others have.

The small print was always there regarding the 'risk factors'. 'Techy people' like myself chose to ignore lots of them, but my risk, not anyone else's. So tough s**t for me. Not blaming my 'investment decisions' on anyone else, and not the company, neither.

However, you have brought up a thought that's been running through my mind for a couple of days, now.

This having become a 'penny share', this BB will be infested by 'penny share' people and their trades, rather than the interesting stuff that you (and maybe I) contributed in the past. All I hope is that they may sometimes reflect on the fact that whilr they're trading for half a penny or so, it's on the back of people who put in thousands...

CaptainSwag,

"lonestag - i noticed when beverly took over trice was written out of the hur history on the website. no mention of him at all but yet an interim ceo was listed on the timeline..lol

thought it was a bit harsh at the time. However i suppose given the new boards seemingly opinion of his knowledge/integrity its not such a surprise."

Another interesting post.

Because you're talking about the PEOPLE, and finally that's the make-or-break of any company.

I've never met Dr Trice, though would love to have done so when he was really 'on a roll' a few years ago, and would still like to, now. But I suspect he's now hunkered-down, licking his wounds (like a lot of we shareholders), wondering what he did wrong.

I'd act (were I lawyer) act in his defence any day if he were accused of deliberately and fraudulantly misleading investors. And the first piece of evidence I'd call for is the fact that well 6 is apparently producing oil from Fractured Basement rock at approximately 15,000 bopd. Which is one heck of an oilwell, and proves his thesis correct. How longterm 'sustainable' that may be is a different question altogether.

During that embarrassingly horrible-to-watch webcast CMD thing, it was obvious that RT had been 'steamrollered' .

Hurricane Energy PLC is no longer an ' Oil Exploration' company, and it is the duty (imho) of the BoD to make this clear to the public via whatever media.

JREWINGJNR,

"adoubleuk

I appreciate that you are taking responsibility for your own actions and for the decisions you’ve made based on the information you’ve had at your disposal. "

Thank you.

But this is the reason I p**s from a very high place on the people who have lost out her suggesting that there has been something 'fraudulant' going on. I don't believe that. If they couldn't stand the heat, they shouldn't have been in the kitchen to start with.

However. I DO note that there are a number of 'LTH' people, many of whom have been regular and valued contibutors to discussion on this BB who are taking the hit as philosophically as they can. and not trying to start any 'blame games'.

I noticed that your post also referenced 'Capt Swag', and one of his earlier posts. Which I noticed, wanted to reply to, but was playing poker at the time so couldn't. But I'll try to do so quickly now.

Because he's quite right.

Hurricane Energy can no longer truthfully be described as an Oil 'Exploration' company. The 'Explorationist' who founded it and was its CEO until recently walked out the door a few months ago. And now the new management is divesting the company of assets, not taking up new ones for 'exploration', and in their own words recently RNS-ed is concentrating on production from one particular field, ie Lancaster.

Maybe someone should bring this to the attention of Phil Corbett, the new 'comms' man, so that the website is modified accordingly. And maybe the entire BoD should re-read the entire 'AIM Admission Document', as they no longer have any evident interest in 'exploration'.

JREWINGJNR,

"I also concur with adoubleuk in that her initial reason for joining the HUR BOD was to offer an alternative viewpoint and voice to the established team of Trice and co.... she must have been flabbergasted at their level of either incompetence or fraudulent (academics would say not rigorous) analysis. "

Thank you.

My guess that Beverley Smith was appointed to the BoD as a 'new microscope' is only that, but now, with hindsight, I reckon that was the case.

I like your term 'not rigorous analysis'. As noted earlier, I found page 11 of the presentation shocking, because either I'd not seen that data before, or not seen it re-gathered together in that form. Postulating a deep OWC as a result of the wireline samples on the well 7 'pilot hole' was not rigorous at all. Call it wishful thinking, instead. And the well 4 data is almost meaningless, because an 'IFA Tool' is in no way a proper piece of equipment with which to measure such data, or at least data from which one can draw specific conclusions in such a context.

I now suspect that Schlumberger did a nice sales-job with Dr T, and he fell for it.

Plus I never did like the phrase 'oil down to', as posts (very) long passim (like a few years back) will show. But decided to roll with that, instead of questioning it further.

In short, Friday's presentation with the new interpretations has a nasty ring of truth about it. Bringing myself to ask why I myself didn't have a more questioning attitude. But that's just my own fault, not someone else's. I certainly don't feel I've been conned by some deliberate fraudsters. Should have known better, though. Beware enthusiastic geologists !

Slift,

"Strange.. I understood her to giggle and fuss about like an inexperienced director."

Odd. During that Q&A thing, Beverly Smith suddenly gained a lot of respect from me, as being fairly straight-talking. Maybe not as a 'business-person' or a 'director', that's true, but the tech questions were directed by the chairman to her. There was one she couldn't answer immediately, was deferred 'til the end, but she banged on her calculator and before the end reverted with a 'ballpark' reply to the question. Having thought quickly. Which I liked.

As I've posted before, I think she was put in place on the BoD to question all previous assumptions. Who pulled the strings to get her instated is a different story, of course.

JB,

"Too many conficting messages and yes we know matters have changed as of late and mainly a requirement to simply survive for now , but the oil is still there isn't it?"

Yes.

But who's going to eventially exploit it ? If anyone, if we're all driving electric cars, or alternatively living in trees, or alternatively living a Mad Max existance once two thirds of the population have been wiped out by CV19?

Halifax is one bit of the recent story which rankles me considerably. Or rather the 'Voyage of the Seawell' early this year. Quite a major operation, and Opex. But it wasn't RNS-ed. And IR wouldn't help, neither.

It was only subsequently we learned Whirlwind had been relinquished (logically), so part of the mystery became clearer. Whirlwind had been P&A'd per requirements. But what had the boat been doing over Halifax, as 'shipwatchers' had noted ? Obviously the same thing, as we now know. But nothing was said. Maybe because shareholders may have smelt a rat.

But again by that point, I don't believe RT was any longer 'in charge' of his own company, and what news is or isn't released is no doubt a board decision, not that of just one person.

Diver69.

"Who do you really believe? Is something under handed going on? When oil was initially found on the Transocean rig, Schlumberger were the logging team. Ask them how much oil is there? "

C'mon, be sensible.

The first 'properly discovered' oil on Lancaster was on the 4 / 4z well, which was drilled by a Sedco rig ! (Though Sedco had already been merged with Transocean back then).

I'm reckoning you're probably referring to well 6, or 7 / 7z, though.

But what have the offshore logging teams (be it LWD, mud logging, or DST) got to do with reservoir evaluation in terms of resources or reserves ? Absolutely nothing at all. Those people are just out there acquiring the data, which is number-crunched by others in town.

And as far as DST is concerned, they seemed to be right. The RNS says that the AM is currently producing from well 6 alone, at around 15,000 bbl/day. Which makes it one hell of an oilwell. And I don't believe their 'reverse-coning' from the overlying sandstones theory for a millisecond.

I might have sold (except for one share), but I'll still keep an eye on the technical stuff, to see what happens. I've wasted so much time on it so far, there's no reason to stop completely !