Member Info for adoubleuk

Wellwell,

"THere's a graphic to support DSPP's own interpretations on migration of oil from adjacent source below the hill.."

Yeah, OK, touche. But NOT below the aquifer!

:-)

buyinmay,

" Who in their right minds would hold shares in a company for which they had as little confidence as DSPP has in Hur?"

You're assuming that Dspp is in his 'right mind', which is something I wonder about, sometimes. I mean I know I sometimes write at length about HUR, and so on, but I don't start making powerpoint presentations about it. You've got to pay me before I go to that sort of trouble.

shedful,

"The perched water can just be that - perched water and for sure the possibility of it being different water from the aquifer is a possibility as this perched water "

It's not just a possibility. The company has gone to length in RNS and presentations to stress it's done all the most basic stuff (temperature, chemical analysis, etc.) to discern whether the watercut is the same as the aquifer or not. And it has said it ain't. And this really IS basic stuff. I'm sure they've gone to great lengths to ascertain that before saying they're 'confident' in their claims.

Heck, I'm sure you've seen one of those TV programs where a criminal has been caught because the mud on his shoes shows he was at a certain place at a certain time? It's the same sort of thing. Oil companies don't just dip their finger into a sample of water, lick it, and say "this comes from the aquifer", or "this is 'perched'". It's a bit cleverer than that.

This, essentially is what bugs me about all of Dspp's arguments. They've got something which looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like one. Even if they were out shooting for geese. And Dspp's saying, "because you've shot a duck, there are no geese around anymore", despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Wellwell,

"PS he's not entirely incorrect about the charge system. The summit of the buried hill is above the Kimmeridge source and as such the oil has migrated up into the lifted portion of the ridge."

Yes he is, and not it didn't (migrate up). Look at the stratigraphy and the (very very simplistic) seismic maps. Of the stuff further west, and relationship with Rona. Kimmeridge is THICK. Overlaid with sands. Then came the 'upthrust' (over a few hundred of thousand years or so, give or take). Now look at the strat on Rona crest. NO Kimmeridge! Where did it go? (Remember, the 'Victory sand' still holds oil.)

Specially for our new cheerful poster BobHope1,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACSeVC6umzg

"You don't beat the Reaper by living longer,
You beat the reaper by living well".

BobHope1,

"There were a few on here in big profit having bought at current price, must be crying in their beer now if they didn't sell in the 50's"

And you're trying to say... what?, exactly?

Yes, I did a cheeky little sell at 55p, and rather regret now that it wasn't a far bigger one. But it'll get back there one day.

Crying in one's beer? C'mon, some of us are big boys here. Crying in one's beer just dilutes the stuff, making it even less help!

Albi1,

"Personally, having reread DSPP's posts I find it hard to believe he is trying to discredit Hurricane. "

Despite the obvious 'slant' to my own posts which others may interpret as disagreeing with your phrase above, I remain slightly sitting on the fence, but definitely leaning in a certain direction. If Dspp is not deliberately trying to discredit the company, posting his latest 'slide' (which I consider to be rubbish) is certainly doing no credit to himself. For those interested in the technicalities, I'd recommend they read the fine print on top of his 'presentation', which illustrate some of his 'conclusions' regarding his latest theories.

He overlooks one basic fact. The reservoir's 'pressure-drive'. And in the case of Rona Ridge, the 'drive' is from the underlying aquifer. It ain't gas-cap driven, nor is it something like deep in the GoM, buried beneath miles of undercompacted sediments with overlying salts or adjoining salt-domes adding to the fiendish mix.

So he's mistaking OWC and ODT, and coming up with gloomy conclusions: maybe deliberately or not. Sure, if we have 'perched water' (as seems to be the case), little 'compartments' of the reservoir will have different pressure gradients, due to the composition of the fluids intersected by each individual wellbore. Which explains why one well (6) produces essentially 'dry' oil (no intersection with a perched water zone) whereas 7z does. But that changes nothing relating to the OWC (where the oil column stops and intersects the 'drive' aquifer), which is some 600 m below the wells' TVD.

Also, in another part of his post (or maybe in a different post but on the same page), he asserts that water-disposal (or an increase thereof) increases Opex. I can't for the life of me think of any reason why that might be the case, other than maybe having to add an extra drum or two of chemical (costing a hundred bucks or so) to the treatment before the produced water gets chucked over into the 'oggin. An infinitesimally small cost increase, in other words.

Here's a curious thing. When I open Lemonfool (on rare occasions), it goes to page 3, in other words 2017. I have to click another tab to get the latest stuff. But there, back on page three is Dspp, and also his seemingly mirror-image, Peter Grey! Same old, same old...

"Hurricane are shopping around for a someone to take and dispose of 100,000 barrels per annum of produced water from the FPSO."

This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read on this BB.

JB,

I may be in a minority of one here, but I feel very happy that the CFO has not personally held any shares other than those the company has allocated to him. Keeps him 'impartial' to whatever the f***in 'market' is up to.

Drillspark,

In fact I've now looked back in YOUR posts to find that 'imploring' one. And hmmm...

Double apologies!

OK Drillspark, my apologies.

It was He who took your name in vain to his own purposes, then.

JoeSoap,

"However, I did post my view on the 15th Dec, which Drillspark implored you to read yesterday.
It ended:
This is a very expensive set-back and no compelling evidence that it is a 'goer' anymore."

I've re-read your Dec 15th post and don't believe it holds water.

And as for your buddy 'imploring' me and others to take more notice? Well, he can 'implore' as much as he wants. I tend to ignore beggars on the streets.

If you and 'the market' think there's been some kind of falling-out between OGA and Hurricane, I suspect you're very wrong.

And as for relinquishing Strathmore and Whirlwind? About bl**dy time, too! Strathmore was just a nogo for starters, and Whirlwind, although intriguing, not relly part of the parcel. Let Shell have it.

daltry,

"You just have to have faith......Look hard at the fundamentals.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TtfHkvxao

The f***in' amplifiers aren't broke!

Cap'nSwag,

"i agree with jason - the board can't really win. As much as I would like an RNS (again) saying everything is on track I think they are doing the most professional thing in not giving attention to the naysayers. if the release one RNS denying it then there will only be further negative rumours on something else or that the board are hiding or lying."

Yes, I think I agree with you.

Though that might seem to be contradicting one of my own posts a couple of days ago, where I said I felt the BoD ought to issue a statement of some sort.

I've since somewhat revised my thinking on that, especially because of the way it was picked up upon by others on various BB's and various 'social media', spreading further doom an'gloom, and insinuating something terribly wrong.

We've always (especially post-FoiL) been told by the BoD that shareholders would be informed of significant news regarding EPS performance, good or bad. And so far, I think they've kept to that promise. The Dec 13 RNS being a case in point. But of course a bunch of smart-alecks started to swamp the BB's with their own interpretations of 7z's water-cut (then shut-in) while handily not mentioning the 14,000+ bbl/day being produced by 6 alone.

So now, yeah, maybe no news should be taken as good news. I, for one, am prepared to wait, and let the 'market' do what it wants. I especially p**s on RB (CA)'s comment that there should be a 'company buyback' of shares, because if that occurs it's usually a sign of desperation.

I have absolutely no reason to think we're being lied to, nor anything being hidden. I prefer to think back to Dr Trice's comment about his detractors, saying he was "fed up of arguing with them". This is now hell-and-gone a long way from being a one man show and 'Robert Trice's trainset'. Unless you count an FPSO, tankerloads of oil going shoreside, drilling rigs and wells being drilled WoS as being made by HornbyDublo.

Someone here has kindly called my attention to the fact that a person on a twitter board has replied to one of my posts here yesterday. (Quoting that post.) I don't use twitter, so would otherwise have remained blissfully unaware of this.

The thrust of that person's tweet was that I ought to wake up, and 'don't I see the risk?' Which I find rather funny, because I know that the person concerned owns a large and powerful motorbike which he sometimes takes on track-days. Which doesn't sound like very risk-averse behavior to me!

Surely having a slight attraction to risk is a prerequisite for investing in O&G shares on AIM? The rewards can be considerable though, sometimes. I'm just holding here for now.

littlened,

"I am convinced that those who are promoting negative rumours without producing any convincing evidence are doing so to move the share price down for their own benefit or for the benefit of those who employ them."

I mainly agree. But the rumour mill seems to have dried up compared with a week to ten days ago. Or are we seeing some sort of 'delayed action' effect?

fhp,

"Management, rns clarifying if you please."

Seconded. It's a rather disturbing sort of day, with a 7% drop and no specific reason for it of which we know. The BoD now has to sit up and take notice. Obviously they cannot 'dictate' the SP, but if they know of anything to cause the share to have fallen out of favour so rapidly, they have a duty to inform the shareholders.

JoeSoap,

My apologies. I read your post too hastily, and you referred to future Lincoln well. Very good point you raise.

JoeSoap,

Yes, of course there is that as well! But already with the 7 'pilot well' ODT down to OWC was pretty nicely established. Unless of course the company is thinking about drilling on a completely different part of the field. (Further north, peut-être ?)

Plus don't forget that that 'pilot hole' was DST tested, and it flowed like stink with minimal drawdown (surface equipment constrained). You never know, it could be an exercise in killing two birds with one stone, though that's speculation of course.

treaty,

"A separate point,it seems to be that HUR have implied that they will be going more vertical in their future drills. I find this
a little curious, is this because they are more confident of hitting the more prolific sweet spots now rather than drilling
long lengths of horizontals?"

I suspect the answer is (partially) 'yes'. And that it's also not unrelated to the fact that the two producers appear to be producing preferentially from near the heel section rather than further away along the borehole. It mustn't be forgotten that this is 'new information' based on data acquired post-FoiL, and personally I find it significant that the company has chosen to share it with us.

The extended-reach horizontal sections are by far the most costly (both time and cash) to drill, and also potentially the most 'risky'. If the company now reckons it can achieve the same production results using a 'simplified', cheaper, and less risky drilling strategy, they'd be crazy not to try doing so.

I'm not sure that it's related to higher confidence in hitting a 'sweet spot', but with a deviated hole (anything up to about 70 degrees bottomhole angle can be considered subvertical), if it doesn't 'hit' first time, it's relatively easy to plug back and sidetrack off in a different direction. (Though I underline the word 'relatively'!)