Member Info for adoubleuk

"What about the shutdown periods to remove potential waxing in the Wells, that take three days apparently!"

This, if anything further is needed to convince people that EV is talking out of his fundamental, should do the trick. Because potential 'waxing' doesn't take place in the wells, but once through the wellhead and into the subsea manifold and flowlines, where it hits the lower undersea temperatures.

This has been calculated for and is mitigated by chemical injection at the manifold, and also flowline heating.

What EV is referring to are 'pigging'operations, which consists of sending a 'pig' (which acts the same way as a 'wipethrough device for a rifle barrel' from the FPSO, down the flowline, round a loop in the manifold, and back again. I don't know how long this takes, two or three days would surprise me, but the company has already advised (I think it was at the CMD presentation) that the 'mitigations appear to be very successful, and thus 'pigging' frequency would be less than anticipated.

MTV has said the offload was 380,000 bbl, but has still not named his source. Maybe he'd like to do so now?

JiffyBag,

"a vessel ton equals 100 cubic feet"

This is what tripped Amaja up: 'gross tonnage" is a measurement of available cargo volume, not weight. Confusing, eh? It's a misspelling of an older word, 'tunnage'. And just to add to the confusion, a 'tun' is an old word for a wine-cask, which could also be called a barrel!

Wellwell,

"Natalia is listed on Stenas website as having a total capacity of 111973m3 for info."

Thank you. 111973 cubic meters = 704,289 bbl.

EV,

"ADBK - Looks as if your wrong again and I’m correct ! Getting a bit of a habit now!"

My water comment was a joke. But being thick as a brick, you didn't get it.

DC,

"80,000 X 7.5345261 = 602,762.08"

Very good.

But you've forgotten to subtract the water!

;-))

Happy Christmas!

AquaeSulis01,

"Now if you use the 158.897 litres per barrel figure you get 503186 barrels (1000/158.897*80000) whilst using 7.33 barrels weight you get 586400 barrels (7.33*80000), what isn't in doubt is the load is over 500000 barrels"

OMG. Have I got it wrong again? Earlier I wrote "somewhere between 520,000 bbl and 555,000", somewhat high-handedly correcting DiveCentre's 600,000 or more.

But now you've come up with a figure higher than mine!

However, it all revolves around this (your quote).

" (on average) 7.33 barrels weigh one metric ton "

And you've got me onto google again, trying to figure out what that word 'average' means in terms of crude. But the one finds oneself chasing one's own tail, 'cos you've got 'average densities' for light, medium, and heavy crudes!

Now I suspect that an imaginary statistician who knows nothing about crude oil would argue that to find an 'average density' it's best to use 'medium', or 'average oil'. But we know that Lancaster crude is 'light'. And my (memorised) 'rule of thumb' calculation is based on some early 'thirties thing regarding California, whose crude is generally heavier.

So I don't know, exactly.

If we say something between 520,000 and 600,000 bbl for the recent load, does that keep everyone happy? Except for the Chuckle Brothers, that is. ;-))

Btw, enormous gratitude to Missdosh for posting the link. But usually it's best for the truth to be out in the open. The only people who suffer are the shorters and derampers.

MrWilks,

"Did you know that the nickname for a local person living in Guernsey is a Donkey"

No, I didn't know that.

But I doubt that Mr Bernstein is considered a 'local'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l14aDp-4NKk

shedful,

"Merry Christmas to all even the donkeys"

ESPECIALLY to the donkeys! Intelligent, wise creatures but who often take a lot of stick.

You'd be crazy wishing Happy Christmas to a scorpion, though.

DC,

"A 490k load is the largest so far so I was rather sceptical when you posted 80k MT. THATS OVER 600k BARRELS"

By my, Laserdisc and Ajbennet's calcs, no it isn't. It's somewhere between 520,000 bbl and 555,000. But let's not split hairs, either way it's a nice tankerload!

Naturally, (naming no names), the persistent 'derampers' on this BB who scorn such figures haven't come up with one of their own, nor a source by which it can be checked.

By the way...

'Zielshafen' refers to what the boat was carrying from its port of departure.

'Abgangshafen' is what it picked up at the port it's coming from. In AIS marine terms, the Aoka Mizu is considered a 'port'.

MTV,

"ADBK - official complaint to LSE BB administrator regarding MTV... Would love to see how that read!... "

Quite wrong, yet again. I can be concise at times. Under 'reason for reporting post' I simply wrote 'disseminating untrue disinformation'.

And of course I didn't say anything untrue about you, like " he says it’s a lot less, under 400000 apparently..." Because despite having been asked, you haven't posted what you and your 'informants' think the cargo was.

Take care how you go, loon, and don't drink too much in The Grill. The roads can be slippery.

OK, fed up with these lies from Pinky and Perky, aka EmptyVessel and Bartlebobton.

I said I'd keep my source anonymous. And I will. But if you've got nothing better to do during this Christmas period, go to Google and type in 'Wilhelmshaven Stena Natilita'.

Ignore the marinetraffic, vesselfinder entries and general stuff like that. If you can, sort by most recent date. On my computer it appears on the second google page.

The only clue I'll give is it's in pdf form. It gets upodated, but I doubt anyone'll be doing that in the next 36 hours.

AQS,

"Spruce et all, why don't you just filter the EV rather than engage?"

Because it's fun! If you like slapstick comedy, and are possessed of a certain mean streak. If people post on here and start 'deramping' and making themselves look like idiots, they should be encouraged so that they make themselves look increasingly stupid, go 'on tilt', and either get themselves banned or taken away by the men in white coats.

AGS,

"Didn't think an update was due until CMD?"

Oh bother, you're right. The 13th Dec RNS WAS the 'update' referred to in that of the 2nd.

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in its petty pace until... etc..." (to quote the'Scottish play', and let's not continue with that particular solilaquy).

My mistake. Blame it on the bad weather, long nights, and encroaching senility.

johnpwh,

"We're all doomed. Doomed."

You been reading 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' recently?

"Will have to sell my Porsche and buy an old Corsa."

That would be like selling HUR to buy into UKOG. Makes no sense. Plus you'd lose all sense of self-esteem.

AquaeSulis1,

" once again a factual and reliable update from the company then based on that average "

Hmm. That reminds me. In the last RNS we were advised of an update on the EPS (I won't use the word 'promised') sometime late this month. I guess the tanker's got to offload its cargo before a final exact figure can be given, so I'm not expecting an RNS tomorrow. But sometime late in the week or maybe next Monday? Not impossible.

:-))

(From Shedful to EmptyVessel),

"what is your low understated figure for the offload?"

Yeah, c'mon Big Man. What figure are your pals in The Grill telling you?

Longwait,

"Obviously, as UKOG posters keep pointing out, HUR cannot possibly hope to compete with UKOG, either in terms of oil production or market capitalisation. "

Thanks! A Christmas cracker!

MTV,

Bonsoir.

"I guess Amaja will confirm what the O/L actually was, and its nothing near that figure....."

Wrong again, as always. Our friend Amaja is based in Rotterdam. However this shipment is going to Wilhemshaven in Germany, ETA tomorrow. That was where it was always bound for, but weirdly when the vessel re-emerged on the AIS it was showing Rotterdam! Guess they pushed the wrong buttons on the bridge, because it was rapidly corrected, as pointed out to me here by 'Missdosh'.

I have reported your post for sending deliberate misinformation.

As for the calculations, my own 553,600 bbl versus Laserdisc's 526,852, I was using a 'rule of thumb' which I believe is based on California Light, whereas knowing Laser to be a 'detail' person, he may have based his figure on the actual density of Lancaster crude. But so what, the discrepency between our figures only represents a margin of error of 0.5% or so, and that's good enough for me.

Of course when it comes to calculating things, I guess in your own 'oilfield role' it simply amounts to figuring whether to put one cupful of detergent into the washing machine, or two.

If you doubt the 80,000 metric tons I quoted, I suggest you phone BP and ask them...