Member Info for adoubleuk

Albi1,

"no issues based on trusting what Dr Trice has been at pains to repeat in all the presentations and updates that have been given since June"

Or along way prior tho that!

It's a crucial thing.

I write fast, as joining in an online poker tournament in 3 minutes.

Do people think Dr T has been deliberately LYING to us? Do they believe that the lack of rather more technical detail in the PR is some sort of cover-up?

Personally, I don't.

bartlebobton,

" Shell :1 week-4.19% 1 mth-7.64% 3 mths-6.73% YTD-4.84% 1 year-9.55% I'd suggest it's not just oil being out of favour."

...And I'd suggest that trying to make a point by comparing little AIM-listed Hurricane's share price performance and behaviour to that of Shell is a bit like comparing a Mini Cooper and a Bugatti Veyron. Sure, they both have a motor, four wheels, and run on roads, but that's about the only common point.

*I am not suggesting that the OGA data should not be ignored. *

Delete the second 'not', pls. Typo.

dspp,

" May I suggest you look at the watercut vs monthly flow rate SCATTER plot I posted on TLF along with the accompanying notes in various posts. Not the month-to-month calendar trend, but the x-y scatter plot. Then you will probably understand the concern, and the (so far) three hypotheses that I have been able to propose. "

I have been following your posts on TLF, and thank you for all the work you've obviously been putting in. However (yup, you were waiting for that word, weren't you? ;-) ), although I can't disagree with your 'scatter chart', I still contend that it contains just too few data-points (5 in all) to justify any 'concerns' relating to oil/water ratio. Also, the data upon which you base it (that from the OGA), doesn't justify drawing any particular conclusions whatsoever. Because your 'base graph' (OGA) is drawn showing average bbl/day on a monthly basis. And a calendar month is purely a man-made and convenient reference point, nothing more nor less. How about if the OGA graph had been based on time intervals mid-month to mid-month, instead. I'll bet my shirt that the figures on which it was based would be different. Or how about 45-day intervals, instead. Different again.

Furthermore, the most recent data point indicating 8% 'cut' is the last one based on the September figures, gathered just two and a half weeks after getting both flowlines active again.

Allow me to run a completely (maybe) ridiculous idea past you. An imaginary scenario, hope it makes you laugh. What if in the process of getting both flowlines online, one had had to be displaced to water? On opening that flowline back up, the water would have gone through the production train's metering systems, and by rough reckoning, 2.5 km of 5" flowline contains about 150 bbl fluid. Subtract that from the water produced that month, and we're back to 7%! OK, I know it sounds daft, but on what are the figures provided for total 'fluids through the system' based? The figures recorded on the meters, or 'doctored' figures? Surely not the latter.

Also, compare the positions of the September and July data-points on your chart, relative to the 'mean' straight line you've drawn. The July water percentage is further below the line than the September one is above it! What does that mean? That we should choke back and run the wells at the rate they were flowing at in July, just to get a lower watercut ratio? Of course not, because it'd mean less oil going to market and making money, and anyway, 8% is still way withing 'guidance', and can be easily coped with by the AM.

I am not suggesting that the OGA data should not be ignored. I was very glad to see it, myself. But other than the Oil / water /gas figures it tells us, it cannot be used as a method for trying to gauge whether the EPS is going according to plan, or a reason to class it a 'failed experiment' kept secret from us (dishonestly) by the company, throw our arms in the air, and sell all our shares...

JoeSoap,

"Now if you assess the odds on each of those outcomes, on the continued success of EPS and where GLA will go, then you may be getting close to the reason for the current SP."

I comprehend your points completely. Especially the paragraph prior to the one I've quoted, for fear of spooking people. Also, no matter how good Lancaster is turning out, as someone else pointed out, further development costs can't be ignored. I'm kicking myself about this, because that's a well-known 'curve', which I sometimes drew attention to myself. But guess I sahould have paid better attention to my own words, back then.

But nevertheless, something grates.

All these effin' brokers (and come to that, people like Malcy, as well), preaching 'undervalued', 'worth three quid' and stuff like that, just on GLA alone. Quoting 'potential' 2C figures, admittedly. OK, fine for people in their thirties just opening an ISA, maybe, but not me.

We'll have an update about Lancaster EPS shortly, seemingly. And I dam well hope it'll be pretty detailed.

So am prepared to wait the couple of weeks to read it, before I start reconsidering any 'odds'. In the meanwhile, the 'traders' can take the smug looks off their faces, if they're still awake. ''Cos I topped-up yesterday, and that little top-up is already in profit. (As is all my holding.) I could always sell that top-up away again, and screw up their spread-bets!

There's one baseline thing on which I found some of my 'odds for HUR' thinking. Oil demand remains increasing, and elections, Brexit, and whatever, an expanding oil company remains a good bet.

If the rig contract for next year gets cancelled, I'll reconsider. But for now, no reason to.

Bartlebobton,

"As a matter of interest what the prettiest little seaside town you've found with a casino... you know, a bit of a back water... with a nice beach...."

Again, I feel obliged to reply. Are you planning a holiday next year, or what?

Just about all the terms of refernece you want me to refer to are contradictions in terms. But maybe not. Because the thing is, only about 10% of casinos in France host poker-games, and if they don't I don't go to them. So that narrows the choice. And again, they're not all on the sea, narrowing it further.

But I'm extremely fond of a place with the delightful (?) name of Pornichet. Look it up on a map. A bit north of Nantes, nextdoor to St Nazaire. on the last part of the Britanny S.Coast. Not I place I go expressly, 'cos a distance away, but I drop in and stay the night on assorted travels which take me to that neck of the woods. It's just south of La Baule, a very haut bourgeois (ie needlessly snooty) place, with a huge casino which gave up poker a few years ago. Pornichet is on the same long, sweeping beach, but is the far friendlier, supposedly 'downmarket' place by comparison. Some fabulous bars (loud music, dodgy customers,) good restaurants (including the Thai one, cause I always seek out Asiatic restaurants wherever in the world I am), cheaper hotels (but not 'dives', by any means), and a super-friendly casino with action-filled poker play. And the 'blues on the beach' concert in mid August along with a nice firework show, both of which I've 'hit' on the way back from a truckrace in Normandy. And if I'm still alive that weekend next year, will make a point of doing again.

LONGWAIT,

"Your discussion of 'excitement,' as it relates to HUR's share price movements, Double, reminds me of a remark by Jesse Livermore, about one of his trades.
"Well, I had been seeking excitement and I had certainly had some!'
I'm quoting from memory, about 25 years after reading the book.
He had, in reality, lost a packet - even more than you might on a big deal at Dodge City.
I can do without excitement; a boring 347p per share cheque in a few years' time will be adequate."

You have a good point. Other than two, which I will immediately correct. That being, I don't play in 'Dodge City'-like places, I wouldn't be so stupid as to try to boast that I always win! I count things over the months, and then tot-up the year.

But your comment reminds me of a cartoon which I think I photocopied out of 'New Scientist' magazine, before blutacking it to the wall in my toilet, from where I've now retrieved it, temporarily. It's of a young, cheerful-looking doctor wearing white coat, stethescope round his neck, talking to a somewhat overweight-looking patient in jeans and red teeshirt. (The converstation is in speech-bubbles, of course, and both doctor and patient look cheerful until the last frame, where the patient looks rather glum.

Frame 1. Doctor: Your lab tests show that you're doing fairly well for a 65-year-old". Patient; "Fairly well! Do you think I'll live to be 80"?
Frame 2. Doctor: "Do you smoke tobacco or drink beer or wine"? Patient: "No, and I don't do drugs, either".
Frame 3. Doctor; "Do you eat ribeye steaks or barbequed ribs"? Patient: "No. I think all red meat is very unhealthy".
Frame 4. Doctor: "Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like golfing, sailing, hiking, or bicycling"? Patient: "No, I don't".
Frame 5. Doctor: " Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex"? Patient: " No, I don't do any of those things"'
Frame 6. Doctor: "Then why the hell do you want to live to be 80"?

JiffyBag,

" so far 8% WC is the guideline, and 20,000 BOPD will match that won't it?"

I'd seriously suggest you untwist your knickers (or maybe change them) before going on nightshift.

Where's this '8% water-cut' stuff come from? Not from the company. Just someone laying a ruler over a graph posted by someone on another BB and displayed on his computer screen! It's an utterly meaningless interpretation of data which is already two-and-a-half months old, and we know that the company's since been 'playing with' the wells.

The only 'hard data' we've been provided by the company is that 7z produces 7% 'perched' water, and 6, zero. But that too, was ages ago. Plus equally, we know that 'interconnectivity' is good. Plus (though this is just personal opinion) it's quite possible that the wells are still just settling in and 'cleaning up' further. So it's not too great a stretch of the imagination that if through further 'cleaning up, suggesting better 'interconnectivity', that a bit of water from 7z might be getting across to 6, when the former's shut in but the latter is 'sucking', is it?

Either way, per the CPR and the subsequent CMD, anything less than 10% 'water cut' is what's expected, no problem, and no indication of 'coning'.

Nothing in that respect to worry about.

bartlebobton,

We may disagree on some things share-related, but you deserve an answer to this.

"ADuk.... in France why do most seaside towns have a Casino, even small coastal ones..... is there some historical reason for it... I've never though of the French as being big on gambling, but they must be, no ?"

It dates from an obscure law made in 1907, limiting casinos 'gaming places' to being situated in seaside towns, thermal spa towns, or (occasionally) places proposing 'serious' medical / hospital facilities (such as Lyon and Toulouse). I guess that thinking resided in the fact that only rich people or people with money to waste went to such places, and so it was a way of ensuring that money was taken from them, while keeping the peasantry away from such temptations. Of course, 'the state' took its 'rake', back then as is still the case now.

It's why there are NO CASINOS in Paris.

The French are terrible gamblers, but it remains very much state-run. Even if the casino 'groups' are private or partly-public (ie listed on the stock exchange) corporations. Nevertheless still overseen (that's a good thing) by the PdJ, the 'Police des Jeux'.And you don't mess with the PdJ.

When I go into a tobacconist's, or a bar which doubles up as one, I'm usually waiting in line behind a bunch of people buying scratch-card game-things of some sort, or horse-racing tickets, some sort-of 'five-minute loto' things, and so on. Such bars (which many which double-up as tobacconists) might have two or three screens on the walls, one showing an ongoing horse-race, a couple of others with the numbers for the 'instant lotos' showing up. All this is run by The State. And these aren't bookies' shop lowlife dives. They're everywhere, and 16-year-olds can go in, though by rights I don't think they're allowed to gamble. The people holding up the queue are always an annoyance to me (though I don't let it show), and many of the people in line aren't well off, by any means. All I want is to purchase some cigarettes. Admittedly, another sort of mug's game, but too late to stop now.

I might lean on the bar for a quick beer sometimes, idly watching the gee-gees, but I don't buy any of those tickets. Because I'm not a gambler who bets on games of chance entirely outside my control. I just play poker, in respectable places. For considerably more than the price of a scratch-card.

But that 1907 law hasn't changed.

But conversely, and weirdly, a local bar / cafe / Chinese takeaway isn't allowed to have a fruit-machine! But not so weird, because they ain't state-controlled.

bartlebobton,

" I must say, a smart move on your part dropping some in the low 50's .... give us a warning next time"

I can't do that, because I don't have any charts, TA analysis, nor anything else to explain that move, except for gut-feeling that it was right. Except with 20-20 hindsight, I still got it wrong because it was only a small sell, even though a bigger one crossed my mind. Guess I 'bottled-out'. But whereas I don't keep separate accounts for my share-trading (unlike the detailed accounts I keep for poker, my diesel, hotel, meal expenses and so on, just to keep realistic track of where I am in that respect), my gut-feeling also said I had to top-up yesterday, even if it's eaten into the profit still remaining from my sell trade many months ago.

It's how I do things regarding shares. Whereas at the poker-table (just like on a drilling-rig) my mind's full of numbers, working out probabilities and odds, and taking decisions based on that.

JoeSoap,

"There was always an "if successful" clause."

Yes. But the one thing (no, one of many) we as PI's DON'T know is by what yardstick Hurricane / Spirit are measuring 'successful'. given cost trade-offs WoS, and even more importantly, absolutely no 'development plan' (not even a little EPS) is yet properly public knowledge regarding GWA. Lincoln can be tied into the AM, even if at the limits of distance (the lighter oil helps). But Warwick???

"I think that the time of 9 months at LC may well have been decided in agreement with HUR because they also need OGA to give the approvals to proceed on WoSP and the amended terms of the EPS and the first production permit from Lincoln "by the end Q1 2020", provided that HUR make the applications, of course. If they don't apply then they have committed to have LC "plugged and abandoned by 22 June 2020". Lucky then that they have provisionally secured a rig...."

Absolutely."

"Whether the above reasoning is correct or not is immaterial, but if your explanation is correct, just why the hell are they planning to drill 3 wells next year to produce in 2024?"

Plus the rig contract (provisional) isn't just for Lincoln, time-wise.

I'm with one of Wellwell's earlier thoughts in one of his posts on this. There must have been a 'threshold flow figure' long in place on which the decision to PA or Suspend decision was taken. Partly related to no infrastructure in place yet, no decision yet firmed up in that respect, plus also something as banal as the weather. It's time to get the rig out of there, rather than spending money keeping it bobbimg around for a few weeks like the Spitzbergen did at the back end of 2016. PA is quicker and easier to do than TA. (Maybe).

I'm now crossing my fingers that when the latest Lancaster 'update RNS' comes in, they might tack on a little bit more as an afterthought, giving a precis of this year's drilling. In the same way all the drilling RNS's have had the EPS 'tacked on as if as an afterthought'.

SG2,

"AK; didn't mean to imply anything ... . Just wanted to offer a physics-based... alternative to the 'we're all doomed' slant on H2O. "

Yes, of course I appreciated that. Just winding you up a wee bit! Sorry, no offence intended. And keep up the good work. I don't 'filter' anyone, though am tempted to when I see supposed non-realistic water-cut being mentioned as a method whereby trading 'derampers' try to scare people into selling their shares.

In fact I took the last 48 hours' 'plummet' as a hint to top-up, despite not having oodles of spare cash. First time I've done that in a couple of years. And yes, I admit to occasionally 'trading', simply not on shorterm slight moves (like +/- 5%) in the SP, and also infrequently.

bartlebobton,

" Hands up who thinks the sp has been exciting over the past 12 months..."

I raise my hand high.

"exciting' might rather simply be defined as how much of an adreneline rish the event or events provide. I've seen (and was on the scene of, 30 seconds later, before the driver had even extracted himself from the cab), a race-truck doing a 360-degree rollover. The pilot (a friend of mine) was very excited indeed, and it was only a few minutes later he realised his arm hurt. And it was only after the ambulance hat taken him to hospital and he arrived back in the paddock two or three hours' later with his arm well plastered and supported, we learned it was fractured in three places.

Never confuse 'excitement' with instant and gratifying success. A boat in rough seas might make it lete to harbour with its cargo perished, and the crew get's a b*l**king for the owner for not having sought shelter. A delay which may have led to the same result, anyway. But quite possibly they were having an exciting time battling through the storm.

Hey! Some people here deride me for mentioning my favorite card-game (the only one I play seriously). One of them being EV, quoting that exceedingly corny gambler's song by Kenny Rogers, a few hours ago. But his doing that gives me justification.

I had an extremely 'exciting' Saturday night. Friday was exquisite, nice hands, made a lot of money. Saturday got me worried, because I got 'wiped out' within two hours, my AK against someone else's queens. So bought back in, 'cos I'd misplayed that hand. And spent the next five hours clawing my way back. And finished the evening just a couple of hundred in profit, but man, it was worth the effort and 'excitement'.

Yes, deramper EV, to quote Kenny Rogers, you've got to 'know when to run'. But now ain't that time, especially not on your say-so.

SG2,

"EV, (and DSPP if you're looking-in on the cheap mans board); re water-cut - 'coned'-vs-perched: there is intimation that the cut increase with flowrate cannot be perched: this is incorrect, and some fluid mechanics may help us out here.'

I think it's very wrong of you addressing a technical point like this to EV and DSPP at the same time. Because the latter person definitely knows what he's on about, whereas for EV, his only vague notion about 'water cut' is how much water he puts in his dram or four at The Grill, quite possibly around lunchtime.

I too have looked closely at the OGA charts, and have come to the conclusion (as have others here) that by putting a ruler on them gives no meaningful result in terms of percentage water-cut. Because although admittedly the temporary 'flowline problem' was solved early September, we also have news that although at some points both wells were flowing through both flowlines, also 'interference testing' has more recently been done, flowing the wells separately. To my mind, (someone else correct me if I'm wrong, though I don't believe I am), the only way water-cut can be measured as an overall percentage, to see if it's static, increasing or decreasing, is for it to be measured over a period of time where there were NO CHANGES, ie not swapping between wells, not changing choke sizes, or whatever. Or at least from graphs like that. Hurricane will of course have much more detailed data , from which the graphs are derived, and about which we will hopefully learn a bit more later this month.

In the meantime, I can't help feeling that bringing that old-chestnut topic up again is just a sign of desperation on the part of traders who would have dearly loved to see the SP continue down below 30, but have so far seen that wish frustrated.

Hard cheese if they got another spread-bet wrong again. Because that's the only way lowlifes of their ilk can 'short'. They don't have the clout to 'short' in the true sense of the term, by borrowing actual shares from a broker.

And please, no mentions of 'dead cat bounce'. Dead cat's don't bounce. They just go 'splat' all over the pavement.

ronok,

"Will the actual maximum flow rates never be known for this one? (Warwick West)"

Yes. That's a given. Because with the well being PA'd, essentially the well will no longer exist as such.

Your post is rather like mine of yesterday and those of certain others. In that it highlights certain inconsistencies in the RNS, and questions to which we don't have the answers.

Unfortunately, you must be prepared for some others on this BB coming back and saying we're clutching at straws, exhibiting confirmation bias, and so on. I'm certainly expecting such a backlash, which has started and will no doubt continue.

I certainly feel 'the market' over-reacted, but of course such an over-reaction might have been expected, because it works to the benefit of quite a number of traders.

Wellwell,

More 'similar thinking'.

However, regarding "It’s not unheard of for a previously cemented and abandoned well to be repurposed although it’s quite rare. It’s simple enough to use the existing conductor, latch the BOP and riser and drill through the plug.", I disagree. See my first post sent today.

P&A means what it says. Including removal of the wellhead, cutting the conductor at least 30ft below the seabed and removing the cut section, and generally leaving the site as it was before the rig even moved in there.

What you're describing is 'temporary abandonment' or 'suspension', which allows well re-entry at a later time in the future, even if it's a matter of years.

But this is just another reason I find the decision to P&A rather curious. Because if memory serves correct, Lancaster 4z was left 'suspended', plus Whirlwind and Halifax certainly were. I have no doubt whatsoever that the decision was a joint one, made by both Hurricane and Spirit together. I suspect that it may have been pre-planned, with some sort of 'production rate threshold value' established, upon which such a decision could be immediately based. That Lincoln (with good production) has been left suspended is entirely logical, because that well can be (and will be) tied into the Aoka Mizu. But Warwick's a bit too far away for that. I think it's not impossible that by abandoning, this might leave Spirit a possible 'escape hatch' should they decide to walk away, at which point Lincoln might simply revert to Hurricane, for a consideration of course, relating to the drilling costs.

This is pure speculation, of course.

bartlebobton,

"Give the PR and Marketing to Weber Shandwick"

I don't know if that'd help. Because it all depends on how much tech detail Hurricane id providing to Vigo, their current PR people. I would certainly like the company to provide little details such as choke sizes, estimated pressure drawdown, during the DST, and stuff like that. Some companies do that, and even if it's detail which would be way over the head of 'laypeople' (no 'blame' attached to that whatsoever), it might give people with oilfield knowledge something to hang their has on.

I mean good grief, we had to wait until the CMD to get some proper knowledge about the WD DST, and yes, that well was most definitely non-commercial. But a marketing event like a CMD is NOT the place to reveal new technical information such as that, because a large number of the 'financial folk' in attendance wouldn't have understood the significance, anyway.

bartlebobton,

"LW ....why are you so surprised, WD produced a big slide....so why the astonishment when history repeats itself with WW,. Both described as a wells that are not commercial."

Where in the latest WW RNS does the phrase 'non-commercial' appear? 'Cos I've read the thing four of five times now, and can't see that expression. Or should I visit my optician tomorrow?

MCB55,

"One way of looking at WW is that although the well is P&A'd it could still have been deemed to be commercial in different circumstances."

Your thinking is very much along the same lines as mine, obviously. Just that you're a lot braver than I am, because I'd thought of putting a similar remark in my post of a couple of hours ago, but reckoned it might be sticking my head rather far above the berm and have it shot off by people accusing me of being overoptimistic! But let's face it, what would an outfit like Udog give to have a 1300 bbl/day producer? Would they P&A the thing? No way. But of course economics WoS are utterly different from those onshore in Southern England.

Two technical questions (to which we have no answers yet, and are unlikely to get any until a future CPR, unless Edison drop some hints), is WHY there were problems 'reliably recording stable flow' with the ESP, and why the DST was curtailed (rather than extended, timewise) while the well was still 'cleaning up'? Maybe the answer to the latter has something as banal as the weather forecast / rig costs as an explanation, though that's pure guesswork. But I wouldn't even care to speculate about the ESP 'issue', as there aren't any clues to play with.

Maybe I'm clutching at straws a bit, but I still find the RNS slightly puzzling, and I do feel the market has over-reacted a bit. Because compare and contrast the WW RNS with that of WD. Nowhere is it said that WW did not flow commercially. Also nowhere (unlike Dr T's comment on WD) does the word 'disappointing' creep in.

More. WW is being plugged and abandoned 'in accordance with reglementary requirements' whereas on WD it's implied that P&A was a decision based on its non-commercial flow.

All rather odd. Once again I feel we've had a Hurricane RNS which doesn't tell the whole story.