Member Info for Biffadog

IJWT,

I think you will be disappointed if you think Kerogen will sell up on the cheap. They have a seat at the table and will have a firm say in the company strategy. There is no reason they need to sell themselves short. Please expand on why you think this is the case.

Personally, I'm happy to roll with it and will take what I am given when I am given it.

I'm sure we will all make some money in due course. It's out of our hands so why fret.

GLA.

Guys,

Calm down. It's just a spud RNS. What do you expect ?

You've already had all the detail on the GWA project in the recent presentation and there is a CPR for those that want every detail on GWA.

Bash it if it makes you feel better but don't kid yourself that you don't know/haven't been told what this drill is aiming to achieve.

GLA.

Hi SXXPP,

It's a red herring IMHO.

I'd be very surprised if HUR can't beat Catcher to FOIL. I won't bore you with all the comparison detail again between the two projects, but safe to say, that the Lancaster EPS is somewhat simpler and the FPSO is already proven.

HUR always play down timescales and these two examples are just the latest UKCS FPSO projects. Nobody ever moans when something comes in early.

66 days from hook up on the 19th March is the 24th May FWIW.

Early May would be my best guess but what do I know....

GLA.

IvaP,

As you well know, everything is in place to extract oil and FOIL is in fact imminent.

I hope that alleviates your confusion regarding this important stage in HUR's development.

GLA.

SOTB,

Your post is incorrect.

Each well is expected to take approximately 2 months.

GLA.

Cebo is 100% correct.

HUR are fully funded to the end of 2019 without any cash from the Lancaster EPS.

If the EPS is not producing cashflow by Q4 2019 then HUR might not look like such a good investment !!

This is an important point so just wanted to emphasis it.

Suggest everybody takes time out to listen to the company presentation. It's only 36 minutes long (including Q&A) and covers everything you need to know. Saves asking people on here and trusting their answers to be true !!

http://www.hurricaneenergy.com/application/files/5815/5378/2778/20190328_-_Hurricane_Energy_FY18_Results_Call.mp3

GLA.

DC,

I've posted this countless times before on here but when I asked AS at the last AGM if HUR were made any FO offers (even very poor ones), he categorically said that no such offers were made and basically went on to say that the feeling was that any interested companies were holding back on the basis that they felt HIUR would not secure alternative financial arrangements and they would be able to pick up the company for a song. Nobody has ever come up with any evidence of a FO offer having been made and who made it, apart from some idle rumour from RB, when he realised how over exposed he was to HUR without an obvious escape route.

A more likely explanation of RA's departure from the company would be down to a disagreement on corporate finance associated with the warrants fiasco and how close HUR sailed to insolvency at that moment in time.

I would stress that this is purely my opinion and not a statement of fact.

RA was RB's man though. RB introduced him to HUR after he forced through (much needed IMHO) BOD changes back in 2016. Light the fuse and stand well back....

GLA.

BlooBird,

I think you are worrying unnecessarily.

HUR cannot just sit there and wait for somebody to buy out the company as a whole, they need to develop the assets within the constrains of available finance and build on the value of the assets they hold.

However, that doesn't stop a major player coming along any making them an offer for the whole shooting match and I'm sure if that offer was good enough they would sell.

Either way you're going to be quids in, so if I was you I'd buy some popcorn and watch it all unfold over the next 3 years or so and see where we are then.

Not sure I understand your disappointment. Maybe best to switch off from short term SP movements, even though I agree they can be very frustrating. It will consolidate and be back up again for FOIL before you know it.

It's just being traded that's all. The fundamentals remain sound and they will shine through in the long term SP trend.

GLA.

Foresight2,

Apologies as I misread your post.

However, it's worth pointing out that HUR do not refer to the Lancaster EPS as a FFD, hence my confusion.

A second FPSO on GWA will be the first official FFD.

Anyway, it seems we are both equally positive about the future of the company.

GLA.

Hi Foresight22,

You will have a hell of a lot more than 100M 2P reserves once GWA Phase 1 is sanctioned. Probably something in the region of 600M barrels.

100M barrels 2P comes from the AM once the GWA tie-back, FPSO debottlenecking, gas export and 10 year time frame are sorted out.

Whilst HUR can certainly handle any GLA appraisal/exploration drilling from EPS cashflow, they will almost certainly need a FO partner for GLA FFD. The beauty of the Spirit deal is HUR can now make plans and develop the assets without the need for any immediate need for a further FO partner. Any future deal is going to be on HUR's terms and once the Lancaster EPS is proven HUR are going to be in a very, very good negotiating position indeed.

GLA.

Kerogen currently have 428M shares out of 1960M shares in issue, or 21.87%
1960M plus the new 23M gives 1983M shares in issue after the CA warrants are exercised.

To retain the 21.87% level, Kerogen need to hold 1983M @21.87% or 433M shares in total.

So, Kerogen require an additional 5M shares to achieve this and not 140M as is being suggested.

I have included the relevant quote and link to the full document below.

It's the percentage share on the exercise date that counts and not the percentage Kerogen held way back in 2016 (which was 30% or thereabouts).

Hopefully that allays any fears people might have had regarding 5% dilution.

http://ir.q4europe.com/Solutions/Hurricane2018tf/3942/newsArticle.aspx?storyid=14105570

"be entitled on any exercise of CA Warrants to subscribe for shares in the Company on the same terms up to the number required to maintain the same percentage interest in the Company as prior to such exercise"

GLA.

aduk,

You are not going to get two FOIL RNS announcements. FOIL is by definition only one event.

The industry norm is plain and simple. An RNS is issued as soon as all the commissioning is completed and "clean" oil is imported onto the FPSO.

HUR may well put out a tweet or RNS highlighting the first cargo of oil offloaded from the AM but I wouldn't bet on it.

GLA.

Not sure what the fuss is about CA's warrants.

23M shares is just over 1% of total shares in issue. At 20p per share they will obviously be exercised by CA but that doesn't mean they will jus dump them on the market.

If they wanted to dump shares they already have 95M odd shares to chose from. Once exercised the warrant acquired shares are no different from all the other ones.

The recent CA disposal was only for about 2M shares (barely 0.1% of shares in issue) and I don't see that as having any material effect on things unless that sale was tactical taking their holding just below the 5% leaving another 20M odd shares that they can sell without triggering a TR-1. I doubt it as they normally don't bother playing for just a few pence on any drop. The last big CA play was the drop from 60p to 40p. In fact we may well benefit from CA supporting the SP on the lead up to FOIL.

Before I get shot down in flames, I am not a great fan of CA or RB, as the regular posters on here will be well aware. However, on this occasion I can't see what all the fuss is about.

On a separate note, if HUR can't beat PMO's Catcher 10 weeks from HU to FOIL, they are doing something wrong or have encountered unforeseen problems.

I know that RT and HUR IR like to play things down but sometimes it would be helpful if best cases scenarios were also mentioned.

The HUR AGM is in the first week in June and that's 11 weeks from the HU of the AM buoy, so hopefully that gives them something to aim for.

GLA.

Hi AD,

Agreed, "proof of concept" was a bad choice of wording and for that I apologise.

I'm fully aware that FB works all around the world and as such, the concept is already proven, and there is no reason it should be any different WOS.

What I meant was that HUR would need to be able to demonstrate consistent flow rates without significant decline over an extended time period, in this instance 6-12 months.

I'm sure they will also provide regular updates along the way as they step up production to 20k bopd.

For the record, I'm 100% happy and expect greta things from HUR over the coming year.

GLA.

Albi1,

You seem to be confusing EPS data collection with FOIL.

FOIL and EPS data time scales are two separate things. The EPS data would need to be collected over a 6-12 month period (not 2-3 months as you say) before ultimate proof of concept can be established and FOIL.

The GWA drilling campaign has no connection to the Lancaster EPS schedule. They are being run separately.

There are two near term SP catalysts (IMHO), namely FOIL and the Lincoln drill results. I suspect FOIL will be first closely followed by the GWA Lincoln drill results.

GLA.

BlooBird,

You have missed my point entirely.

Malcy doesn't know how long it will be to FOIL, nor is he hinting at anything.

He has just chucked some figures out there to detract from the unrealistic 20-22 days that HUR have found themselves stuck with due to that article. He is helping HUR out.

Obviously he needs to err on the side of caution to achieve this aim, hence a couple of months.

I'm sticking with 4-6 weeks which equates to before the end of April if all goes well. Everybody should form their own opinion based on what they perceive to be the situation.

As you quite rightly say, we shall see.

GLA.

The Catcher project was also 12 wells over 3 distinct areas, as opposed to two wells right next to each other being brought on-line one at a time. If things run smoothly,

I cannot see any reason why FOIL would take longer at Lancaster than Catcher and would expect it to take less time, if anything.

DC, That was the one and only Jeremy Cresswell Energy Voice article and it was indeed published back in January. I queried it with HUR at the time and posted their reply on here a few days ago. It's only raised it's ugly head now, as we have only just succeeded in hooking up the buoy.

GLA.

Malcy is just managing expectations for HUR as a direct result of the Energy Voice article. No more, no less.

Since the Energy Voice article by Jeremy Cresswell quoting FOIL 20-22 days after hooking up the buoy, HUR have been keen to play this down saying RT was misquoted. I suspect what happened was that RT said that 20-22 days was the quickest it could be done and this was quoted as the actual time it would take, hence HUR saying they have been misquoted.

Malcy says in his blog on the 22nd March "The company has clarified that the 20-22 days referred to by Jeremy Cresswell in a recent Energy Voice article relates to bringing individual wells on-stream and is effectively part of the commissioning process. By definition, commissioning cannot be shorter than this."

So, if a well is on-stream then by definition it is flowing oil and FOIL has been achieved.

The reality is that a more realistic time frame is probably in the order of 4-6 weeks (assuming there are no major issues), as this really is a very straightforward operation and HUR will only be bringing one well on stream at a time and they are using a proven FPSO.

Malcy bumbled about a lot in that chat with Justin Waite but at no stage did he say FOIL was in 2-4 months. He used that time period to talk about relative flow rates and didn't actually refer to FOIL itself at any stage in the interview.

Malcy doesn't know any more than that. He is just helping HUR manage expectations down after they were inadvertently raised. HUR always try to give long time frames to cover themselves as best they can. Who can blame them really as we have all seen on here how they get treated if a perceived deadline is missed.

I have previously posted communication from HUR dating back to January just after this article was published to this effect, so nobody is saying there is a bloody problem already.

However, you are all welcome to read what you like into it and I see some (BlooBird) have already opted for doom and gloom.

Anyway, there will be no hiding the flaring, so bring it on.

Best of luck WW. Subtle posting on occasion but always very knowledgable on HUR. Enjoyed the sparring and would have to say of late, I have agreed with every post you have made.

GLA.

A word of caution regarding the time scale between hooking up the buoy and FOIL, with particular reference to the Jeremy Cresswell Energy Voice article (link attached).

I questioned the 20-22 day time period with HUR and they basically said the following.

"I would just caution that although it has been written following a conversation with Robert, that doesn't mean that it is completely accurate. There are certain statements that have been slightly misquoted or are presented in a way that I would say gives the wrong impression (for example the 20-22 day start-up procedure is not the period from hook-up, as implied by the way Cresswell has phrased it). Sadly we rarely get a chance to review articles like this before they go out."

My feeling is that with everything going absolutely to plan, then this is indeed possible. Perhaps RT mentioned this scenario and hence the misquote. HUR were quite clear to me that it is very difficult to accurately predict this.

My personal feeling is that a more realistic time scale is 4-6 weeks. This is only based on a comparison with the PMO's BW Catcher project, which took 10 weeks but involved a brand new FPSO linking up to 12 wells in 3 distinct areas.

As I'm sure you are all aware, HUR only have a very simple 2 wells set up to contend with and all the major subsea work has been completed prior to the arrival of the AM.

So, that's not to say that we won't get a FOIL RNS in 20 days time, but I think that in all probability, it will be a bit longer.

However, I wouldn't want to be out in about 3 weeks from now !

http://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/189604/hurricane-boss-plans-seamless-execution-of-drilling-campaigns-off-shetland/

GLA.

wellwell,

You've certainly changed your tune.

You've gone from no real upside to the SP "I think my point is that these catalysts don’t seem to make any difference on past evidence so why would they make any in future? "

to "I see very little downside" in less than 12 hours.

I know you've "reassessed based on information available" but I'm not sure anything has changed since earlier on today.

Keep up the good work.

GLA.