Member Info for Biffadog

GWA FFD FID mid 2021.
FOIL 2024 so there won't be an FPSO at GWA before late 2023 at the very earliest.

To take away any ambiguity....

"The bet on RKH is now down to whether the ECA funding is successful. With the ECA backing (even if not the full amount) comes additional funding from the banks. This is pretty much lined up subject to UKEF approval but without some UKEF (i.e UK Government) skin in the game, the banks are not interested"

GLA.

Not invested here at the moment but just thought you chaps might like to know that GSA Capital are quietly slipping out the back door.

Short position reduced from 0.59% to 0.49% on the 10th September, so they are now under the radar.

With the sale of Zama, Sea Lion is looking an absolute certainty now for PMO, with or without the ECA funding.

The bet is now down to whether the ECA funding is successful and with it the banks.

Without it they are left with only two options.

Selling the company or an equity raise (which will pretty much wipe out current share holders).

Any money from litigation makes no odds. It's simply not enough even if RKH hit the jackpot (200M Euro).

It's all down to UKEF/ECA funding. That's the RKH bet now, plain and simple.

Might have a flutter over the next month or so.

GLA.

Obviously this is totally hypothetical and has no relevance or meaning, but if you went back to early 2016 before the first big rights issue when Kerogen bought into HUR, the company had roughly 634M shares in issue (981M after the Kerogen deal).

Given an Mcap today of roughly £931M (1.99B shares @46.8p) then the SP would be roughly 147p if only 634M shares are in issue.

On a more serious note, the fact that there are 2B shares in issue is irrelevant went it comes to moving the SP.

GLA.

Undoubtedly a big spike in the oil price on Monday. However, KSA already said will use their stockpile to keep the market adequately supplied.

Suspect they will take advantage of the situation and whilst releasing stock oil will not release too much and keep the price up for a while.

Suspect Iran might have gone a bit too far this time mind.

Nice bonus on Monday if you’re into PMO.

GLA.

I've looked into this and I think the answer is fairly straight forward.

The arrangement was set up years ago when BP had a definite interest in HUR and well before HUR had any plans for oil production.

BP simply take a few cents per barrel to act as a middleman and this saves HUR having to tout their oil by the tanker load in the open market.

It also keeps a business relationship between HUR and BP, which BP might see as being useful in the future.

Happy to be corrected but I think that's the explanation.

GLA.

Ever heard of market cap ?

Either your post is taking the **** or you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near buying/trading shares.

GLA.

Totdy,

I think you are getting confused here somewhat.

BP pay roughly spot rate for the oil from Lancaster. They then make a tiny margin on this oil.

If BP owned HUR then they would make the profit between Opex (circa $20) and Spot Price for Brent (circa $60), so about $40 per barrel.

At the moment they make a few cents per barrel.

Please don't ask me too explain why BP set this arrangement up with HUR all those years ago, as I simply do not know the answer. Others on here will do but it's a question of whether anybody can be bothered to explain it.

Suffice to say, it's nothing to lose sleep over.

HUR get pretty much spot rate and I can personally tell you that Stobie confirmed this at the last AGM.

GLA.

F22 is not a bright lad either.

For somebody that spends so much time on here (whatever his agenda), I'm always surprised to see so many glaring errors from somebody that is attempting to demonstrate a depth and breath of knowledge of HUR and off shore drilling.

F22, you need to bone up a bit if you want anybody to take you seriously.

GLA.

FS22 is our very own village idiot.

Best to ignore, as his grasp and presentation of the facts is poor, even on a good day.

GLA.

Afternoon PT,

I just thought either you were pretty ill informed to think there was an overhang or had an ulterior motive.

It transpires it was the former (or was it the latter). Only you know, I guess.

Either way, you got an accurate answer to your question. No overhang. Nothing to worry about.

Apologies for any confusion.

GLA.

If you want further proof that there is no overhang, then look no further than 17th July when the 110M shares were actually traded (19th July was settlement day).

Total trading volume on the 17th July was 177M and included that 110M shares.

We are simply waiting on the detailed RNS from HUR as to the Lincoln drill results.

However given the sheer size of the that flare and the fact that after only a relatively short shut in the well is now flaring again, I would have to say things are looking a bit tasty. No surprise really after the drill results from the Lincoln vertical well and the CPR.

To be only paying just under 45p now with this level of information, compared with 42p/43p pre the flaring news on Friday is a bloody gift IMHO.

GLA.

The institutions could indeed be selling already but but I think it's rather unlikely don't you ?

Maybe try another topic to undermine things here as this one holds no water.

GLA.

Kerogen's 110M shares were all placed with institutions by Morgan Stanley at a price of 46.5p on the 19th July.

There is no overhang.

Simple as that.

GLA.

mover123,

If the best you can do is to quote a moron like rayrac from ADVFN then I suggest you stop posting.

It doesn't help anybody unless of course that's what you are attempting to do.

GLA.

The volume has been minimal over the last few days.

In fact, yesterday was the lowest volume of shares traded for the whole of 2019.

It's simple really. All bets are pretty much down and the wheel is spinning.

There will be a few people making minor adjustments to their risk profile, a few forced sales due to external events and not a lot of shorting (except for the very brave).

Everybody is waiting for the news on whether the oil flows freely and a corresponding flare. That hasn't happened yet and until it does, the SP will just sit around this level.

The only thing for certain is that when it moves (either way) it will be swift and with huge volume.

So until you see some sudden increase in volume (or an RNS) then this it for the time being.

No big surprise and any small blips of volume will shift the price accordingly. Background noise. It's irrelevant.

All the generally available feedback from the drill so far seems to be positive, so on that basis the signs are looking good.

GLA.

HUR said it was only for a month in the RNS.

"Production over the last month has been through a single flow line and therefore water cut cannot be attributed between the two wells."

The rest I found out by asking HUR IR. I agree that sometimes a bit more information from HUR would be helpful.

Another point to ponder is that the perched water cut can just as easily go down as it can up. It will vary over time that much is for sure.

It is not a constant by the nature of the beast. Perched water is not spread evenly throughout the fractures but stored in ad-hoc pockets.

The important point is that it is perched water and not from the aquifer. HUR have categorically stated this a number of times.

At 7.5% aggregate the water cut is very low and easily taken care of.

GLA.

Just so nobody worries too much about the recent loss of one of the flow lines.

It was caused by an issue with a valve in the turret and the problem has been fully resolved.

It was only out for about a month.

Info from HUR IR.

GLA.

Aggregate is the key word here.

The RNS is extremely ambiguous as I have previously said.

Sloppy communications.

However, I think on reflection wellwell’s explaination is the correct one.

If it was 7.5% aggregate over both wells this would be a huge issue and would not have been framed in the same way.

Bad use of aggregate and needs a well number to more accurately define things.

They are however clear that it is perched water and not from the aquifer, so the type/source of water is not an issue.

GLA.

Having reread the RNS, I think WW is correct regarding the water cut and it having been taken since both flow lines came into operation.

Shame HUR did not clarify this with a well number to avoid any confusion.

GLA.