Member Info for DiveCentre

MCB55

“However they will not release that publicly for some considerable time and maybe not at all except to the CPR”

HUR have stressed the importance of gathering data on reservoir behaviour during the first six to twelve months of the EPS.
Certainly they are not going to release that data until they have fully analysed it themselves but they will at some point have to make it available to potential farm in partners if their preference is a partnership rather than taking on full field development themselves. The issue for investors will be whether HUR provide the market with some form of assessment of the data that will allow investors to make their own assessment of how much juice there is in the cherry. If they do not and there is no farm in deal twelve months from FOIL there will be questions.

Aduk and MCB55

Given that HUR have a partner for GWA what other reason would there be for a CPR other than to support investor interest in HUR. Surely FID on the tie back and the further FID to proceed with the three additional appraisal wells will be of greater significance for investor sentiment.

escargot quite right it needs another line

"snail gets the hump"

A snail and a camel walk into a bar. The camel being quite thirsty cannot wait for his friend and reaches the bar first to order. Barman says what can I get you and the camel replies a double and one for my friend. After a long wait snail still hasn’t made it to the bar so the camel takes a sip, and another sip.
Sometime later the sail reaches the bar and seeing two empty glasses says where’s mine. Camel replies it’s in storage.

Biffadog

Yes I know you had said it before. I am not convinced.

I cannot imagine that AS would have said anything different. He is hardly going to say (in a quiet voice) yes but keep it under your hat. And before I am accused of calling AS a liar there is the truth and versions of the truth. It is highly unlikely that a formal offer was made and AS could rightfully answer your question in the negative.
RT acknowledged in the interview that farmout discussions had taken place prior to the fund raise. He also said that the interested parties were only interested in the whole lot. I find it extremely hard to believe that those discussions did not include informal talk on the broad terms of a future offer.
For the record my view is my own and is not influenced by anyone Bernstein included. It is my own opinion and readers can draw their own conclusions.

Cebo-456

Yes it is specutalive.
What other problem might he have had?

I did not say, and neither do I think they made the wrong decision. As far a creating value I am quite happy. Whether it was bad practice in terms of corporate behaviour we shall never kwow.

I wouldn’t say it was expected but I don’t find it particularly surprising. Arnott’s resignation suggests a farm in offer was turned down which I imagine he thought should be put to a shareholder vote. We don’t know this for certain but I cannot think of any other sensible reason. Last year in his interview with MGW RT said they were only interested in the whole lot. So if an offer was made RT and presumably the majority of other board members decided it did not reflect true value.

Circumstances are now different following the Spirit deal and although going it alone with FFD might be tight it is feasible. It clearly indicates the Company expect to get full value from any future deal. With that in mind those interested will want to be highly confident that the value is there so the EPS data will be all the more important. I do not expect to see an early farm in

The Company has to signal to potential partners that they can manage FFD if necessary and are therefore not dependent on a farm in parnter

"anyone else been given the new beta version of LSE to play with ? "

yes and I don't like it. Posts order by threads??

Drinking graves, what I call serious wine.

Apachwind

Any business that fails to assess the impact of Brexit would be negligent. HUR are simply ticking the box the say job done

Scoredagainsteps
This may not be the 18th century but Arbitrader is right. Corbyn and McDonnell together with their momentum entourage are communists. They will not use that name but to all intents and purpose they are communist. Corbyn‘s only interest in Brexit is to force a general election and hope to capitalise on the tory infighting.
Brexit is a shambles and I despise those ardent brexetiers who campaigned for it claiming it was going to be easy peasy. Anyone with an iota of common sense realised that Brussels scorned was not going to roll over and give us an easy deal. However I will be content to live with whatever Brexit result we get as long as Corbyn and co are not in power.

adoubleuk

I was uncertain about whether the drilling on Warwick is exploratory or appraisal but some what reluctant to ask for fear of appearing ignorant. As you well know Lincoln has been drilled to a depth below the structural close so unless a barrier exists between Lincoln and Warwick I was thinking it would be regarded as appraisal particularly as both planned wells are shown as horizontal.
Your speculation “I suspect the well might be drilled like Lancaster 7 / 7z. ie drill sub-vertically and deep, try to find OWC, test, then plug back and sidetrack horizontally, maybe test again, before suspending as a future producer. Just a guess, though.”isinteresting. Is this anything to do with the 80 day timescale?

Biffadog

It is not the first time Jeremy Creswell has quoted 20-22 days; read this article from EV in January.
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/189604/hurricane-boss-plans-seamless-execution-of-drilling-campaigns-off-shetland/

Why is it only now that it is being called into question?

I’m not sure if the Company has said which of the wells they intend to drill first but no doubt someone will say if they have. The Kingfisher Bulletin refers to Warwick C, which together with the rig co-ordinates indicates 205/26b/C (Warwick Deep).
According to the presentation this well is to be drilled below local structural closure in order to prove flowrates for deep oil. Interested to hear any views on the choice of this as the first well to be drilled and the potential for an upgrade in reserves.

Lady Sonia

“Still thinking about the 6-12 months Lancaster data, eg if it's good news re bottom hole pressure it'll be 6 months? and not quite so good news could mean longer analysis i.e 12 months?”

The question is not just about the data but how it is released and to whom? When will other industry participants get access to it and when will investors be told and in what form will such information be provided to investors.
Producing at the planned rates will not provide all the answers and if industry partners have not moved in the first six months what are investors going to conclude.

JK

I have as much contempt for the MF article as you or any other poster on this board. In fact I am amazed that it has attracted so much comment when it ought to be treated with the derision it deserves and consigned to the rubbish bin.

Nigwit simply pointed out that the risk was real (by saying it was not wrong) which is correct. He did not quantify the risk and not unexpectedly his post has attracted some criticism.

Rupert Hargreaves piece was entirely sensationalist. He focussed on worst case scenarios and gave no assessment of their likelihood and, as you say made no comparison with other potential risks. However you cannot say in doing so he was wrong simply because he did not quantity them or draw comparisons.

JayKay1 and Cebo 456

You cannot categorically rule out a catastrophic event.
Wessemario posted this link in August last year
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SmXOI4shA9gkcogETZxYryhVUiT3wSLQ/view?usp=sharing
What are they for?
Quantifying the risk is damn near impossible but denying it exists???

pigeon breasts, shot yesterday, 30mins at 58C sous vide, post sear

Bloobird
With respect I would suggest that is similar to asking for a second "B" vote

escargot

I don’t think HUR have said specifically what they define as first oil. It has been assumed by some that it will be the first oil on-board the AM but this is probably not the case.

Look at page 41 of the Hannam report:

“The initial start-up sequence will be producing from one well, then turning it off and bringing the second well on line and then switching this one off to get interference data. Therefore, the plan would be for production at~45% of capacity for the initial 3 months, rising to 65% in the next 3 months before reaching the planned design utilisation rate of 85%, which will be 6 months after start-up.”

The time line shows commissioning followed by start up and then first oil.

In terms of the sweepstake it's now irrelevant.