The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
I've had conflicting information as to whether they are barefoot or SL. Given that one cannot do effective water control in the horizontals given the siize & connectivity of the fractures, then one would only go to SL if either there was a risk of borehole collapse (possible given some of the debris apparent in the large fractures) or if one needed to run PLT through the horizontals in an assured manner. It is possible that they have tried doing it both ways and have yet to settle on a 'standard' completion. There are pros and cons both ways. I'm not too fussed, just technical curiosity.
See https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/assets/technical-library12 sep 2017https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/download_file/force/399/258slide 38Shows well schematic with 9-5/8 casing transitioning to what we understand to be a horizontal slotted liner (SL) bottom hole for maintenance of borehole access through life and to do PLT etc on CT. For non-oilies drawings like these don't show the angle, i.e. the bottom bit is actually horizontal, not vertical.
The last CMD video did not include the Q&A, and was not live. Both aspects were disappointing and I duly complained so there is no excuse for investor relations to not do it properly this time. I suggest you all get your complaints in directly to investor relations in advance this time so that there can be no misunderstanding within HUR. As we all know the CMD Q&A can be the most important thing. Even if the II's are not asking anything we do not already know, the mere fact of who is asking, and what they are asking, is itself important information for ALL investors.
aduk,
I don't agree with fandg2 on this. 1. If RT thinks he is adding most value on the rig then that's his call to make. 2. This is a well that has already had one ST as we know, and you can get some very high losses that make for fairly quick decisions (bear in mind they are drilling a horizontal deeper in this than they've done before), and I've known fractured targets taking sustained losses in excess of 20kbopd mud. 3 This is going into the centre of some interesting and new geology per those Bach Ho papers of Fabian and he is the most experienced G&G on the payroll. 4. Knowledge transfer to whoever are the G&G folk in Spirit and etc (we don't know how the people are or not being pooled) younger generation is important. So I'm with RT on this. If it were just hanging around the AM that would be a different matter as he is G&G and not ops so wouldn't be adding value. But on WD as we go into ?? the interesting bit ?? then if he says offshore is more important than London, then good on him. regards, dspp
The results of WD may not be significant in terms of bulk rock volume, but they are significant in terms of STOIIP and connectivity / produceability.
See the 2009 Bach Ho paper that Fabian kindly linked to here ( https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=796#p214942 ) for the reason.
This is important for all of the Rona Ridge reservoirs, and imho, is one of the reasons why WD is first up on the drill sequence.
They are utterly standard terms. You'd have to be a conspiracy theorist with no understanding of the industry to think otherwise.
From HUR Q4 2018 graph on p13 the FBHP is only about 1870 psi, and PI from one test was 187 b/d/psi. Assume that graph is at 10kb/d, then the drawdown is only 50psi. So CIBHP is 1920psi. Assume 0.05 psi/ft for gas full condition over (1380m = 4500 ft) = 225psi. So CITHP assuming gas full worst case on start up is approx 1695 psi = 120 bar. All approx, ignoring subsea etc.These HUR wells are shallow, much shallower than is commonly appreciated. Even allowing for bullheading you could probably use 3k equipment. Do they even manufacture 3k kit for subsea use ? I would expect 5k kit, maybe 10k kit if it was more readily available.
for subsea tree intro see
https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/math/MEK4450/h14/undervisningsmateriale/module-2/mek4450-dnvgl-04-xt-concepts.pdf
(cont).
The world is changing. As investors we must be dispassionate & clear-eyed about that.
All the main agricultural equipment manufacturers are working on battery electric vehicle (BEV) tractors.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/analysis-electric-technology-set-kill-off-diesel-tractors
All the main truck manufacturers, and some new entrants are working on BEV trucks.
https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/vehicles/trucks/eactros-heavy-duty-electric-truck/
If the BEV trucks and tractors perform like the Tesla Semi is shaping up then your truck racing could get a whole lot more exciting, but less noisy and polluting.
https://www.tesla.com/semi
https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-the-tesla-semi-everything-you-need-to-know-about-teslas-semi-autonomous-electric-truck/
The source of the energy to power these BEV trucks, tractors, and cars is increasingly coming from non-fossil sources. In the UK in 2018 the % of ELECTRICITY from non-fossil sources reached 53%, and the renewables share was 33%. In 2018 the % of ENERGY from non-fossil sources reached 18.4%, so this is not just an electricity thing.
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk-renewable-energy-production-levels-consumption-statistics/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728374/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2018.pdf
The UK is by no means the world leader in this respect, and these numbers are increasing worldwide, and by my calculations (see the TLF) are materially contributing to the oil price as one of the factors, and an increasingly important factor
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11176#p212769
The intermittency issues are basically solved, and it is the same computing & earth-sensing technologies that allow us to model O&G reservoirs, combined with the same battery improvements that are driving BEV market adoption, that allow this. My personal calculations indicate that a renewables penetration on the grid of 80% is achievable in most countries with current technology.
I suggest you start asking your local farmers how many litres of diesel they get through each year. Then watch their faces when you tell them that buying the same amount of energy from solar might be about 5p kWh, rather than the approximately two or three times as great a price they will be paying for diesel (there are 11.7kWh/ltr). I personally expect that farmers will be putting in 50-150kW of solar on each farm very quickly during the next decade, driven by profit which is what motivates most farmers. Clearly the size of the solar 'patch' will vary depending on the size and nature of each farm.
I am a HUR investor. I think I know a bit about working in the oilpatch technically and doing the economics of the oilpatch. This is why I think it is important for HUR to move these fields through the development processes with an absolute minimum of delay. If they do not, then there is a risk that over time the shareholders of HUR, or any E&P stock will have devaluing portfolios of stranded assets.
The world is cha
LS,
I'm still here, but I tend to post on TLF. I have not updated my last set of quickie valuations as there has been no new information since then. Derisking of an operational nature, yes; asset valuation information, no. Please remember that those valuations I did would tend to represent some sort of intrinsic fair value, but that at present we would ordinarily expect the share to trade at a discount to those levels. There are other times when the share might trade at a premium to those levels. At the end of the day, the market price is what it is on any given day. If you think about what might cause the share price to 'snap' to a different level you can then take a view as to how long one might want to be out, or at what price one might want to increasing or decreasing one's holding.
By the way I have mulled it over at length and concluded that I disagree with the Hannam valuation methodology as it double-dips on the fudge factors. They've tuned the fudge factors to get to today's share price, but that is an iffy approach from a the methodological perspective imho. Bottom line = I prefer my approach.
regards, dspp
There are two FFDs and two FFD FIDs because there are at least two separate large structures (GLA & GWA). If you listen carefully to the calls you can hear occasional ambiguity in the Q&A, by both questioners and respondees, hence some of the confusion here. In addition there is the GWA tie-back FID to add further confusion:
Q3 2019 = GWA tie back FID & associated debottleneck & gas export (40kbpd) (decision for HUR + SPIRIT)
Q2 2021 = GWA FFD FID (decision for HUR + SPIRIT)
Q? 2022 = GLA FFD FID (decision for HUR + tbd, maybe solo in stages)
Definitely pootling around again overnight. No reliable information as to why.
Albi, No, sorry. However it is different as AM has better engine control than Pellegrino and so probably needs less tug assist (though I am not sure). Also I think there is a different latch/unlatch sequence but again I am unsure. I am afraid it is about 20-years since I had any direct involvement with FPSOs so I am unsure of all the intricacies of the different types these days. regards, dspp
Looking at the AIS data through the day it is consistent with having latched the buoy, then doing (maybe) a full rotation, and also doing some pull tests (intentionally or otherwise). They have certainly cycled on a number of occasions between "stopped" and "underway using engine", though whether that was to do a pull test, or whether to try and swivel, or whether to pickup, or something else, we cannot see.
There is a lot of mooring assembly beneath the buoy, i.e. long lengths of catenary. On main engines it is reasonable that it could move backwards and forwards the 100 feet or so that Lameduck has posted on iii. When I look on AIS the track looks consistent with having tried to pull test each set of moorings in turn, though one cannot be sure if that was the intention.
However from the AIS data alone at this stage we cannot be certain of the situation. It is only when either HUR tell us through an RNS, or when someone local to the vessel tells us that we can be sure.
On the last occasion they moved off at about the end of daylight if I recall correctly. Therefore if the AM stays "stopped" overnight in the same position there is an increasing probability that this is well and truly latched.
I guess we carry on watching.
Another few years and projects such as EarthNow will make this easier and RNS's redundant (https://earthnow.com/).
daltry, Some AIS info for you and others:
1. Vessel draught is entered by humans, whenever humans feel like doing it. It is generally relevant for navigation & collision avoidance purposes because it allows other vessels to understand the manoeuvring limitations of oncoming vessels. It is not intended to figure out how much oil is in the tanks on any given day.
2. Vessel status is another human entered item. Vessels can be in all sorts of "statuses" and there is no mandatory text for an FPSO to use when in position. It could reasonably be described as "moored", or at "anchor" (look up Triton FPSO in the CNS on AIS), but some seem to use "restricted manoeuvrability" (RIAM in RoR terms, see the Glen Lyon in WoS for an example). So it seems to be a free for all provided it is not misleading in collision avoidance terms. So, even if it is operating engines to relieve mooring stresses, it wouldn't use the term "underway" if it was actually hooked up to the buoy, as that might inadvertently cause another vessel to wrongly consider it as being the "give way" vessel.
3. Vessel speed is "speed over ground" and comes from the instrumentation, i.e. it is not entered by fickle humans. SoG can be taken directly from SatNav (GPS) output and is not affected by tides & currents. Likewise heading is actually where the bow is pointing, and comes from instrumentation not humans (via a flux gate compass ordinarily).
regards, dspp
The only way VHS propagates to ships is in the mail bag. Perhaps you mean VHF ?
Frankly your claim that carbon payback on wind turbines is 20-years is uninformed hogwash. The truth is about 18-24 months. It is quite clear that your views on renewables are informed by emotion rather than facts.
That's fine by me. I need somebody to be holding the fossil fuel shares at too high a price when I switch out. The more emotion-driven fools that stay invested in oil & gas at that point the better as far as I am concerned. Since one of my oil & gas risks is premature devaluation due to investor sentiment, I am always very glad to come across the contrary example.
Wind energy certainly will - and does - reduce electricity costs. Check out "merit order effect" if in doubt.
It is all very well to be invested in oil & gas, but recycling prejudiced blinkered falsehoods is not sensible if you wish to be a rational and successful investor.
It is normal to do hookup manoeuvres during daylight hours, for all sorts of reasons. It can be done in darkness but it is less desirable. Therefore weather windows overnight are less attractive than in daylight.Something to bear in mind when looking at forecasts.
I have no opinion on what is going on right now.
Also I suspect that they have resolved whoever was leaking information in a way that ought not to have been happening.
regards, dspp