The only change since the EPS start up is that the water cut on one well has increased to 25-30%, above the original model for AVERAGE perched water, but not all that unusual early in production start up.
The company is clearly unconcerned, saying on 13 Dec "The productivity performance of each well on an individual basis is in excess of the Company's pre-start-up expectations.
The Company is confident that the water cut observed is related to perched/stranded water, based on temperature data, lack of rate-dependency, and water production behaviour after shut-in periods."
What has changed is that dspp has been taking some limited data points on TLF and constructing a model which uses the WC to posit a much reduced reservoir, oil volume, and possibly a permanently higher water cut.
All this not helped by the coronavirus fears.
All I can say is that RT and HUR are the world's best FB geo team, and AFAIK no other company has the same level of understanding, modelling, experience, or interpretive skills as they do.
dspp? Well, we don't know ; he's clearly knowledgeable, but does not have access to the data, not experience, of HUR and DR T.
So for him to be right, the world's experts in FB must be wrong, as must be experts from outside agencies like the CPR providers, as must be the geos representing Kerogen, CA, and others. That's possible ; but how likely is it?
the mere possibility has clearly spooked nervous PIs and created a self fulfilling downward price spiral, based on a potentially high impact, but (imho) unlikely event. Oh, and just for good measure, dspp's latest post says " I still hold with no movement.".
i suggest you check out some CVs. The new non execs are not lightweights ; and the co cannot respond to every SP movement, every BB rumour.
I am a tad disappointed HUR did not take the opportunity (as I see it) of the last offload to update the market with EPS performance. But attacking the Bod for not doing so is unwarranted, imv., ; they have many things to consider, and legal/regulatory concerns to weigh, which we may be unaware of.
I am puzzled why you mention raising capital ; that does not appear relevant to a company with projected 2020 net revenues, prior to capex, of almost $300m.
that was the original plan but the latest is that 20k bpd average for 2020 was the target, as they could catch up any downtime to allow for that. Restated in last RNS, but set out by previously AS, mb CMd, can't remember.
No, he doesn't say that ; he is pointing out that if you flow 2 wells the average changes even tho the % WC in one is unchanged. Therefore the Bach Ho data shown on p10 is an AVERAGE of an unknown no of wells. Could be they are all the same %, more likely, some are dry, mb just 1 out of, say, 10, is producing 50% wc.
I think the drawdown comments sits apart from the question of rate dependency.
Yes, tho of course Edison are parroting HUR, in paid-for research. But I have been looking at previous presentations, and at the CPR, to try to understand better how robust this statement is. It may be useful to see RT at c. 1hr 44m in the attached dealing with Qs re water. Sadly some of the questions are inaudible, tho can be deduced. It is apparent that RT is a tad irritated by the question, but the gist is that relatively high water cuts are not unusual in the early stages of individual basement wells.
look, this needs a comment from someone with FPSO experience, which is not me.
But we KNOW that the FPSO handles the water and chucks it over the side. So whatever this is about, if it is for the volumes stated, it is irrelevant to the water cut, and nothing can be deduced from it.
Who knows what it is? The toilets being flushed/ Grey water from the showers? Residual gunk from "cleaned" water?
we don't know.
So taking Buzz t face value, the info is meaningless ; as remarkable as if I posted HUR were in the market for paperclips.
" the share price is falling because shareholders are selling because the share price is falling, having convinced themselves that there must be something wrong because otherwise the price wouldn't have fallen so far."
I think LW has it in a nutshell.
sookma, thay appear to have done that already. with thIR reply to arregius on ADVFN only a week ago.
"As posted by Arregius on lse, from Hurricane.
"Response from HUR communications:
“As stated in our most recent press release, Hurricane is confident that the water cut observed is related to perched/stranded water. This view is based on a number of technical observations including temperature data, lack of rate-dependency, and water production behaviour after shut-in periods. We've previously stated that it is not affecting oil production or costs and we therefore do not see it as a problem."
What more can they say? That's good enuff for me. Rather than sit moaning on here, I occupied my time revisiting old presentations, incl CMD, to better understand the issues. Now I am no geo, but seeing the models and RT' understandings....(FGS, we're c. 300 metres above the OWC!) I am happy with the HUR view on perched water.
If anything material had changed since then, they would be required to report it, as they have said b4 they would do.
Everyone must take their own view, but I am comfortable that RT has it right, and dspp wrong, on th water issue. Don't forget water has ALWAYS been one of the big questions about FB, and EVERY time it's raised, RT has explained, sometimes at length, why early aquifer breakthrough is very unlikely.
If you can be bothered, go and relisten to CMD, where at some point he says that with the drawdown pressures HUR is using would be insufficient to overcome gravity and draw aquifer water to the surface. Again, I am no geo, but what I have seen and read is good enuff for me.
This water "issue" is being played up on BBs every so often, and it really does start to look like deliberate manipulation at times.
I know many blame AS for the death spiral warrant issue back in 2017, but bear one thing in mind.
There was a reason for that urgent raise ( LLI) and AS would not have taken the decision alone, only put available options to the BoD.
At the subsequent AGM AS got a lot of criticism for it, but his fellow directors stood foursquare behind him incl Kerogen.
As PIs we are not always privy to or understanding if, why sometimes baffling decisions are taken. That's why we gave to trust the BOD, which is important DD for any investor.
I got caught by that raise, and very painful it was.
But I do not feel Stobue deserves scapegoating for it.
Is what we need, and there's no saying when it might drop.
Any day could see an RNS announcing regulatory approval of the EWT, after which " the equipment will be mobilised to site at the earliest opportunity and the EWT will re-commence".
An interesting 6 months ahead, I think.
"Facts are facts. "
But you are not stating any beyond the SP which is obvious. You are outpouring emotion.
Start thinking facts, not throwing hissy fits.
I have met and spoken with both JP and RT. I can tell you unequivocally that they are chalk and cheese in every respect.
extrader, I appreciate your insight.....if you are saying that BMO have a vested interest in pushing Spark, I agree, as, of course, do Spark management. But these inconsistencies crop up all the time, I think...….what do you think?