Member Info for Genghis15

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.

Also relevant there is the slide p30, stating "drawdown is too low to lift aquifer water against gravity"

oops. Here
https://webcasting.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/5d249a00da68dd4b10ae7fb0

Oilbb

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.

daltry

It is not RT's train set.

The OGA require development plans, licences are not awarded to just go sit on your hands.

" 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?

Sandy-Rivers, that may be the post of the day.

I can understand why the SP movement is spooking people, but the spreading of panic is an infection to be resisted.

I cannot recall his exact words, but at the RGS in November Dr t pretty much ruled out capital raises. Biffa and SIPP were there, too, they may remember that.

In any case, it is hard to see why any raise would be needed when generating c. $200-$300m pa, not hard to self financefor another year, after wqhich partners should be queuing up..
On the OGA, I am as baffled as anyone. I believe most industry watchers will be too. it is their remit to encourage and facilitate the optimal development of UK oil resources. To confiscate Whirlwind after the co has spent $67m on it appears arbitrary, unreasonable, and afaik, unprecedented. To delay/doubt a Lincoln tieback which has been planned for years and incurred substantial capex already seems equally unjustifiable. To specify a future well program of appraisers rather than producers appears unreasonably obstructionist. As a shareholder, I am both mystified and furious ; I would bet HUR's mgt are too.

I have no idea why the OGA is throwing rocks in HUR's path, rather than facilitating development. Mb there is a greater game afoot. With the Spirit sale ongoing, who knows what strings are being pulled.

jtd
All fair enuff, but what do you suggest they say that was not in the last RNS?

They have made clear they are unconcerned by the water cut, that the currently flowing well is dry, and that the other well will only be flowed later this month. So draining of the perched water cannot start until next month.

As for forward plans, they will likely be in the hands of the OGA (as in the RNS) and to some degree, Spirit.

That said, if this SP decline continues, they may feel compelled to comment ; mb the next offtake, mb next week, would provide an opportunity to do so.

Excellent article, missdosh. Clearly Spark have no doubts about Lancaster.. and "there has been “a lot of interest” from potential farminees. "Mr Szwedzicki said Hurricane had “ticked box after box” in overcoming uncertainty around the untested fractured basement plays in the region."

And "He said the team is “in awe” of the work of Hurricane Energy, adding that they’ve shown “there’s some really big potential plays still to be found and explored for in the UKCS”."

Absurd ti suggest Dr T orvthe BoD are lying.

Look at their history, their reputations.

Not just execs, the non execs too, esp the new ones.
This is not that kind of share.

Of course, chessman, it is possible that our "too many" might actually be "not enuff"..... if we were to be surprised on the upside!

Who knows, not all swans are black...….

I think this investor reply very significant. Knowiung it to be public domain, and that it would be posted across BBs, HUR have restated the 13 Dec RNS view, in effect saying dspp is wrong. they have gone further and rubbished the always crackpot (at least to me) theory that HUR were offloading water and trying to hide it. For all dspp's previous knowledgeable and interesting posts, HUR are saying he's emphatically got this one plain wrong.

I do not believe they could have made this statement unless they were very sure indeed that their interpretation is the correct one, and remember they have MUCHmore data about the wells than dspp who is working with what he can gather from disparate sources.

For me (with a nod to Biffa's posts also) this statement puts the water issue to bed.

Until next time, of course...…..I'm sure somebody will raise it again at some point..

This pontificating about water is getting ridiculous. For all dspp's previous credibility, and his obvious knowledge and expertise, suggesting the co would switch offloading to disguise WC is beyond ridiculous.

Besides, from the last RNS, " The 6 Well is currently flowing individually at approximately 14,700 barrels of oil per day with minimal water cut.", and "Production will continue from the 6 Well on a standalone basis until late January, at which point both wells will be flowed concurrently.".

So for there to be a WC atm, the 6 well would have to have changed its behaviour....which would, I think, warrant a corrective RNS.

So as far as I can see, there should be little or no WC until the 7 well recommences as planned later this month. the model must predict that the WC will decline as the perched water is drained, so hopefully that is what will happen. We will find out on CMD.