Member Info for Genghis15

Well, well, things change, don't they/

Not long ago PDSM jumped on any negativity here, now it seems the company is rubbish and we've all been conned. Chris h has changed strategy, sold, bought back in, and now ramps to high heaven.

Now I don't want to criticise anyone's trading strategy,, but I don't think the company has done anything to deserve such a volte face in attitudes.

there are serious questions the Bod should answer about the leaked raise, which has not just torpedoed the SP but in doing so, and forcing the raised at a lower price, may have even devalued the investment case which gave rise to it.

But altho that money is (largely) going straight into the ground, unlike most oilers we are getting a larger share of the spoils in exchange, and that's the prize S&S were clearly after. The prize on offer, both in WN and Parta, is transformational, and imho well worth a longer wait.

I would say that repeated cycles of this nature would not just smack of a loss of focus, but also of a chummy City act of fee raising funding cycles for old pals at the banks. But we are no there yet, imho. I remain happy with S&S and their strategy, but they clearly need now to focus on monetisation, and avoid further issuance .

Seems so, but huge difference.....suspect Xmas has something to do with it!

I was relying on Art Berman https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1209537517927772163?s=20

It's hard to guess where shale s going.

On the one hand, there's this debt/bankruptcy story ; oth, the big boys like Exxon, Chevron, are going large for it cos of quick payback.

All year the rig count has been falling ; until last week which saw a sizeable jump.

On one hand there's new tech such as the grid drilling used by Big Oil ; oth mb the sweet spots are running out.

Cleverer people than me project continuing shale growth for some time yet ; all we can do is wait and see.

just broken $66.

Hur projections are at $60 Brent ; if this were to average $70 next year that's an extra $70m+pa to HUR.

If you look at dspp's TLF posts you will see that he has commented at length on this, and imo that is the main, and possibly only, cause of the current SP.
Interestingly, his latest post actually retreats a bit and in his words "makes the HUR perched water hypothesis more rather than less likely".

The problem is, HUR have just responded on the issue, and every time they explain something, their data is unpicked and yet more data demanded.

All I can ay is that RT and his team are the acknowledged world leaders in FB, and for all dspp's undoubted technical expertise, he isn't.

Yes, well said, ronok.

Even reasoned analysts are writing Warwick off as non commercial on that flow rate, when in fact HUR have proved an oil column, and just couldn't flow it long enough to clean up the well.

Altho the GWA focus will move to Lincoln, Warwick will still be a goer at some point.

" (I) am slightly ticked-off at the nasturtiums some folk are casting in my direction on other boards"

Please don't be. Any sensible investor on this or any other bb must value your data based approach. As a non oil industry person, like many her I am going on company statements, director profiles, cashflow and capex projections, and my layman's interpretation of such technical data that I can understand.

I have read your latest musings on TLF. Once again I am in no position to challenge your interpretations, except that the implication is that the company is being less than totally truthful with us.

Now that would be normal behaviour for most AIM oilers, but HUR have a lengthy history of studied understatement.

So, for the time being, I continue to trust RT.

"You and many others may prefer to ignore data that doesn't suit you,"

I can assure you that is not the case. And I have read your further comments with interest. Let me say straightaway, as most here know, I have no industry experience. And I take on board what you say about partners, and how they will be looking at reservoir risk. But it seems to me that once again you are overstating concerns, and following a logic trail that is not at all certain.

For instance "why are you flowing the dry well?". could be any no of reasons, I would suggest ; that well may give a better data feedback ; it is maximising single well flow and revenue ; mb they think resting the other well will tell them more about the water, ; mb there are technical reasons to do with undersea architecture. We don't know ; but that does not seem to me to cast doubt on their water explanation. at this time. But it will be very interesting to see what happens post January when they once again flow both wells.

dspp
"This explains the scatterplot result "

Good. Like most here I respect your knowledge and expertise, but I have to make the point that your analysis was plain wrong, and may have panicked a few people. I know you hedged the analysis by leaving open "other possibilities" , but in the end your analysis produced a false hypothesis.

"This does not put to bed the water issue, "

I would suggest that for the time being, it absolutely does. HUR are stating this is perched water based on temperature and production behaviour ; Ok, they haven't published data, but what company does publish technical details like that to its shareholders? HUR's word is good enough for me on that one. The only sense in which the water issue has not been "put to bed" is that coning could occur in the future, which could be said about every well ever drilled.

I'm sorry to say this, bcos we all know you have a deep knowledge, and post some very detailed, informative, and sensible stuff. But come on, drop the caveats, and just admit you called this one wrong.

Interesting if true. Outside my experience but I imagine that means ramping up production to 20k bpd or mb more.

Good point, NI.
Bernstein liked to compare himself to Woodford, it would be no surprise to see him go the same way.
Shame that HUR seem to be being caught in the crossfire.

I agree, it is time we were given an explanation on timelines at WN. Of course they will be subject to agreement between the partners, but delay is surely in no one's interest.

Speculation here about protesters, licensing, etc, but also about Humber's capability to proceed, and possible licence share reallocations.

I'm sure there will be some issues of contract and strategic confidentiality impeding complete openness, but some sort of update is surely overdue.

In an ordinary raise that would be t5rue.

In this case not, tho, bcos our raise has bought us an increased share of the asset. That's why S&S describe the deal as "value accretive".

I rather doubt that song is sung in the playgrounds any more......

First it was dspp, now its reverandy.
I know dspp is a respected poster and deservedly so ; but in this instance it's my opinion the case h posits is extremely unlikely, as it flies in the face of co statements. Now reverandy at it too ; I know just saying what if, but, again, that what if is at odds with co statements. Previous RNSs that have stated all is well at the EPS ;RT's statement at RGs on how well the EPS was performing ; and the lack of any statement indicating ANY problem with the EPS, which the co clearly promised would be forthcoming if anything departed from guidance.

The horses seem to have been spooked, to the extent that usually calm and rational posters are positing scenarios which are simply not justified. An irrational fear of unspoken bad news seems to have infected the mood.

I'm not sure how long the co can continue to ignore this ; their institutional holders, incl our friends Kerogen with their board seat, may want to see these rumours quashed before much longer.

If that were to be the case, and we got positive a clarification RNS anytime soon, there could be many with egg on their faces here, not to mention a scramble to get back in.

"CA are closer to the company than any of us"

What gives you that idea?

They have no seat on the BoD, and will have no information not known to PIs.

Clearly WN news is critical. Why, PDMS, do you think that's a year away?

Surely shouldn't take that long.

Fwiw, it would suit me if it did, bcos I am currently not invested. But I would be interested to hear why you, or anyone else, thinks it would take so long.

And Us payrolls adding 266k helping too, Brent pushing close to $65.

Where tf does all this gloom come from? We get a post from dspp casting doubt on water cut, which his highly conjectural ; for it to be the case HUR would have to be covering up an issue which investors have a right to hear, and I for one do not believe our Bod would do that.
Then we have shutts, who has taken fright at all this and now posits several 25%+ drops on just about every possible downside event, all of which seem highly unlikely to me. Far from the false euphoria he talks about, what is taking hold amongst the nervous here is a herdlike gloom based on worst case conjectures which are at odds with company statements, and with RT's demeanour at the RGS.
Then we have the usual ramp/deramp crew like tdg etc joining in to spook the nervous so they can buy back cheaper, before the inevitable rise when people realise all is well.

The company has stated that EPS is in line with expectations ; at the RGS last week it was stated that the EPS had surprised on the upside. this was not explained in detail, but we know that both flowrates and PIs were quickly found to be even better than when the wells were drilled.

I just don't get all the sudden doom and gloom. OK, Warwick may not look the best result, but it has cost HUR nothing. Lincoln has been flowed, the EPS is working, water cut is as expected; we've sold lots of oil, and there's cash in the bank.

I know this sort of SP weakness can be unnerving, but I just can't see why HUR SP and Mcap should be back to where it was in Sept 2017, when we had no infrastructure, no production, no partner on Lincoln/Warwick, and no funded drill program. and Brent was lower than today at c. $55.

So nope, I'm not selling. Dyor, of course, but this all looks like an unwarranted attack of the collywobbles, with the aid of a few of the usual derampers and doubters.