Member Info for Genghis15

ADUK
I am no oilie so this may be a daft question.

But given the mud issues prevented oil flow to surface, would it still have been possible to leave a pressure gauge down there?

I don't recall them saying they did it, in fact I'm pretty certain it has not been mentioned.

F22 I quite agree, but I guess HUR are only doing what most larger companies do.

Present to instis and analysts to attract/retain investment from the larger pools of capital, while keeping numbers manageable. I would guess they might say we had our chance at AGM, tho of course CMD this year will have crucial updated info and I think many of us would have gone a long way to be there, notwithstanding even a live video.

I am not particularly critical of HUR for adopting common market behaviour, tho I can't see why a live rather than later video could not have been arranged.

200p +

minimum, imho.

Indeed, Sipp.

The flaring constraint is 30k bpd ; it is the upgrade to 40k bpd which will have to await the gas solution.

Commiserations, but imho it's not the drug not getting approval that's depressing the SP, most likely imho is that it will, eventually, get approved.

But another P3 trial will cost £Ms and take years, so there's just bound to be massive dilution.

Nobody, me included, will buy back in here until the company has cashed itself up for the necessary trials.

20k bpd, when ramp up forecasts were for 9k bd, is great news.

But be aware that it may not be an indicator of well performance ; at AGM it was stated clearly that ramp up guidance was for equipment contingencies, not well considerations. So we can at least be pleased that the AM is getting up to planned 20 k bpd with no apparent issues. And bear in mind that a further ramp up to 30k bpd might also be possible much sooner than the predicted timeline.

Fwiw, tho, I am inclined to believe hoofheared2's assertion that well performance is much better than predicted. Roll on the CMD.

Well, apparently, it's all about risk. Risk that the boat won't work, risk that the hookup will go wrong, risk that the wells won't flow, risk that the co will need another raise, etc, etc.

But as soon as one of those risks passes, and we are hooked up, the boat's working, the wells are flowing, the oil is being sold, the revenue is coming in ; Ah, well, apparently it was all priced in.

In other words, F$ck knows.

The point I am trying to make is that "corporate governance issues" is an easy phrase to throw around, but no specifics were mentioned. No link was made to the VCP or anything else. Governance is comprehensively covered if you read the AR, and, contrary to IJWT, a new iNED has been, appointed, Sandie Shaw.

And please, please, don't start a Brexit spat, we could all do without that.

Joe
Old news, but note that there is only a vague and unspecific allegation from a disgruntled ex chairman, seized upon by a certain shareholder as a stick to beat the BoD with.
"The group said in a separate statement there had not been an “alignment of views” between Mr Arnott and the rest of the board".
For that, I read "the chairman fell out with the rest of us and was not a team player, so he was asked to leave".

JoeB " already poor record of corporate governance."

Really? I'm not aware of any corporate governance failures.

Just a few technical, but very important, financial facts

$70 to $61 is a 13% decline, so near enuff. But that % gross decline is a completely irrelevant figure ; . what matters is the decline in NEt revenue, which is geared.

Take out HUR's cost of production (c.$22) and the decline is $48/ to $39, 19%.

Again that might seem trivial ; it is not. A 19% decline is 50% bigger than a 13% decline.

I know many here are oil/engineering types, so just take those %ages intoi your own disciplines and assess the consequenes of that sort of misjudgement.

Sorry. F22 not picking on you, but %ages are important.

Well, it's now 23.11, and I'm still at it , too.

WTf are "they" still "at"?

For those new additions here, that old link is well worth reading. Look at RT's words re PI etc.

There was never any real doubt these wells would flow, and flow well beyond the planned FPSO rates.

With one of this year's wells tied back as well and the gas solution in place, AM could handle 40k bpd, but Ill bet those 3 wells would be capable of more than double that if the kit was in place to handle it.

we shall no doubt find out in due course.

F22 "heavily refurbed FPSO" were my words, I believe them correct. but its of no consequence. The point is that ramp up rates will be determined by the equipment performance, not by reservoir issues.

An important distinction, imo.

Well, I'm with you on HUR!

To those speculating about the ramp up period, and HUR guidance.

At AGM, it was indicated clearly, I think by Alastair Stobie, that the ramp up forecast was primarily a technical one, to allow for possible equipment issues in what is a very heavily refurbed FPSO etc. NOt reservoir issues.

I am sure my fellow attendees can confirm.

MH
"The content of my post is very clear."

Of course. But completely at odds with your headline.

I completely understand SIPP ; you only have to look at how the popular press works to know that a headline will be read by many more people than read the post, and often have much more impact.

Sloppy report, completely misrepresenting shares "sold" by Roy Kelly on behalf of Kerogen.

The financial metrics are all but irrelevant to a co like HUR where revenue is just beginning, shows some cub reporter just applied a standard format.

tinlode, most consumption in is in the N Hemisphere.

WW
I generally welcome a diversity f posts. I really, really, do...unpunctured optimism is dangerous.

But after this one "I know I read them and thought the same Rodney.....Brilliant. I'm surprised Bernstein hasn't replied frankly." I begin to think your really are RB, or one f his minions..