Member Info for Genghis15

That would be the hope ; as I understand it (as a non oilie, non geo) using the ESP on 7Z reduces the draw. Whether that means they are hoping to draw less on the water pocket, by pulling more from nearer the base ; or whether it means by reducing the pull they hope to pull less from further along and drain the pocket faster, I don't know.

There has to remain a risk that it is a very big pocket, and/or it is connected to the aquifer by a long downward leg fracture. But RT had me pretty convinced with his explanations on perched rather than aquifer.

Dire
My back of envelope scribblings agree with your $30 figure @ 17k bpd, less 10% downtime = 15,300 bpd.

We know that downtime is cheduled for September, and ther remains a lot of uncertainty over production going forwards, with 7z @ 53% WC.

Nonetheless, this reads to me a very positive RNS.
The turbulent flow has been resolved, WC is manageable, and it seems to me a further increase in BPD is not out of the question.
Guess we will now have radio silence until the strategy update in September.

The Idea of using the pumps is not to increase flowrates, per se.

It is ti rduce the draw on the resewrvoir pressure in lifting the oil and water to surface. I imagine in turn that is to reduce the "pull" on the water pocket, and they may be hoping this enables a greater production at lower water cut.

The response to the pumps could well give much valuable info on the reservoir, and, crucially, might shed a bit more light on the perched water /aquifer question.
Disclaimer ; I have no subsurface experience, so those that do, please comment.

Well out of date, and wrong.

" from someone who'll be in the know !"

I would not be so sure about thar.

Fwiw ST of IC has a 30p target. Unlike broker targets, his are quite often met. And he will update that if results warrant.

I hope you get something from your call, but I rather doubt it. Lets see.

But i imagine the co will not want to update until they have carefully considered the recent testing, and assessed what they think that means for future production rates, resrvoir behaviour/pressures/size/ warer cut, etc.

Too many here are ****ging off management as if this was a cornershop. It isn't. It;s a complex, extremely cutting edge development requiring top geologists, rservoir modellers, IT packages, petrophysicists. Not to mention financial modelling, too often forgotten.

They will take their time, I hope, and bring us a coherent strategy in due course.

The company has NEVer been accuse of exuberant RNSs. They have always sought to underplay things.

Any exuberance has been down to investors.

It is not the job of management to hold the hand of PIs who have found themselves holding at a loss. They manage the company, and will update the market at the appropriate time.

"What ever you discuss, the details will be confidential,"

Nonsense. If you think for an instant any non public info will be shared by IR , well...........

Couple of fat fingers in there, must proof read in future! Hopefully they are easily spotted and allowed for.

I don't recall calling out Swazers in Twittrer but haven't seen his posts 4 ages, so i guess he's blocked me, too.

I was actually addressing the debate above re the G&A, not the b/even.

But taking $26 @ 20k bpd to adjust to 158k bpd is the ratio, not 18k/15k. The 15k is unadjusted for downtime, i think.

So the calculation is:

$(26-17) x 355 x 18k = $59,130,000 of non opex cash costs pa.

15k bpd, less 10% downtime = 13500 bpd, so $59,130,000/ (13500 x 365) = $12bl.

That will give you, when added to the $17 bl, $29bl.

BUT, what we don't know is how much of the $17 opex is variable pro rata, and how much is fixed, and will be higher at lower production rates. My guess is that at least $12 of the $17 will be fixed, so will increase oro rata to the change in non opexz, ie $12/13500 X 18000 = $16.

So we @ 158k bpd (less 10% downtime ) get ;

Non opex $12 bl
Fixed opex $16 bl

Variable opex $5 bl

Total cash costs $33bl.

There is guesswork in there ; we do not have a fullbdown of costs and how far they vary with output, but on currently public info that seems to be a decent approximation..

Of course, this is not the most important question atm.

What are the bloody wells doing, is what we all need to know, and will see in due course.

The operative word in your post is "if". That's the problem,uncertainty.

I have been unable to find where HUR quoted the $26 (i thought it was $27?) figure. But i DO recall it was described as the "all in sustaining cash costs2 at 20k bl pd, less 10% downtime. It's not in an RNs as far as I can see, so mb it is in the CMd presentation Q&A.

However, we just don't knbow what was included, tho the definition aove excludes non cash items like depn. It may include for committed capex, for unpaid cash liabilies for Spirit, for the WOSPS project, or rig cancellations. We just don't know.

The use of pumps mrans less drawdown of reservoir pressure, so pulling less hard on the wells. This may, or may not, have implications for the water cut.

Zero, imo. Just look at the calendar.

No it does not SPs and PEs vary for a host of reasons. Too many ppl here taking single indicators to bolster an agenda. Look at compnies in the round.

All Lters here know exactly why conventional metrics are inapplicable. Anyone who thinks they are more than useful background atm is not grasping the issues.

scanda

There is certainly a game afoot. Personally i wish RBd had not got involved and stuck to their knitting.

But if aforesaid grandee is on board, and I can't think they would have acted otherwise, it could work out well. But mud will fly ; I see Deltic already rubbishing RBD assets.

Nor to the $230m debt, the capex obligation re gas solution,the limited flaring consent, or the uncertainty over wells and reservoir modelling.

You omit all the important factors.