The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
That article, while recently published, is churned out every year and is no indication whatsoever about if/when Sea Lion will reach FID. I would assume though that it’s based on 1 FPSO for Phase 1 and another FPSO for Phase 2.
Better late than never, I have a feeling this could slow a sale process, or at least increases the chances of some contingent payment clause depending on the outcome:
Mexico
Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX)
Exploratory Drilling / Plans : Planned: Asab-1 EXP nfw
Potential extension of Talos’ Zama-1 oil discovery (1.6km to the SW), AE-0005-2M-Amoca-Yaxche-3 block, offshore Sureste Basin, WD 174m, PTMD 3,775m (3,580m TVD), target Miocene, delayed well (originally planned for Feb ’19) to spud by 20 Feb '20, Opus Tiger 1 DS.
Draws across the board, nice!
I’d say this might be a sign of Tolmount news, we know it’s due in October, has a high chance of success and could add a lot of value to the company. Hard to keep a discovery quiet for too long! If it comes in as a dud after this perplexing rise I’ll be gutted!
Wouldn’t be surprised to hear news in the next couple of weeks assuming everything is happening on schedule - maybe even next week? Success should see a 6-8p rise on the day I would hope. Failure probably drop it half that. Good risk/reward ratio considering it has a high chance of success.
Perhaps I shall Genghis. By all means, please go back to whatever you were doing before I came here wrongly thinking that a discussion board about HUR was the place to have some back and forth about the company. I suppose your response to everyone here is ‘just email the company ffs?’. Perhaps LSE should just close the site and have that as a big banner when anyone tries to access this page?
adoubleuk,
Thanks, I’ll take a look at that.
Biffa,
I appreciate you repeating that quote. My response would be that that yes, the wells are nowhere near the OWC that hurricane and RPS believe is present. My point was that, given the 4Z well on its second DST produced 20% water at a depth within structural closure, combined with the knowledge now that 7Z is producing water, perhaps there’s an alternate interpretation to be made about where the OWC really is. As I said, to even begin to contemplate this option means throwing out lots of evidence (resistivity and NMR logs, oil swab, hurricanes interpretation of pressure data etc) which is a stretch but I believe a case can be made to null and void each. I mean, take the swab. Can anyone else on the board name a single occasion where a swab of oil has been used to constrain an OWC? It could just as easily be residual oil trapped in fracture below the OWC.
My concept of what Lancaster may look like would be this:
A zone of fully oil saturated fractures down to somewhere slightly shallower than structural closure at 1380m TVDSS. Let’s say 1350m just to use round numbers. Above this level, all flow is 100% oil. This would be the 6 well, and the small part of the 7 well that produced oil. Wells that go below this point, the 4, 4Z and 7Z (assuming some part of the horizontal is below this) all produce a mixture of oil and water, much like the Warwick Deep did.
Below this depth, perhaps until 1678m or so, you have a zone of residual oil. This depth could be related to where migrating oil enters the basement. Is this the sort of depth that the Kim Clay or potential carrier beds for oil charge on-lap the basement? Perhaps you have present day oil migration through this column of the basement - enough to give some hints of oil on the NRM or by swab etc, but not enough to flow oil without water too. It’s this sort of ‘transition zone’ to badly use that phrase that perhaps the Warwick Deep well intersected - hence the poor DST results.
Below 1678m: unblemished acquirer, 100% water.
So, I think that’s a fair outline. And let me state again, this is just one interpretation of the data, a potentially unlikely one at that. But ask yourself this, given that everyone man and his dog (almost) attended the dataroom and no one (until Spirit much later and not for the Lancaster area) farmed in, is it possible that those attendees had similar doubts about where the OWC really was?
That you think it’s raised solely off an illustration just shows that you haven’t understood my points SIPP. I won’t bother labouring it further.
adoubleuk,
Thanks for the reply. I share your frustration about the scale on diagrams. I understood why diagrams of the wells had to be fairly cartoonish back in the early days when Hurricane was small and first trying to demonstrate a concept. Now though, with an expanded team and an eager set of investors, the fact they’re still churning out this quality of content is frustrating.
A nice, to scale diagram showing the projected depths of each well, which also highlights the intervals across which the DSTs were taken would do a lot to alleviate my doubts I’d hope.
Regarding your agenda question - quite strange the mob mentality a lot of people have after I posed a few questions. Not much point coming here if people repeat the same opinions, or minor variations thereof, day after day. I’ve seen enough in the oil industry to always have that nagging feeling of doubt, especially in relatively uncharted territory like this. It’s our job as investors to weigh up that risk/reward for ourselves. I still think that ratio is positive for now and I hope that further information from the EPS will be able to kick that doubt out of my mind for good.
SIPP, you misunderstand me. The new information to which I refer is the 7Z water news, combined with the recent Warwick Deep well result.
Ex trader- you’re right of course. I suppose part of me was hoping someone who does follow this more closely could conclusively address my specific points and dispel my worries. Perhaps I should see if I can get there in January - I’ve met RT before and you can’t help but agree with him once he’s spent some time with you. My current plan is to await news from the next well (which I’m fairly confident will be good news) then cut my holding in half until there’s more clarity about this ‘perched’ water.
Biffa,
It’s a shame you feel that way. Nothing in my posts is incorrect, by the way. I laid out the facts, then said a possible interpretation. You might not agree with it, but for now, it’s a possibility.
Don’t get me wrong, for someone whose been holding here since late 2016 I want RT to be right. The upside to the share price is monumental if he is, but quite clearly there’s considerable doubt among people in the know given this is still stuck in the mid 40s. And while I want RT to be right, it’s only a fool who receives new information and doesn’t even question how this impacts their assumptions.
p.s. I don’t think me posing these types of questions that go over the head of the average investor makes any difference to the share price of a £900m company. Yes, the PMO board is my usual haunt, but I do come over here from time to time as an interested holder when I hear something new. Last time I was here you may or may not recall I brought Spark Exploration and their blocks to everyone’s attention.
Scratch that part about the 4Z, I was looking at the wrong grey line! But my point about the depth the 7 intersects the basement on that diagram remains.
To summarise:
4Z: DST within structural closure produces oil and water.
6: Shallower horizontal, closer to the crest of the structure, oil only in DST
7: DST only oil, but from a very thin interval just below Top Basement
7Z: the deeper of the two horizontals, produces oil and water.
Seems a fair chance to me from the above that the OWC is shallower that structural closure at 1380m or so. To believe that you have to not believe things like the resistivity logs, NRM etc which I have no trouble doing, given how this reservoir behaves compared to traditional reservoirs.
adoubleuk,
Thanks for your response. A couple of follow up points.
The first thing I’ll bring your attention to is the diagram of from the capital markets day presentation that shows a cross section of Lancaster and the depths of various wells. You’ll notice the scale says TVDSS on the side. But you’ll also notice that, very naughtily, the depths of the various wells are actually projected in MD. For example, the 4Z, which we know is deviated (and from what I understand never went below the 1380m TVDSS local structural closure) appears to extend well below local structural closure on the diagram. The 7 well, which as you correctly pointed out produced oil from a small section of basement at approximately 1300m depth, doesn’t appear to penetrate the basement until almost at the structural closure on that dodgy diagram. The question that comes to my mind is - why are they misleading us all with that diagram?
My theory leads on to your one of your other points. I don’t believe it is axiomatic that the 7Z is producing from perched water. I think there’s a reasonable chance that the tail end of that well is below the OWC. Why else did the 4Z produce 20% water from a DST within structural closure?
Something to mull over on this topic:
At what depth did well 7 produce it’s oil from?
At what depth is 7Z producing its water from?
At what depth did 4Z produce it’s water from?
What does the MDT data tell us about the OWC?
Is there a low case where the OWC is shallower than than structural closure?
I thought his previous sanctions were meant to ‘bring Iran’s exports to 0’.
What next then if he’s increasing them? Force them to pump the oil back underground?
According to Twitter, he just said that production will reach 11 mbopd (which is 1 mbopd higher than before attacks) by the end of the month. That’s quite a turn around eh?
Refresh the page if it freezes.
Watching it also, although it hasn’t started yet. Don’t have much in the way of fashion options do they? White gown and only the choice of a white or red & white tea towel. I suppose it makes life easier, although if you mix up the washing you’re left with pink everything, which probably wouldn’t do down well in Saudi.
Should be able to watch it in 9 minutes at reuters.tv/live
Given it’s the same sun shining at the same angle on a row of identical tanks, I think it would be stranger if the shadows didn’t look the same.