Member Info for JoeSoap

Yes, very much so.

Indeed, the Offshore Energy coverage mentioned the former triumverate...

joe
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/hurricane-energy-chief-operations-officer-passes-away/

DC they did cross the 6% threshold on 28th Feb and announced it to HUR on the 3rd Mar who issued a late in the day RNS as 6.25%, 124,500,000 [6.2504%], which was rounded to one decimal place as 6.3% in their Monthly Asset valuation, for the end of February.
This was post AS departure, 27th, and would have been done around 14-15p.
The end of January valuation they reported they held 5.0%, (ie between 5.00 and 5.50%), and could have been increasing earlier in the month towards the 6%, as it fell from c20p on the 6th Feb with the 'no tie-back in 2020' update RNS.
HTH

WWN I think that you may be understating the situation re recovery play.
The oft quoted oilco peers that rebounded have done so from a March low when the market capitulated. Anyco would have shown a similar(ish) recovery.
Here we have a co that have gone down after news after the market collapsed.
Punters are now betting it will recover on the basis its peers did and that, anyway, they are due some good fortune and 20k is possible.
Maybe they are right, maybe HUR's luck has changed: just imagine having to give an AGM presentation and answer questions, not to mention meet the PI, if the AGM were held in 'normal circumstances'.
And yet they were able to just stay shtoom.
jimo
joe

Whatever happened to company broker Morgan Stanley's Bull case NAV of 381p...

Because of the continuing absence of our erstwhile resident pedant, you may have thought that you would get away with your response DC, but you won't!

Dec 13th is more than 6 months ago and is therefore disqualified from entry.

Try again.

;-)

Message from ADVFN posted yesterday on the HUR thread.
flawlesskicks - 23 Jun 2020 - 09:24:00 - 16208 of 16292 HURRICANE ENERGY - Fractured Basement WOS - HUR
I was CASP's biggest fan as I explained on here yesterday. I was invested there since 2013 but have exited as I don't trust the management anymore. I'm sorry if you didn't like my posts at CASP but I am not there anymore so you don't have to worry about them anymore.

Perhaps it was not a Kazakh seller but was a resident in Poland...

j-t-d It's certainly an interesting proposition (& with 8 ticks!), but not sure that someone would pay sufficient for Warwick to solve 'financing problems' after the two non-commercial drills.
Moreover, it is a jv licence and is up for renewal this September, so if they both want to keep it alive they will likely get some further commitment activities and that is after ceding 50% of the current licence area; which could leave them holding Lincoln east and west, which is not in the current CPR.
However, as they are currently interested in 'production' I can see it going the way of Typhoon, Tempest, Strathmore and most recently, Whirlwind.
jimo
joe

Genghis, yes but the missing info is HOW.
I believe that the original idea was that a single well could deliver 20k, but would that be continuous? It was also dry oil at that time!
I am yet to be convinced that the #6 well can even approach its Nov/Dec/Jan volume because the oil volume fell as the wc increased as evidenced in the CMD pg19. Why? Because it was necessary to drop the volume as well as shut #7.
We were told that the wc @10300 was 8% (and that would be the average over the period) but NO info for the new 12000 rate. imo looking at the earlier data it would not be unreasonable to suggest that it could be from 7 to 9 over the three weeks, and even higher now. It's not a problem for the AM, but imo it limits what the natural flow can be pushed to.
If they get the ESPs on line does it help?
Probably because the pump could control the pressure in the vertical, but as the lower end of the well is not lined, why would the pump now choose to draw oil rather than the existing mix? If the water is entering from the connectivity to #7z how would that have changed?
We await info on how they will square this circle:
"As we move into a phase where the focus is on enhancing production,.."
and
"In evaluating options for the forward work programme against an uncertain macroeconomic backdrop, we will prioritise early low-cost production with the capital discipline needed to achieve financial resilience."
jimo
joe

Uh-oh.....

hasiba
?

Gotta hope your understanding of HUR's predicament is better.

That's unusually negative for you Longwait when in the CMD they have ".. a field development incorporating a single well tieback to the Aoka Mizu of either the Lincoln Crestal well or and alternative shallower producer" and they didn't amend that position with the 27May Covid rescheduling RNS. Either or, not neither nor!
Just saying.

As they have already sold down their initial investment at a good price they are not in for so much now for the 318m remaining.
Purchases
Shares
355,408,990 @15p = £53,311,348.50
.73,122,221 @32p = £23,399,110.72
428,531,211 . . . . . . £76,710,459.22
Warrants
6,527,501 . @.20 = £1,305,500.20
Invested :- £78,015,959.42
Sales
Shares
110,000,000 @46.5p= £51,150,000
Warrants
3,000,000 @45.92p £1,377,600
3,527,501 @45.00p £1,587,375.45

Remaining investment £23,900,983.97
Shares 318,531,211
Equates to 7.50p
TTBOMK
E&OE
;-)

The answer was provided in 'next step' format without stating the detail. See pg 40 CMD.
"Seeking Field determination."
Cannot extract without, at least, achieving this status.
A reply was posted on here from HUR, to the effect that this was necessary and OGA would not accept the earlier vertical well data (justification not given) but they do require a commitment well(s) to establish this to go forward.
HTH

The problem with the content of this thread is that it cannot be taken seriously when the level of understanding of the company is revealed by the use of a fallacious title.

PS What happened to the "All the rubbish talks by PENNY PAID POSTERS to earn a sandwich/Chips money" thread with the interesting exchanges between Genghis and Longwait?

Surprised no-one has suggested a link between the 'new arrivals' and the exit of Pelham.
Imagine the price they would have got without the help of these stock promoters after that RNS as they continued to slide away.
Now some of the newbies have heard the chant and BELEEVE and as new converts they echo the chant to try to get the SP higher and allow their kebab-funding exit.
Are you wondering who bought at the top on Thursday?
Yet more 'LTH', with mis-timed investments.
No wonder the newbies are treated with disdain by the existing locked in LTH! It might be +30% for them, it's only a couple of percent less red for the IPO believers.

jimo
joe
Day17 since interference....

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp?shareprice=JOG.GB.PL&share=Jersey-Oil-And-Gas-Plc

jfyi

Rangers, Post of the day, so far!

And a very strong contender for post of the week, but as it is only Wednesday there is still time for the BoD to deign to give an update and another contender could steal it then!
jimo

Or you may find that is not correct and that the 9:36 trade was simply cancelled at 9:5x.

Didn't Dick do 'hold-ups' not 'hold-downs'?

DC retrieved a previous ESP post 28 May 2020 15:59. I too recall that post, but I do not recall any similar communication from HUR, who have been happily stating that they are not using them.
Yes, it was in Edison's update, "The commissioning of the electrical submersible pumps (ESPs), planned for commissioning during Q220, has been delayed as a result of restrictions in manning levels due to COVID-19. This will be carried out as soon as practicable and is an aspiration for 2020."
HUR said in the CMD, Lancaster -- next steps (pg 23)
-Further long term testing to optimise well performance and commission ESPs
but no indication of timeline.
Then in Finance outlook, pg43 the footnote reads:-
"Bluewater costs are those within the Bareboat Charter agreement and fixed costs do not include workovers, which would only be required if ESPs were to be used."

and therefore is not allowed for in the annualised Opex per barrel cost, which it surely would be if it was an intended charge for this year.

But the whole story of why they have still to be commissioned is a bit of a conundrum, because they had planned to use them from the outset according to Section 2.8.2 Artificial lift of the ES (pg36) as "The natural flow rates indicated that unaided production of oil would not be sufficient to make the development economically viable without potentially damaging the integrity of the reservoir".

So when did they get more information to decide that they would not need to commission the ESPs?

However, the 6March RNS quoted DrT "In addition, the Lancaster EPS is currently producing at 20,000 barrels of oil per day and I look forward to providing an update at the Capital Markets Day on 25 March 2020." which was the goal set and oft used in PI's offloading calculations. Looking at the CMD data it can be seen to be short-lived. I hesitate to suggest a timely PR stunt, but opportune certainly, and there was nothing in the CMD to suggest why it had not been possible to maintain that level, but the guidance had been 'massaged' to 18k 'ongoing' and just 17k for the year, from the 18k in the FY Report. [Remember it was going to be 20k July CMD]
Although, checking the Finance slide 18mbopd is 6.6mmbbl for 2020, so it was not downgraded, nor Opex increased...

This unexpected water is starting to play havoc with bopd from both wells; compare and contrast with "To date, water cut has not impacted on production guidance" in the FY Report .
If only HUR had said #6 was in line with the water production that had been seen over the previous weeks, rather than #7z which they then shut-in.

jimo
joe

Intriguing question John. We are missing the OGA's justification for the original P&A date, when we know that it was HUR's intention to use the pressure gauges in all three wells and to suspend them as producers, before drilling three more this summer.
Now we have the commitment well(s) and the first P&A extension would have allowed pressure readings whilst drilling the new Lincoln well, [this summer].
But now the commitment well is a year after P&A, so unless there is another postponement ....

Perhaps it puts the P&A into the same contract window as the Lancaster commitment well, but if the commitment well was to allow Lincoln field determination before sanctioning any development tie-back then that would likely be on hold too.
Simply put, tieback is ruled out because the timeline following drilling for its approval is c3months, a total of 15 months after P&A is expected.

jimo
joe

Don't worry about the asset status on the website, Clive has got it covered:
https://www.caspiansunrise.com/disclaimer/
They are only obligated to have AIM Rule 26 information, and that only has to be updated twice a year. You can keep track of the status between updates from the displayed RNSs, should you have any faith in them.
They do have to include a corporate governance code statement. It is not up to date.

You might wonder who is responsible for the London Stock Exchange contact details for Casp. The address has not been used since 2013, and the website is http://www.roxipetroleum.com/

Incidently, were you aware that CC is the only Director of the newly formed UK registered, subsidiary company BNG Energy Limited?
Has he moved back to the England, his residence for all companies has reverted to England.