Member Info for JoeSoap

A quick look here will show that the second trade @26.34 is a correction of the earlier trade. Not two trades!
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=0&pageOffBook=0&fourWayKey=GB00B580MF54GBGBXAMSM&formName=frmRow&upToRow=10

cc.
I think the simplest answer is a software problem.

It would seem that ADFVN can only read numbers from their third-party data feed and as they are all positive they get accumulated, and the 'flag' CANC(elled) is ineffective and doesn't eliminate the incorrect trade, leading to a triple entry which is summated in the appropriate buy/sell column.

Whereas on LSE the cancelled flag is recognised but simplistically deletes the trade in it's entirity, i.e. it is ignored or droppeed, whilst the corrected trade then appears alongside the very first entry of the trade and appears as two trades of identical quantities at the same time.

On LonStExch the trades are recorded as they happened (but delayed in real time) but without any indication of buy or sell.

Now the question is why have we got, at best, a fat-fingered MM/trader inputting the large trades incorrectly and later correcting them, or less generously, a MM/trader intentionly entering false data to the market and then correcting later?

But it is at least 15 minutes where false data is presented to the market (PI).

jimo
joe

Your call. ;-)

Yes cc.
Exactly as the other day, 3x on Advfn, 2x on LSE and just once on LonStEx....

ww.
This suggests otherwise:
https://www.oedigital.com/news/472743-spirit-energy-up-for-sale

Are you sure?

Pourquoi?
Non, plus au sud, à cause de ce.

imo Premier have pee'd in OGA's ear and said "Oi, some of Lincoln is on our patch so you can't grant them development status until the field boundaries are established."
see https://rc-images-live.s3.amazonaws.com/GTfvS7cQjT6mTztXaGP4cF/dbydtwku3fjquk7bdr64sudocx/word/media/image7-8fa100a1f095909c9da3676cac739913.png

See also this:

Field Determination process

A proposed determination of a field must be made before the OGA can consent to a field development. The process for determination involves the OGA issuing a proposal (for the boundary) to all licensees with an interest in the licenced blocks in which the field is situated and licensees in the adjacent blocks, so all parties can ensure their interests in the field will be recognised. The boundary is defined offshore by parallels of latitude and meridians joining the co-ordinate points and onshore by grid lines of the UK National Grid. To assist the OGA in preparing a proposed determination the field operator will be asked to provide a top structure map at 1:25,000 scale showing:

actual and proposed well locations;
fluid contacts;
licence boundaries;
and the proposed Development Area and Unit Area (if applicable – see below). additional information to support this request may include, but not limited to, relevant seismic cross-sections and geo-schematic lines highlighting the structural closure and relationship to adjacent areas; evidence of depth conversion methodology and uncertainty associated with mapping; fluid contact interpretation

Operators are to ensure all information is provided in both electronic format and hard copy. If further information is required, it will be requested during the Field Development Plan discussions.

All mapping images (including the Top Structure Map) must be georeferenced or include a World File for use in GIS. Georeferencing queries can be sent to the OGA GIS team at GIS@ogauthority.co.uk.

The recipients of the proposal have 60 days from the date on which a proposal is issued to make any representations regarding it in writing. They will then have an opportunity to present any specific concerns in more detail. The final determination will be made following all relevant discussion, and must be in place prior to first production. It is issued when the Field Development Plan has been consented to. HMRC are notified when proposed and final determinations are issued to licensees.

from https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/exploration-production/development/field-determinations/

jimo
joe

The purpose of the sub-vertical wells is "to determine the maximum vertical extent of the Lincoln field in order to meet the commitment well requirement of the licence extension."

They would not find the ODT depth with a horizontal well.

What to believe?
Who do you put your faith in?
Why are you here?
What is your exit plan?

The EPS is not going according to the ES plan.
It was expected that ESPs would be required and that no water would be produced.
They fitted ESPs but did not have a commissioned water handling system, even with all the delay afforded by ropegate.
DrT is delighted with the EPS performance because it has exceeded expectations. Pressure is maintained at a high level and oil is delivered by natural flow. What is Neil's view??

So where is the produced water? ADUK says "we just DON'T KNOW how much water has gone through the production train." when I pointed out that the HUR supplied data released by OGA up to end of October shows it to be over 3 times the slops capacity. It's self-evident that we don't know the grand total.

However, we can see that for October it was >13% total and although we do not know the ratio of the two wells, it is much higher than the previous RNS.
"Notwithstanding the increase in aggregate perched water production to a sustained rate of approximately 7.5%, water cut remains within expected ranges and is not impacting oil production levels or the cost of production. "

But the change was not RNSable, even though it was greater than the expected guidance and still not even worthy of a mention on Dec2nd, but instead surfaces on Friday 13th. It's stable at 25-30% in a prior test, maybe not its most recent then. It is not an exactitude but significantly better than the once dry well 6 now showing "minimal" water. [i.e. It's now wet, we don't need to update you further yet.]

I see a lot of interest in the next CMD. Given much of the previous CMD plan has little credibility after the last RNS, what credence will there be in the new plan?
Are you already wondering what they will not say in the YE results in order to have new news for the CMD the next week?

It is certainly a testing time for the maxim 'Trust me I'm a Doctor'.

But as it is a New Year, it's time to take stock.
Will you take more HUR stock or sell some?

2020. What is your vision?

That would be very reassuring reading, ADUK.

But it appears that the total volume of water produced is more than 3 times the capacity of the slops tank, so where are they storing it?

And adding a postscript:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50873047

The entire thread , "I am confused" was deleted.

ww, fwiw shed's post is still available...

JK Well spotted....
Similarly for nigelpm. prior to COP 18th
Ditto Rhomboid, went into GDWN and caught the fall.

I think Albi was exasperated today before arriving here....

joe
PS HH, I think HUR are trying for a dry January, because 7z will still be shut in, and 6 is only damp. Currently.

daltry
You can decide, have a read here:
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/beverley-smith

[Shell announced BG purchase in 2015 and completed in Feb2016, jfyi]

aduk.
It's hardly splitting hairs when ww's contention is not a moot point.

It is not unreasonable to believe that HUR were cognisant of the lack of infrastructure when they proceeded with their drilling plan.
Besides, there was another boat timed in on their CMD Growth plan with associated FIDs.
All subject to technical results, regulatory consent and partner approvals.
Now that very well may have played a part in the decision to P&A WW.
jimo
joe

Why do you choose to overlook the continually expressed guidance from HUR that these wells were to be finished as producers and long leadtime items had been ordered as part of the Phase1 Spirit deal?

"so just a question of waiting for the results in March 2020 I guess"

Is that before or after the CMD?

Albi,
The RNS was about the P1368 licence which would have expired at the end of the month, but has now been granted for a further 5 years for Lancaster and Lincoln. The extension came with new obligations which amends the current plans for 2020.

There was no mention of the Halifax licence (P2308) as that has been satisfied for now. Similarly for Warwick (P2294), although they have to give up 50% of that acreage at the end of the year to move onto the next phase.

The new 'OGA' requirements will keep them busy next year, so no point mentioning Halifax action as that is not visible on the new plan even with a telescope.

It would have been nice to get the Licence to the end of the current EPS 6yr period, but hey ho....
jimo
joe

..may not be what it seems.

Kerching. Nice 10% there on Friday. Seems several took it as the price tailed of into the close.
WWTBOFTW.?.
Aided and abetted by the usual 'stay strong' posters on here comforting the LTHs, while they sneaked out the back door?

But hey, what to make of the RNS?
Hopefully this is more thought-provoking than some of the dross on here and Advfn.

This was primarily about the Licences. They had to advise on the OGA discussions as Lancaster expired at the end of the month along with the other fields on P1368.
We now have a further extension to Lancaster and Lincoln for 5 years subject to new requirements which will mean abandoning the current published pre-production plan and instead drill full depth inclined assessment wells.

Why has this new requirement been introduced?
We know that all the other fields were carried subject to Lincoln EPS, and also that Strathmore was written down in 2017, but Whirlwind? Wasn't that shown as active with concept studies until end 2020 in the H1 presentation?

Did they expect this outcome prior to the negotiations? Well, no because they booked a rig that they have no use for because OGA won't approve the 3 planned horizontals on GWA, even though permits were being requested.

That's scrapping Petrofac's work, and there may be a rush job to get one on Lancaster instead.

The question then has to be 'Did HUR approach OGA with a radically new plan because the 3-well 2019 GLA had been so bad and they (incl Spirit) couldn't agree to continue in line with the plan?' Or did OGA say 'No way. If you want to extend P1368 you need to do it our way now.'

HUR would have you believe it's the OGA at Whirlwind, but if they have no prospect of drilling it in the near future with all the other commitments then maybe there was no option, even though they have rented it for so long.
(They also have P&A accrual in the Accounts for the suspended well, but no mention if they have to use it.
They have a rig to use though... but will that be outside the surrender date or not?)

But, whatever the results of these new drills it seems the tie-back is delayed (will approval be affected now that Whirlwind is not theirs), as is the de-bottlenecking and therefore FOil.
The "Growth" slide begins to look a bit unlikely now.

These costly extra wells are unlikely to be future producers, so that prep work will still be before production.

This is a very expensive set-back and no compelling evidence that it is a 'goer' anymore.

jimo
joe

ww, you appear to have overlooked the footnote on pg11/26:
Note: Based on preliminary analysis: Post-start-up metrics/observations are as at 11 July 2019 Capital Markets Day.
The H1 Report updated this info in September, but it's not reflected here...

Genghis, I'd like to reply to your opening post on this thread.
I believe that it is good to gather as much information as possible to support ones investments and that is only possible if we keep an open mind and reappraise with each update.

Para 1. I think its fair to say that dspp was looking at data posted by Carcosa which showed that the water %age was increasing and for Sept was 7.4% of total fluids recovered.
His considered opinions of why may indeed be conjecture in the absence of all the facts.
But I do not think that HUR are covering up an issue. They advised of change when 7z was wet, and it was shown at 8% in the July CMD. In the H1 report they stated " Notwithstanding the increase in aggregate perched water production to a sustained rate of approximately 7.5%, water cut remains within expected ranges...". The report was on 20 Sept. Many would not believe it had increased and said it was ambiguous. The OGA data now says otherwise and they still don't want to believe it.

Para 2. Don't play poker with an oil exec!!

Para 4. The EPS is in line with expectations, and I believe you have listed the upside surprises that were not visible at FID .

Para 5. " it has cost HUR nothing". Sorry, this is where you are wrong. Whilst Spirit paid for the wells, it was their model, their data interpretation, their drills etc. that was used to "prove flowrates for deep oil". When it didn't their model was like a busted flush, and they were wounded, and with it their early FFD planning.
LC was successful, but less so than Lancaster.
WW just rubbed salt in the wounds.
[The CPR relied on 'analogous' fields to get the values often cited. The geology can no longer be considered analogous. Or if it is, it will read back into the likely outcome of each and every new drill. Yes, EPS has put cash in the bank, but we need the GLA grey area funded to get to GLA Phase 1 FFD and 1000mmb 2P.]
Para 6. We had successful drills, no farm-ins but a cash raise and a promising way forward that everybody loved, sticking it to the majors. It was a love-in...