Member Info for JoeSoap

You do know of course that it set the low today.

But hey, it finished blue so all's good - well at least until Monday....

dspp/ww re Q4.
If I may repeat this from my post of 24th Nov, (pre latest RNS) as my 'starting position' and then develop it further, you and others may be able to build on it or trash it. Either way I'd be interested.

"As for GLA, whilst the EPS is ahead of guidance, there has been no word on whether the AM is fully functional yet, and whether all planned field evaluations have been able to be completed.
The rapid pressure recognition in the other well has been attributed to the large fault near the heel of both wells. It may also explain the high PI if this fault has good connectivity with the driving aquifer.
The longer term ability to produce from the whole of the horizontal remains to be proven. The steady production of c8% perched water from 7z needs further explanation, as it is a significant volume and must have a driver which the oil filling sequence could neither access nor displace and yet is able to flow preferentially to oil in other faults and fractures."

There is obviously a very good fracture network in the vicinity of these 2 wells, better at 6 than 7z.
They talk to each other and share the same fault at the heel of the wells.
When tested individually, they can both draw primarily from this shared fault and give dry and c8% water resp..
When both are open, the fault cannot supply the same volume to each and more is drawn from further along the bores where it is still dry in 6 and more of the water in 7z is delivered (x2 as the av is c8%). HUR will clearly have the pressures for each well and with two active flowlines will know if the watercut from 7z increases but are unlikely to share.

It is unclear to me how the full length of the horizontal will ever deliver given the flow characteristics of this fault which is and needs to be continuously recharged by the surrounding matrix. [Someone on ADVN worked out the volume of oil to date and if this was then expressed in lxwxd the values were imo not credible for just that fault].

I am happy to believe that it is perched water, but a significant volume has been produced and if it continues it must be from a very large volume which is isolated from the original oil-fill, pierced by the drill and yet is connected to a driver.

The question of when coned water may appear in this primary delivery fault was discussed by WWN who identified that in the CPR low case is given as 3 years.

Fluid mechanics...Over to you.
joe

aduk.
I know that you want to know all the ins and outs of the well for your professional curiosity; that has been long evident.
However, in this case we are powerless to influence their decision and therefore need to just accept that there is/was a go/nogo threshold. Your other concerns "no infrastructure in place yet,..et al..." are just fluff, (he said with respect.)
They knew that WW was too far to produce to AM. They had planned for a nearby one (WD or LC at various times) to be connected, ostensibly as an EWT/EPS on GWA, but perhaps to help fill up AM and use a spare slot on the buoy and give some payback to Spirit etc in win-win fashion. They had also planned for another FPSO to be used (remember AS's comment) for the GWA planned wells, it's shown on page 67/76 of the CMD under 'Growth'.

So in summary, WD was a failure and WW didn't cut the mustard. LC is still in play, but HUR and Spirit have to decide very quickly whether to proceed with Phase2 or not and whether it is a joint venture or not.

Now if you assess the odds on each of those outcomes, on the continued success of EPS and where GLA will go, then you may be getting close to the reason for the current SP.

jimo

joe

ronok (apols for typo last post)
Thanks for coming back, but I fear that you have missed the main point of my post.

I don't intend to go through yours line by line, but will say I can agree with (1) and the max flow will never be known for that well, but I will not be joining the many ticking up your post.

If you believe that HUR went into the well drilling programme knowing that they would have to plug and abandon any of the wells that were outside of a 9 month suspension window as offered to WC, (as per your more recent post) then that would mean HUR were frankly telling a series of lies to us and wasting the money put up by Spirit.

I agree with the 15:02 post from MCB55 and was the first to tick it up before leaving the pitch.
There was always an "if successful" clause.

I think that the time of 9 months at LC may well have been decided in agreement with HUR because they also need OGA to give the approvals to proceed on WoSP and the amended terms of the EPS and the first production permit from Lincoln "by the end Q1 2020", provided that HUR make the applications, of course. If they don't apply then they have committed to have LC "plugged and abandoned by 22 June 2020". Lucky then that they have provisionally secured a rig....

Whether the above reasoning is correct or not is immaterial, but if your explanation is correct, just why the hell are they planning to drill 3 wells next year to produce in 2024?

GL

joe

ronak, sorry but I find this implausible.

"My take on this well is that it was more of an assessment exercise. It was not going to be a producer."

If it is true, HUR would have lied throughout all their presentations post Spirit deal, and I certainly don't believe that to be the case.

SG2 asked, " Is there any evidence that 7z was NOT flowed for the whole of September's production?"

From the H1 Results RNS dated 20 September,
"Now that both flowlines are in operation again, we can see that production from the -6 well continues to be of dry oil."

WW, I agree it is open to interpretation because of the unknowns, and a point that DrT covered in the Q&A when defending his 4% from Vietnam data.

However, I find it hard to dismiss the OGA water %ages whilst willing to believe the oil production figures when ALL data is supplied to OGA by HUR.

The total remains within in their guidance, so no need to advise of the increasing %age.
jimo
joe

Further information suggests it was then Cancelled.

11:56:04 04-Dec-2019 36.11 GBX 2,800,000 1,011,136.00 Off-book AIMX
11:56:04 04-Dec-2019 36.11 GBX 2,800,000 1,011,136.00 Cancelled CANC AIMX

ADUK 16:31.
It is quite apparent that the RNS is not as clear as many PIs would wish.
Having said that, there still seem to be some 'flat-earthers' here. And that is inspite of dspp's Dead Parrot analogy.

However, whilst WW is dead and almost gone, there is, as yet, no reason to think that the western block of Warwick, (or Warwick as a whole) is also dead and gone.
There are several large faults on GWA as can be seen in this https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/application/files/3415/4541/6981/CPR_Figure_7.7.PNG
from the CPR. (note also Lincoln is smaller than HUR suggests) If there was pressure contact between WW & LC which route was used?

Why has WW been P&A when there is no admission of non-commercial?
HUR have published a plan through to end of 2022 showing how they would get to FFD, change of operator and FOIL. This shows three wells from 2019 being suspended as future production wells with pressure gauges to assess interference from these wells and the next phase 3, the 3 development/production wells.
Therefore I do not believe that the P&A is due to regulatory requirements per se, but merely a consequence of short-circuiting the need to say 'not commercial', with the regulatory obligation to P&A if there is no longer any further planned use. [Alternatively known as spin, there's plenty about at the moment!]
wrt to your 17:34 the absence of more detail, did you think that they may want to keep a lid on how bad it was??

jimo
joe

I think, as Malcy, they are copying from the RNS

Still waiting for the Stobie hasn't bought any yet comment. Will he now??
Any others?

Ah, thank you.
A mis-type.
Nothing else wrong then...

ADUK
Can you please explain your view or correct my misunderstanding?
The GLA well at Lincoln, drilled with TO Spitzbergen was an Exploration well that found oil.
These three 2019 wells on GLA (Warwick and Lincoln alike) are billed as Appraisal Wells.
(Additionally, as such HUR would have more scope with the mud weight, would they not?)

TIA
joe

The GLA oil was discovered with the Exploration well and Spitzbergen.

This 3 well drilling campaign was an Appraisal of GLA.

The plan from HUR was to Suspend all 3 as future producers.
All wells would have pressure gauges installed and left in-situ.
The long leadtime items for producing were funded in this Phase.

LC was given a timed stay (22 June '20) before P&A will be required by the OGA. The gauges were "for the purposes of: completing pressure build-up tests, gathering interference data between the Lincoln Crestal and Warwick West wells, and gathering data from the early wells that are planned to be drilled in 2020. "

So I find it 'interesting' that there was no desire to adopt similar 'information gathering techniques' at WW, and can only conclude that this throws further doubt on the viability of Warwick.

The FFD oil from GLA was planned for Q1 2024 using these and the 3 wells drilled next year.
If there was a Regulatory time limit on 'Suspending', their plan would not be worth publishing.
It is much more a function of the result.

How big the boat now??

jimo
joe

I am not aware that they have applied for the neccesary permits to work on WC again.

Biffa, there were traffic lights in the agreement, it wasn't "Carry on regardless".
"Phase 2 - 2020: Assuming -> Phase 1 is successful <- and FID is taken to proceed with the GWA well tie-back, Hurricane carried through 50% of its share of an estimated $187.5 million (gross) programme to tie-back one GWA well to the Aoka Mizu, complete host modifications of the Aoka Mizu, tie-in to the West of Shetland Pipeline (WOSP) system for gas export, and thereby allow for first oil from an Early Production System ("EPS") on the GWA in Q4 2020"

So was WD successful? Spirit called it a dry hole.
Therefore it is not as simple as you would seem to imply.

jimo
joe

You need to look back further to see how it 'could be' a buy.
Luckily they only paid 8.3231 for 308,000, all earlier deals were above 9. So need another 600k to do a 8.7 deal, there was 40k at 8.5 and the 8.675p for 299,052 and other deals were done at a small premium.
The SP then moves up...Black Friday sale over!
jimo
joe
PS I don't understand Adrianz's earlier suggestion that it is KS re-buying!

ADUK, re "HOWEVER....."
The Q1 2019 presentation
• One Warwick well will be drilled below local structural closure in order to prove flowrates for
deep oil

imo, they needed this to support their existing FFD plans.
I'm sure they didn't expect a near-zero flowrate, or as Spirit called it a dry hole.

Resulting in amended plans?

I note your frustration had been growing during the day.
They have found the oil that they always said was there, that (nearly) everybody expected them to find especially after their success at LC. You believe it to be big (as per the leak) and therefore commercial, as do many who post here, yet the SP has not rocketed beyond the rumour spike.
Why should it?
Does it matter if it is one field or two halves? I suggest not, I think RT said that of Halifax/Lancaster. Being another crestal well, it could never alter the findings of WD and the implications.
Any flow rates could easily change when it comes on production, as we saw with Lancaster, (and if they don't that'll be seen as a demerit!). There will be an oil-down-to projection but the flow from that depth will remain to be proven.
However, the timeline to monetisation would appear unchanged. They have already booked the rig for the next wells on GWA but despite saying they wanted to announce it, the rig owner did, and their timeline showed FID from both companies as necessary for the next phases. Phases which also depended on approval from OGA, probably an ES and a FPSO solution. It will be interesting to see whether they suspend and leave a pressure gauge in WW and whether that is time restricted in the same way as LC.

As for GLA, whilst the EPS is ahead of guidance, there has been no word on whether the AM is fully functional yet, and whether all planned field evaluations have been able to be completed.
The rapid pressure recognition in the other well has been attributed to the large fault near the heel of both wells. It may also explain the high PI if this fault has good connectivity with the driving aquifer.
The longer term ability to produce from the whole of the horizontal remains to be proven. The steady production of c8% perched water from 7z needs further explanation, as it is a significant volume and must have a driver which the oil filling sequence could neither access nor displace and yet is able to flow preferentially to oil in other faults and fractures.

imo, it is too early for a revised CPR. They need to show that they have a commercial plan in place to convert C to P. The CPR ackowledges the EPS extension to 10 years would increase reserves, but that only happens with the gas off-take according to latest info.
Moreover, it would not surprise me if the very conservative view of RPS reduced the volumes due to WD and the analogue principle even if they accept the greater ODT recently suggested by HUR at Lancaster.

Latest intel has an earlier drill than scheduled on their plan, a longer hire period, and two rates.
What have they yet to tell us?
Will that move the SP?

Do we have to wait and see details of how they are going to get to >100P2.

Or is it the 'grey area' of GLA FFD holding it back - how will they fund it, how much will they have to give away , who will be operator? Is the OGA happy with that and the timeline?

jimo
joe

DING DING.
All are bored.