Member Info for JoeSoap

Anotheer attempt...

The second comment, scratched from the initial post of this thread, relates to the oil.
"Lincoln confirmed to contain light, 43° API oil"
and yet, later in the same RNS we learn that
"We believe that following more detailed analysis than can be achieved on the rig, the oil recovered from Lincoln Crestal will be demonstrated to be broadly similar to that from Warwick Deep."
and as
"Results from laboratory analysis of oil recovered to surface from Warwick Deep indicates a light oil of approximately 40° API."
how is 43° confirmed?

It seems a little odd that the readily obtained volume sample is assessed in error when compared to the meagre volume obtained from WD.

But, the accompanying presentation tells us that "fluid compatibility studies to confirm ability to tie-back," are required, but does not identify who the arbiters are, is it BPInt that are buying and selling or the refinery that buys and processes?

Overall, both comments show that the tie-back is not a slam dunk.

jimo
joe

I've seen several comments that there was nothing new info in the RNS, but I beg to differ as there were a couple of things that I was not aware of and I don't think have been disussed here.

Firstly, I found this surprising:-
" The suspension consent provided requires that the well is re-entered to be plugged and abandoned by 22 June 2020. "
afaik, HUR still have two suspended wells without any such conditions, Halifax and Lancaster 4. I think the XEL well is still suspended following the EWT, lol.

So, why has this been applied?
It seems to be completely at odds with the plans presented by HUR, as all three were intended to be suspended as future producers in much the same way as 6 & 7z.

Now we know that is does not matter for WD as that has been plugged and abandoned but what of WW, where current planning is for production as part of the FDP 2023/4?

I might find time for the second point, tomorrow.

Any views/info on this one?

That must be worth a few million Caspian Sunrise shares to Eragon Petroleum UAE!
;-)

I think we need about 7 times that to get back to where we were this time last year.

Perhaps they will give more detail on the increased aggegate water cut?

I note that there was no formation water in LC, but there was in WD.
What is the difference between perched water and formation water?

JK - SPs have booms
one due Monday, I hear....
Be ready "to sell into the demand".
jimo

I don't think this has been copied from laserdisc on ADVFN:
HTTPS://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-spirit-energy-m-a-bayerngas/spirit-energys-other-owners-join-centrica-in-exiting-north-sea-oil-gas-firm-sources-idUKKCN1VJ1QX

Interesting RNS, and interesting to see the level of comprehension displayed by some - surely not playing to their own hand are they?

However, it does provide an answer to my earlier query as to why they are flowing more than guidance, especially when their guidance for the more distant future was raised.
Interesting also to learn that the FPSO was not yet fully operational, especially that the fuel gas compressor commissioning to reduce long-term flaring levels and operational expenditure was only planned "for the coming months". But perhaps this work was planned during the shutdowns that have not yet happened, whatever, it does mean that fuel will have had to be shipped in. Less surprised that the produced water system commissioning activities were outstanding. Afterall, that would be planned as a rainy day job because only dry oil had been expected...

So, notwithstanding the info from andysimpson, what has actually happened to the perched water?

They have admitted that an unspecified operational necessity had limited production to the use of just one subsea flowlines during August, but "operations have now recommenced with two flowlines" and that the "most recent aggregate stabilised water cut: 7.5%"

Previously they had announced that one well [7z, the deeper of the two] had 8% water cut, and most recently 7.5% in aggregate. This suggests (very approximately) a doubling of this water content in three months. We have to wait for greater details as the "water cut cannot be attributed between the two wells. Further data will be available now that production through both flowlines has recommenced." Has 7z production given greater access to more perched water or is 6 no longer producing dry oil? Interesting time.

I note that DrT is now stating " ... it will take up to a year to acquire and interpret sufficient performance information to test our reservoir model of the field." which after 3 months production seems to caution against any conclusions being made towards the shorter end of the 6-12 months window in the CMD, pg38.

jimo
joe

db:
You'll find similar posters on most BB.
Clive says he doesn't like the traders playing with SP.
FK says he's got 3.5M, and asks Clive for clarification, aka reassurance.
Clive responds.
FK is reassured, it fits with his confirmation bias and then re-chants the mantra.

What do you think Clive tells him?

jimo

The monthly production was duly released: the RNS showed lack of atention to detail, or contained misinformation if you prefer.
In the absence of a well update, the previous is still current. A8 "...deciding how to proceed." If they have decided internally but need to get Sinopec and Kaz Ministry approval, the decision is unable to be confirmed as the new route.

Also don't overlook the fact that the website says "Access to and use of this website is at your own risk, and Caspian Sunrise makes no warranty or representation as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in this website or any other site to which this site is linked or reference made."

Meanwhile, I note that Roxi Petroleum Limited has been dissolved via voluntary strike-off, by CC & KO, and yet LonStEx still has http://www.roxipetroleum.com/ as the Company website.
CC has officially relocated to United Arab Emirates, as well as resigning from Ascent Resources and Tax Systems Ltd.

jimo
joe
Some heavy dumping first thing! ;-)

Doors will be unlocked at 08:00.

Are you rushing

in

or

out?

SIPPn00B Are you correct when you say " despite the Company staying there is no read across"? [stating]

Biffadog provided the actual wording, from the CMD RNS.
"Importantly, we have evidence that suggests to Hurricane that the result at Warwick Deep does not have negative read-across to Lancaster or Lincoln."

If I may suggest, at the FID sign-off meeting for the WD, the proposer may have suggested that they had evidence that suggests this was a good location to provide a future producer.

ADUK, as Daltry says, it's a dark cloud.
But hey, they've created their own dark cloud with the WD result.It is not just the failure and the speculation that it could affect Lancaster, but the fact that they will have to drill it again if they want to see if the East end of Warwick is commercial. I know they plan to drill 3 next year, at 50/50 and this would be additional and do not forget that they have to give up 50% of the licence area by Sept '20, the right 50%!
imo, it has also upset their FFD planning. Will they dare to drill deep on Lancaster?

But back to Spirit. Have you seen any comment from them re WD result or LC spud? Perhaps something will come out next week with the Centrica H1 report.

Also, next week sees a Transocean Q2 update. Didn't AS say he wanted to be first with the news??

I digress: the Spirit sale would imo mean that their plans could be subject to new guidance from the new 69% owner. The whole of the reserves growth plan depends on the timely FID from Spirit (and HUR) any delay and they don't deliver. It's worth reviewing Chris Cox
[https://www.spirit-energy.com/news/2018/west-of-shetland-the-uks-final-frontier] and the billions needed for development.

I still want to know what they plan to do to keep production guidance for 2019....

jimo
joe

ADUK, the question I asked was the unasked question in Genghis' original post, with my suggestion that they may look to achieve the longer term recovery to keep within production guidance.

Indeed, it was an open question from the CMD presentation - Why no increase in the guidance for 2019? - and I have not seen any post to suggest why that will be the case when all can see that they have easily exceeded 9mb/d. So what now for the future?

We know that it is good to under promise and over deliver and it's been said HUR are conservative etc., but if they are planning to over delivery against express guidance to the contrary, would you then call that misleading or deceit?

Genghis, (11:57) I recall that was what was said at the CMD, with emphasis being put on recovering the low production periods (which could be less with need for pigging better than expected) to bring up to 20mbd average in 2020.

Why in 2020?

Why not raise the guidance for 2019? It is closer so any long term issues could affect 2020 and not 2019; obviously they are showing confidence that there will be no issues. So do they hve something scheduled that will cause a loss of production and drop the average back to the stated 9mbd for Q3 and stop Q4 increasing?

It was also said, iirc, that they had got all the data that they wanted in the start up phase. But perhaps they are shutting in to see if that missing 4/5psi will recover?

It's that dejà vu time.

Last time the public share offering was cancelled as they were available cheaper in the market.

Now all those clamouring for their share in the over-subscribed Kerogen placing can fill their boots below that placing price.

And all those reassuring voices yesterday can join in to.

Who would have thought that?

" but it mustn't be forgotten that Kerogen had a buyer lined up:"

I think they placed the shares.....to find some buyers.
jimo

;-)

Thinking now that the Kerogen sell down was the reason for the CMD. As an insider it would have to fit in with events (as did Ms Slightam's options) and would have been discussed internally much earlier. At AGM timing was still TBC.

Was their intent signalled with the cashing in of the warrants? They certainly didn't want to hold more stock even with the expected/anticipated news profile ahead - compare and contrast to some on here ...

All the info in the CMD could have been released by RNS, eg at the time of first shipment and a Q3 Investors Presentation. But it wasn't.

When is the next one, six months?

Not laughing at you, but the frustration you identified in your post and then comparing it to what the guys that are doing/undoing/redoing the work must feel.

Not sure about the hindsight, JD. Just looking at what they have told us and trying to get a picture of what they are trying to do, especiallly at A5.
AFAIK A8 will need perforating before there is any chance of a cash injection from it, so they will remain short. The only well to flow used a perforated liner, and is now being sidetracked. Success has eluded them to date, but we can hope that the A8 well is in better condition and may be the best bet to flow. As currently designed it was intented to drill on and test the Devonian first, but they may revise their thinking....again.
jimo

lol @ fizzy's frustration.
Imagine you were the logistics manager (or site foreman or whatever title) responsible for getting the necessary 'kit' to the well and working to the last order...

Looking at A6, how can the acid " perforate an interval of potentially oil-bearing rock " if the previous gun didn't perforate the pipe and a bigger charge is needed? Are you beginning to think it's fubar and that it is now after A5 because a new sidetrack is is needed?

At A5, we seem to have another problem! We were only going to remove 30 metres but we've removed 85m and still need another 30m. The maths suggest that the hanger was higher than they thought.

Is 801 now coming up on the outside and going to be first past the post?

Clearly they are struggling to do all that they want due to managing the funds and that income is dwindling in line with the well decline. Who will fund the new wells after they have obtained the necessary kit?

Summer season will soon be over...

jimo
joe