Member Info for JoeSoap

B.E. Yep, and yet another crepe day!

Meanwhile over on Advfn
flawlesskicks 4 Mar '19 - 12:58 - 7885 of 7886
...
I have bought another £1k worth of shares today to add to my holding.

flawlesskicks 4 Mar '19 - 15:25 - 7886 of 7886
A couple of bigger buys have gone through and the share price is responding slightly on the ask. Fingers crossed we get a nice Tuesday rns and the mms are now low on stock! We can live in hope!
---
Whilst I understand that Fk would be lowering his alleged average, I cannot see the "responding" characteristic mentioned, as I see buys becoming cheaper throughout the day. How do they justify the 6.30 ask? It's not been there for days!

I have previously commented on the OILQ flags carried by certain trades.
I remain convinced that a duplication or double entering of these trades exists, albeit they are trying harder to disguise it.
Today we have :-

16:22:49 04-Mar-2019 6.10 GBX 30,000_ 1,829.40 Off-book OILQ AIMX
15:43:45 04-Mar-2019 6.10 GBX 44,572_ 2,718.00 Off-book OILQ AIMX
14:51:06 04-Mar-2019 6.11 GBX 139,171 8,504.74 Off-book OILQ AIMX
14:37:14 04-Mar-2019 6.10 GBX 73,000_ 4,451.54 Off-book OILQ AIMX
12:17:41 04-Mar-2019 6.12 GBX 40,000_ 2,448.80 Off-book OILQ AIMX
11:42:35 04-Mar-2019 6.12 GBX 16,171_ 989.99__ Off-book OILQ AIMX
09:48:35 04-Mar-2019 6.14 GBX 10,000_ 613.90__ Off-book OILQ AIMX

The 14:51:06 is the sum of the earlier trades, leaving the later two trades to appear tomorrow imo.
Checking the 'Trade price' and 'Volume' here shows they tally within the price of one share.

So who continues to unload?

I do agree with those on here and with Fk's last sentence:-
"This is week 7 since the last update so we should have some progress fingers crossed!"

"What do you make of that delayed buy then joe??"
Richyp123
With the current activities, I think it is wiser to wait for the complete picture over the full day rather than jump to rash conclusions.

Last two entries yesterday:
16:36:17 28-Feb-2019 6.23 GBX 693,046 43,169.84 Off-book N LRGS AIMX
16:30:17 28-Feb-2019 6.18 GBX 265,000 16,377.00 Off-book N LRGS AIMX
Were they late after hours big buys or something else?

265,000 check 265,000 at 08:59:04.

693,046 ?? OILQ trades yesterday 32,007 + 580,690 + 80,057 + 292 Check.

Both double entries.

Is today going to be different? Not if the 50k trade is a foretaste...

Yes, I read that you had re-bought.

So I still ask:
Why are your trades (and those from previous days) flagged as negotiated @ 6.165 ?
Where is all the stock coming from to allow large buys?
Why was the price 6.3 for one punter?
And why are the trades duplicated?

All is not what it appears.

jimho
joe

The late buy, or was it?

Not such an odd number when you look at the detail trades.

16:35:47 27-Feb-2019 6.17 GBX 712,108 43,901.46 Off-book N LRGS AIMX
16:26:40 27-Feb-2019 6.17 GBX 50,000 3,082.50 Off-book OILQ AIMX
16:18:44 27-Feb-2019 6.17 GBX 100,000 6,165.00 Off-book OILQ AIMX
14:44:51 27-Feb-2019 6.10 GBX 20,000 1,220.00 Off-book AIMX
12:21:07 27-Feb-2019 6.30 GBX 31,698 1,996.97 Off-book AIMX
10:48:44 27-Feb-2019 6.17 GBX 400,000 24,660.00 Off-book OILQ LRGS AIMX
10:32:15 27-Feb-2019 6.05 GBX 26,539 1,606.41 Off-book AIMX
09:10:42 27-Feb-2019 6.17 GBX 162,108 9,993.96 Off-book OILQ AIMX
08:43:52 27-Feb-2019 6.15 GBX 40,456 2,488.04 Off-book AIMX
08:15:59 27-Feb-2019 6.05 GBX 100,000 6,050.00 Off-book AIMX

And we have 162,108 + 400,000 + 100,000 + 50,000 = 712,108.
All the same price, all OILQ*.

Yes, there 5 other trades that do not carry the OILQ flag and they seem to be normal bid/offer trades.
So yet again we have duplicated trades.

Are they finished now?

£18 trade suggests not.
Time will tell....

* ( OILQ — Negotiated Trade in Illiquid Financial Instruments).

16:31:51 26-Feb-2019 6.17 GBX 200,316 12,349.48 Off-book OILQ AIMX
15:18:29 26-Feb-2019 6.17 GBX 10,016 617.49 Off-book OILQ AIMX
10:48:20 26-Feb-2019 6.17 GBX 28,192 1,738.04 Off-book OILQ AIMX
09:38:16 26-Feb-2019 6.17 GBX 162,108 9,993.96 Off-book OILQ AIMX

And 162,108 + 28,192 + 10,016 =

Yet again....

I thought there was a gas off-take planned as well?

such as "See other side for full details." ?

IJWT: I don't know if you have reviewed the CNA FR at all but yesterday I posted the paragraph for ADUK on the Lincoln and Warwick plans.
Earlier in that section they included this:
"As previously stated, Spirit Energy will continue to look at the potential for further opportunities to strengthen the business, which could include further consolidation with another party."
DYOC.

Then, later there is this:
"However, total Centrica share of 2P reserves declined from 275mmboe to 203mmboe in 2018, despite Nova adding 11mmboe reserves net to Centrica, reflecting production during the year and reserves downgrades at Maria due to reservoir performance and the downgrade of Hejre from 2P to 2C as the operator re-evaluates development options.

Although reserve replacement has been disappointing, overall resources for Spirit Energy have materially increased. In August, it was announced that Spirit Energy had farmed into 50% of Hurricane Energy's Greater Warwick Area, West of Shetland. Spirit Energy will fund a $180m campaign to drill three wells and prepare for an extended well test, with a rig secured to commence drilling in Q2 2019. The wells will target the Lincoln discovery and the Warwick exploration prospect, which are estimated to hold 604mmboe gross 2C contingent resources and 935mmboe gross prospective resources respectively. Spirit Energy also experienced exploration success at the Hades/Iris and Lille Prinsen prospects with appraisal wells planned for 2019. "

Not that I expect much of this 2C will become 2P in next year's FR, but they have other opportunities as well, so may be able to reverse the trend.
( in preparation for Fred's sale. ;-)
)

Yes, as per https://s1.q4cdn.com/651804090/files/Fleet%20Status/2019/022019-Fleet-Status-Filing.pdf.

Drilling Darach Central 1 42/4
as per https://itportal.beis.gov.uk/eng/fox/beis/PETS_EXTERNAL_PUBLICATION/main
(enter 2019 and then search Darach)

Earlier a spokesman for Spirit Energy said the delay was due to issues relating the hook-up of floating production vessel for Hurricane’s Lancaster field, with the GWA drilling due to take place immediately after the completion of that work.

However, Hurricane later clarified that the delay was due to acquiring the rig taking longer than expected and not related to the Lancaster project.

And I thought they were sharing a new office.....

ADUK
Today, https://www.investegate.co.uk/centrica-plc/rns/final-results/201902210700187151Q/

"In August, it was announced that Spirit Energy would invest in exploration and appraisal West of Shetland, after farming into 50% of Hurricane Energy's Greater Warwick Area. Spirit Energy will fund a $180m campaign to drill three wells and prepare for an extended well test, with a rig secured to commence drilling in Q2 2019. The three wells will target the Lincoln discovery and the Warwick exploration prospect, which are estimated to hold 604mmboe 2C contingent resources and 935mmboe of prospective resources respectively. We expect to get initial indications of the results from the first well around the middle of the year."

Q2 ends same as H1!

Conspiracy corner_

Whose nom-de-plume is that?

We know those who see a delay and those who don't....

More pertinent to understand the effects of current stituation rather than umpteen years hence, imo

From the AGM presentation:
"The upshot of this is:- A theoretical start-up in early 2019 generates enough cash for a 2019 well. A late start-up means that further drilling will only take place from 2020."

Since then we have had the Spirit farm-in. But that is not a cash-free ride for HUR. As operators they will be responsible for the drilling and we do not know when Spirit will pay their dues. Will Centrica/Spirit really deposit the millions in the Bank of Hurricane until activty starts? I think not.
Also HUR will still have to accrue monies to fund the next Phases and their own GLA and company activities.

Better hope that AS's recent appearance was not to test the water...

I agree with fitguy when he queries whether any other oil company would report in detail on the rope.
"To be fair to them rarely would a major company comment on such detail (can you imagine almost any other oil company doing so!?), and they wouldn't have done so except that they are acutely aware that the "ship watchers" know lots of detail and thus they felt the need to assuage the market!"

But this is not an oil company where a rope mishap is insignificant, and imo is completed unrelated to the shipwatchers.

At HUR the rope is the means to first production and therefore it is material to the progress of the future of the company, as per the examples ww cited and hence reportable. (jimo natch)

You may have noticed that they used the same words in the RNS after the snag.
"A further announcement will be issued once hook-up has been successfully completed."

Then.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_HN50TLuaI

If your comment is based on the trades visible here, you should know that "Trades" on LSE has been bust since about 11:00...

Look here: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=1&pageOffBook=0&fourWayKey=GB00B1W0VW36GBGBXASX1&formName=frmRow&upToRow=-1

Then you might ask why so many trades of late appear duplicated, and carry a OILQ flag. ( OILQ — Negotiated Trade in Illiquid Financial Instruments)

BlooBird, I cannot disagree with Archimedes Principle, but imo you have missed my point which is better demonstrated in the little video posted by wellwell, as compared to the photo where there may be doubt because it is on lifting ropes...

The large cylindrical part does not enter the FPSO, but it floats partially above the water. Therefore if it is held under water under the FPSO it will have an upthrust, and its weight will not be on the lifting rope.

As the tip of the conical buoy clears the water it will have less total upthrust (the catenary will in effect become heavier), but it is not as it enters the lower end of the turret as that is all underwater. Moreover, depending on the ship's draft and the actual dimensions of the buoy and its installed position the cone may never leave the water during lifting.

It will be exposed when the water is pumped out of the turret, assuming the seals have not been damaged....

Interesting to note that here and at Adfvn the challenge to understand the mechanics of the buoy, the rope and the installation procedure continue.....

The buoy is conical as is the mating lower end of the turret. In the approach phase there can be significant angular discrepancies caused by pitch, roll etc. before cross-binding occurs that could result in increased rope loads.

When the buoy is said to be 20m below the surface, I take that to be the equilibrium position balancing the buoyancy of the buoy with the downforce of the catenary chains, ie that portion not resting on the seabed in the thrash zone.

As DC posted, the buoy does not add to the lift-load until it is clear of the water. But looking at the photos on HUR we can read the height of the buoy and it appears to float at around 6.5 meters, leaving 10 meters above the waterline. It also appears that the same 10 meters is the part contained within the turret, so it's weight is never lifted as it is always in the water underneath the FPSO by that same amount.

Therefore as the buoy is winched in, the recorded weight is that of the catenary now being lifted clear of the seabed.

As the catenary is designed to restrain the FPSO, it is unlikely that the buoy (heavy though it is) will exhibit any significant movement due to current and swell effects. But the FPSO will move up and down and this will create oscillating loads through the attached buoy moving the catenary.

Additionally, "immediately prior to engaging the latches in the turret to lock the buoy into position" the buoy will be fully home and most likely at a hard stop. Any upward FPSO movement would try to separate the buoy and perhaps explain the peak load and the rope failure.

So where was the failure and which bit needs replacing??
How does the surface line from the buoy which is joined to the line from the FPSO turret become the lifting rope between the buoy and the winch drum?

We still have no agreed position to my knowledge.
Odd considering the purported wealth of oilfield knowledge here, wouldn't you say.

jimo

joe

coffecups I note that you also share the view of konil on Advfn wrt the shallow MJF field and its production potential. Have you also considered that the (3redbus) payback will also need downgrading as the well cost will be greater due to the rework they have had to do and the amount of oil is less?

It is not clear to me what they do with the water that the wells are delivering. Is it separated at the wellhead or the refinery? They plan to use some wells as water injection will that mean they have to separate and truck across the field to the injector, or create an interconnected pipe network with its associated costs. Is this Tim's role?

Any views?
Agree that we definitely need to see that movement on the deeps though, only 4 and a half years left.....

Late to the BB, but just having heard it on the Radio 2 8pm news.
This is their report.

Note the FoE Scotland comments, even if they do not accord with your views, the pressure is there......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-47041270