Member Info for londoner7

adoubleuk, there's no technical reason why it shouldn't be real-time so I'd wonder why they chose not to if it isn't, particularly as HUR is reported as having a high retail contingent.

That said, I don't particularly mind so long as the replay includes the Q&A session, usually the most revealing. Again, if it was excluded then my question would be why. I've exited companies for that sort of behaviour.

ragnarlothbrok, I agree with your comments and thanks for the link to the letter. I'd been looking but didn't find it - basically it says no audit issue.

The film slate for H1, particularly Q1, was highlighted as being poor but that doesn't mean there isn't an SP reaction. As I've said previously I think revenue at the last update was poor. let's see how profits measure up. However, I was encouraged by the recent director buy. A strong film slate is expected for H2 so the finals could be good.

JP, I contacted HUR to confirm the date. The CMD is invitation only (typically sell side analysts) but there will be a webcast - I assume real-time. Typically, an RNS is released that morning before market open with the key notes of the CMD. I'd expect it to present the early findings in relation to well and reservoir performance with detail on hole pressures and other good tech stuff. All the indications so far are that the news should be good, and that's what I expect but always best to be cautious. If the news is good then I'd expect it to have a greater share price impact than first oil or lifting. But it may not be so back and white hence the caution. In my experience these things get over hyped.

Foresoght22, it will be the price at time of offload. BP market the product. From the RNS, "On 18 June 2019, Hurricane sold its first cargo which was lifted from the Aoka Mizu FPSO by the Amundsen Spirit shuttle tanker. The cargo was marketed by BP Oil International Limited, pursuant to the offtake agreement."

Let's hope the oil price holds up for the next cargo.

JayKay1, thanks, you're right. I had the wrong boat.

I notice the AS is still hooked up 18 hrs. If it is 350kbo then it isn't at the rate specified, but if she drops off in the next hour or two then it would tally with rate of Kraken offloads, which are assessed by ENQ watchers as around 500K for a 26-28hr offload.

This was posted on the ENQ board on 4th June.

"Amundsen Spirit is on her way to Lancaster to pick up their first load of crude."

I missed out one sentence. Read this as the 3rd paragraph.
The net OAG oil numbers for Enquest production is 55,240 (Jan) and 51,825 (Feb).

The main benefit of this data is tightening up the revenue forecasts with a better gas split - roughly 10% of production is at the gas price of $36 rather than $65. That said a few bucks on the oil price or an extra 1,000 barrels of oil make the adjustment somewhat insignificant.

Maybe I should stick with my other hobby, train-spotting.

Hi Therapist, this is how I reconcile my EOG number to the ENQ number. I'll just take the Jan-Feb 2019 numbers as an example.

ENQ stated 67,700 boepd for the first two months of 2019. No Malaysian number given so I use the May update of 8,693 boepd and deduct that to get North Sea number of 59,007 boepd.

Now the gas. You know how tedious it is to transfer the OAG numbers to a spreadsheet. After testing the idea on Magnus I decided to average gas data since Jan 2018 for each asset to get a oil/gas ratio and use that in my spreadsheet to produce the 'OAG number for gas. My OAG gas numbers for Jan and Feb are 9,161 boepd and 8,705 boepd. If you've done it the hard way your numbers will be different but I hope close.

When I add the OAG oil and gas numbers together they are 6% higher than the ENQ number for the first two months of 2019. I guess you have got at least this far.

Now I turn from a mathematician to an engineer. The OAG gas number is for all gas production. The biggest Enquest gas producer, by a mile, is Magnus, so that's the one I first focused on. We know that 3rd party gas is pumped into the field - lift gas. I'm assuming that the OAG don't count the gas twice so the gas number is net (produced gas minus any gas pumped into the field). Enquest refer to a component called 'shrinkage' to cover process fuel, terminal flaring and value adjustments but it occurred to me that these are post field components. Terminal flaring is not field/rig flaring and process fuel is not platform fuel, e.g., "The Group is required to contribute fuel necessary to process the hydrocarbons at the Kinneil Oil Terminals". Therefore, to obtain the ENQ gas number we can deduct flaring and fuel for power generation. The Magnus field uses 12Mscf of fuel gas or 2,068 boepd so I deduct that from the OAG number. I researched each field and where there was no export gas option I deducted those numbers. The not knowns are left in. Some are fuel and flare. After all of these adjustments the total EOG number is 0.8% above the ENQ number. I very happy with this because the 'not knowns' in total account for less than 1% and some of this will be fuel gas, so would reduce the error further.

The purpose of this exercise is to predict ENQ numbers based on the reported EOG data.

I don't know how it will come out but the following is my gas table:

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19
Gas
Alba 76 71 67
Alma Excess flared 0 0 0
Broom Lift gas 0 0 0
Conrie 4 4 4
Crathes 60 57 59
Deveron Gas export 54 44 46
Don SW Gas export 76 75 81
Gadwall Fuel not known 21 22 14
Galma 0 0 0
Goosander 20 20 18
Grouse 41 39 0
Heather Lift gas 0 0 0
Kraken Flared 0 0 0
Kraken North Flared 0 0 0
Magnus Net fuel 5,166 4,796 4,604
Magnus South 0 0 0
Mallard Fuel not known 107 95 93
Scolty 0 0 0
Thistle Gas export 447 474 449
West Don Gas export 39 35 32
Ythan Gas export 52 50 50
PM8 Seigli 0 0 0
Tomborran 0 0 0
6,164 5,781 5,517
10.0% 10.0% 8.7%

DiveCentre, I hadn't seen anything official but the CMD has been confirmed to me for 11th July. Invite only, but there will be a webcast - I assume live.

Svensk, MO, thank you for your responses. I've also taken up this query on another board and the responses are similar to yours, but I have got a spec sheet out of it. I've reached the point where I'll pass for the moment. The ENQ reports of 500K offloads is also a big slap in the face against my logic. But I'm inclined to continue using my numbers because in spite of everything they are giving me the reported bopd numbers from the OAG and ENQ.

The acid test will be the May and June numbers.

Best, londoner7

JayKay1, thanks for the clarification.

Svensk, thanks for your clarification.

JayKay, where do you get 120K m3, and are you sure this is the oil capacity for the vessel?

gkb47, the OAG number for March Kraken is 32,288Kbopd. In their latest update ENQ gave numbers for Mar-April of just over 33Kbopd. Deducting the OAG march number I'm expecting an EOG number for April of around 34.7Kbopd.

I think tanker watching can provide insight into the number ahead of OAG figures. It's just getting the metrics right. I don't claim to know the right ones, I'm just trying to understand them.

The OAG also report gas, about 900boepd for Mar. But as far as I know this is flared, it certainly isn't exported. While reviewing past posts around the tanker question I noted comments that the gas is used as fuel. The power generator on the Kraken is BIG by common standards 63MW. In an earlier post it was speculated that it would use 1,500bopd of gas (dry?). Also, I've seen informed comment that ENQ are looking at a gas pipeline. I've assumed this is to import fuel gas. One of the problems reported with the facility is power generation. The spec for the equipment is that it is mixed fuel use. Pure speculation on my part but perhaps it struggles with 14API crude - it's heavy stuff.

Foresight. I assume you're responding to my query. While I agree with your comment I really want to know the capacity of the Amundsen Spirit, or rather how it is calculated from the available data.

She'll be offloading in a day or two and that will be a question posters will be asking. For reasons I gave a few days ago I don't expect it to be full load, but the one after might be. If there is an RNS I don't expect to get the offload volume but who knows.

MO, thank you for responding. I'll take each section in turn.

Cubic capacity - The cargo carrying capacity of a ship. What is your reference for 120324m3? I have not seen this term used for oil tankers.

Deadweight (dwt) - I think this is clear and we are in agreement. A weight measure, and the difference between an empty ship and a full ship. The difference is the addition of cargo, passengers, fuel, water, stores, dunnage and such other items necessary for use on a voyage, which brings the vessel down to her load draft. 105306t.

Volume and weight considerations - I agree with this part, "The volume is static 6.29 barrels = 1m3, weight is variable and dependent on the weight/API Gravity of the Crude, i.e. Kraken Crude is 14API". You say 14API is some 15% heavier than 30API I think it's more like 10% but let's use density numbers, and I know these vary with temperature, for 15API of 972,509 Kg/m3. The conversion factor for Kraken 15API is 6.29/0.9725 = 6.5.

You say, "this is where volume capacity is reduced, as the weight of the crude at max volume exceeds the deadweight, therefore max capacity has to be reduced." I think the more relevant statement is, if the weight of the cargo means the deadweight is exceeded then the cargo must be reduced. But we are talking about an oil tanker - we are not contemplating the transportation of gold bars.

Imagine I own an oil field and I want you and your oil tanker to offload and transport it to Singapore. Do I know your fuel, crew and supply requirements? No, and you wouldn't get the job. I want to know your cargo capacity to carry crude oil and I know the API of my crude. It's 15API so give me a metric I can use.

Tonnage - A measurement of the cargo-carrying capacity of merchant vessels. It depends not on weight, but on the volume available for carrying cargo.

Gross tonnage - The entire internal cubic capacity of the ship expressed in tons of 100 cubic feet to the ton, except certain spaces which are exempted such as: peak and other tanks for water ballast, open forecastle bridge and poop, access of hatchways, certain light and air spaces, domes of skylights, condenser, anchor gear, steering gear, wheel house, galley and cabin for passengers..

The 15API crude oil capacity of Atalandi is 59781*6.5 = 388kbo IMO

The offload time is a good indicator. If it's short there's a problem. If it's long it's generally good but we don't know if there has been any hold up. Until I have confidence in these numbers I'll use 388/26 = 15K barrles per hour.

Thanks again for responding. Needless to say I'm still not convinced about the offload quantities. Hopefully others can help clarify the difference between these 500-550K offloads and the reported bopd numbers.

Best,londoner7

Thanks Foresight22. Who would have thought it could be such a beautiful thing!

A number of things struck me. The dynamic positioning which I'm sure will be a big factor in WOS weather conditions.The amount of pipework on the deck and the animation depicting the balancing of the load in the tanks.

I wonder how much of the sticky stuff she can hold - reference or calculation appreciated.

SIPPn00b, a very detailed and interesting description of the offload activity. Thanks.

What is the 'ES'?

Do you know the crude oil capacity of the incoming Amundsen Spirit?

Thanks Svensk,

I'm new to ship measures and thought it would be simple to determine a ships carrying capacity. You've used the dwt and used a conversion factor. I've struggled to clarify the measure and come up with a value that matches the 500-550K barrels many posters here expect, alongside the fact that every update from ENQ points to 500K offloads.

My findings suggest the gross tonnage should be used with a conversion factor of 0.73 (multiple) applied for Brent, with gives 436kbo. A conversion factor that's very close to yours except yours is a divisor. I would also apply some minor adjustments for the heavy oil and a conservative 95% loading, but that's detail.

We now have two numbers, your 750Kbo which would suggest the ship has sailed to the US at 70% capacity, or my 436kbo which very much at odds with other posters expectations, and the 500K offloads declared by ENQ - my confusion is compounded by the fact that I can't find an error in Enquests claim. I trust their number of cargos and the total production given aligns with the OAG numbers. Yet my numbers agree with the monthly April 2019 numbers declared by EOG and ENQ - for clarification I'm subtracting the EOG Mar number from the ENQ Mar-Apr number.

Can any of the tanker watchers clarify how the carrying capacity of the Atalandi is determined?

chilting, e121, MO

L3, you're right to point out the fixed cost aspect in the OpEx - I had completely missed it in my response to the earlier query.

I understand the offload calculation around the 500K/ 12 day / 40K+ sequence. Every update seems to point to 500K offloads, but the monthly OGA number or ENQ monthly numbers don't seem to support it. Jan-Feb 18, Apr 18, Apr 19 all come up short.

Question to anyone. What is the max load (crude oil barrels) of the Atalandi taking the latest Kraken offload to the US? I'd appreciate a reference or calculation.