Member Info for malrees

adoubleuk,
I think you know more about actually drilling wells and getting them working than any of the current contributors on here. I am very interested in your thoughts on what the plan might have to be to re-work 7-Z, particularly how long we have to suffer production reductions and what the actual risks are that the re-work would fail to improve matters at all.
We have very little leeway to play with here, even ignoring that we may not be able to increase bod from the 6 well. I at least am keen to understand what I can about the risks involved in the re-work itself. I've been invested in several companies where re-workings occurred, but none of them in fractured basement.
Thank you for any time you can get to write about this, even if I am the only one here who has spotted that you have been right about things far more often than the reverse.

Hasiba
I assume you don't have any evidence that shareholders voted RT down? If you do then you must have been at an EGM or AGM that I missed!

My apologies for my syntax. I write a tiny fraction of what I used to and no longer is it checked and often modernised by my faithful assistant!
Sorry I wrongly assumed, for no reason, that you were adopting an opinion about RT going.
My 'their' refers to Kerogen, who have the right to appoint and change their Board representation.

I suspect, from having been involved in several such situations during my working years, that the Chairman and the Kerogen director would have tried to find a solution which kept RT as a director. I can appreciate how getting the better financial drive in place in the low poo climate we now have, along with a detailed future plan for the Company, made a compromise impossible to find. RT had run the show from day 1, with imo great success until mid 2019, so it must have been felt on one side if not both, that too many clashes would occur.
There are plenty of unknowns here, but I believe this Board is a far better one than we had when the Company was only 15 people strong. It may not suit my 'explo' visions, but then the combination of issues we are now dealing with is unprecedented and we need a very broad, financially tight, focus.

Longwait
Please excuse my brief reply, but I'm sure you will get the drift from my 80yo brain.

Yes, I believe at least for now that the new Board, esp the acting CEO is most interested in getting production up now. Whereas RT had preferences based in the data collection, esp the fracture models, where a great deal has been learned since first oil. His long-standing sub-surface geologist, who has been with him since 2005, I believe agreed with him. That is why I want to know whether she is staying or leaving. Between the two, and with all the modelling data so far, resides an awful lot of FB understanding and details of the Ridge (They have both published a lot of tech detail which is in the Lyell papers). If neither of them is on board beyond 6 months time, we are in new territory imo.

I think you are probably wrong about what is behind RT leaving. It is barely affected by our largest shareholder imo. Their decision to change their Hur director is imo dictated by needing to understand everything that is going on in technical detail, at the same time as demands on Mr Kelly's time elsewhere have anyway increased.

I don't think we should underestimate the role the Chairman has played during the last year.

Puzzling to me as a 50 year investor in oil explo that so many don't bother to read all the CPR's ever produced for a company. In our case there are also many papers about Rona Ridge in the Lyell Collection, most by credible geologists. It does give the best possible view of potential reserves.
Personally, having been invested here since the first public offering and being far more into explo than production, I am most interested in the ongoing data from the EPS. In that regard, post RT's departure, I am probably going to be disappointed with the future. Experience in similar situations has taught me to sit it long term, as that is how I have paid the bills for many years now with a number of 'multi-baggers'. I read some strange ill-informed comments on this board, especially since the share price collapse and growth in shorting, but one thing remains, which is that the largest investor here is more interested in reserves growth than the current share price. I expect everyone knows, but the net cost of that investor's current shares is roughly zero, due to timely trades.
I don't read most of what appears on this board, but will continue to dip in from time to time.

Goldenbadger1
Re Chairman's holdings, Don't have the detail to hand, but I think he bought about 340,000 shares at around 44p.

draft.. may be worth remembering that the Chairman, who has put together the new board team, has a substantial personal holding here, bought with his own cash. In terms of any potential FB lost knowledge, I trust that the Sub-Surface Tech Director, a geologist who has worked with RT since the 'garden shed' days of 2005, is still here. She is the author of much that has been written about the Rona Ridge. I have been invested here since the early days and am staying as I am confident that the new Board will increase the value of the Company, but it is going to take time at the present oil price.
We may in the next 2 years discover rather less about basement than RT would have intended and preferred, but in the current climate we needed more clout in the Board members, which we now have. They have for example, a more credibility with the OGA and more with financial markets too.

Consider that the Company already has a FB expert, who has worked with RT since those early days of 2005. I hope she is staying.

Jacdaniels..Difficult to know where to start a reply, or whether I should even bother, but I'll try.
Why do you think the CEO has a responsibility for the share price? We have seen successive hedge funds shorting here since the price was in the 30's.
The price would not increase by simple drilling another well. Clearly if we drilled a new well (8) which was flowed very successfully it would help, but doubters would simple say that water might appear there later!
We have 2 good, productive wells. They both flow at way above the normal rate for wells around the UK/Cont waters. 6 will have output moved up, even without ESP assistance, to a gradually higher output. 7 is shut is to obtain stability, but could be used on its own if any problems were to occur in 6. The water cut on 7 last reported is easily to handle with current facilities, in fact a rather higher water cut can be handled if we have to. The water level is far from unusual.
My choice, once we have completed testing which is happening right now, is to drill 8 rather than rework 7. I accept it is more expensive, but more certain, especially given that we would be using the latest technology during the drilling to avoid perched water. A new well would leave us with the options we have now, whereas reworking 7 would remove back-up during the rework. The majority of people with actual experience on the drilling floor would say there is a higher risk with a rework than with a new well I believe. 8 would after all be very far from a wildcat, but an extension of the drilled area using better tech than was available when 6 and 7 were drilled.
I don't know on what basis you say there is no plan in place. We simple need to know more before deciding on the next route forward which would provide the greatest return in the medium rather than the short term. A new input to this is the $26m of expenditure which has now been deferred thanks to OGA.
I remain a LTH here and my confidence in the CEO continues, despite being disappointed with the share price, which price is rather more a feature of hedge fund software being able to identify which share prices are the easiest to manipulate at minimum risk and then carrying it out. I have believed that such shorting should not be allowed, in spite of the potential liquidity gains it brings.

Re-instituted with different price.

Now cancelled

soundasapenny... If you apply your nonsense to the debt of several other oil cos, then they too would at current oil prices be unable to deal with the debt on their sheets. In reality, it is over 2 years away, so just look back 2 years and see where we were then compared with now. I am LTH and have no fears that we will be unable to refinance that $230m if we need, as I fully expect us to have at least 20kbod by then and the price of Brent to be $50+. If you take time to look at the finances of SA and the rate that they are burning through their Wealth Fund (and have been since $80 oil), then you will find that the future f the House of Saud is at stake . Maybe this is all too complex for you to grasp?

I'm not unhappy about the position HUR would be in at end 2020 assuming average $30 oil during the rest of the year.

A brief thought about the position SA would be in at that price for the year is interesting. SA eating through its wealth at an unsustainable rate, in order to keep the populace in order with current payout levels.

Some E&Ps or for that matter P only cos are not going to exist at long term $30 oil either.

Leads me to the assumption that we will never have to implement the Capital Protection plan set out today. Let's see.

ADUK,

Would it be possible for you to comment on wells HUR have drilled, Warwick West for example, and comment on what the advantages are of using the latest kit that Sgurr describes in his two posts, please?
Basically, I can't be the only one wondering if a third Lan well would be more affected by data collected already or by latest Schlumberger et al equipment.
Thanks in advance.

paolo111 If you read all the documents you will see that your 'Hurricane breakeven' is an over-estimate by a factor near to 2.

Annual Report page 24 sets out the Risk Assessment based on an average $20 Brent for the next 12 months:
Under the $20 per barrel oil price scenario the Group would be able
to cover the operating costs of the Lancaster EPS and currently holds
sufficient unrestricted cash to fund overheads, interest repayments
and capital expenditure contracted and planned to take place over
the next 12 months, including its licence commitments due to be
carried out by the end of 2020.

paolo111. The RNS says "Hurricane's interpretation of water behaviour data has continued to support the Company's perched water model". Do you know something better than this?

Bartle, I assumed you were interested in reading more on the subject.
I can assure you that 229E was known in the 1960's though.

Bartle...I just saw your request, this might help as a link
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=229E+coronavirus+research+1990&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Bartle...you wrote "The first Coronavirus was in 2003, another outbreak emerged in SaudiA in 2012".
You say you have done research in this area.
Well, simple facts of much earlier earlier research show that scientists first found evidence of Human Coronaviruses (HCoV) in the 1960s in the noses of people with the common cold. Two Human Coronaviruses are responsible for a large proportion of common colds: OC43 and 229E.
My knowledge doesn't extend in research terms beyond 229E, but I do wonder about whether you have done any research in spite of your claims.