The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Not really true Newbie, most major Indian cities are within the GDR test range for 4-5 months per year. For the rest of the time it would be sufficient to be in "cool rooms" where the temperature can easily be reduced by 5-6 degrees. That is a big difference from having to use fully refridgerated rooms which will be necessary for the less stable tests. Same applies to Africa, rest of Asia and South America.
There seems to be some relief that Covid 19 is on the retreat and at the same time concern here that companies such as GDR will suffer because of the consequent decrease in demand for testing. I do not see the situation quite like that for the following reasons:
1. While it is true that Covid seems to be decreasing in several countries there are many others eg. India, Brazil and many African countries where the numbers are still on the increase and may continue so for some time.
2. The USA is at present doing 500k tests per day and many experts ( incl. Trump advisers) have openly stated that they need to increase this 10 fold for the foreseeable future.
3. Recently The New York Times interviewed 511 epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists with regard to their opinions on the lockdown relaxation and their thoughts on what was safe to do. The vast majority had considerable concerns about returning to any form of normalised life in the short term future, 3-12 months, and suggested that this was not likely until adequate safeguards were in place ie. testing and tracing or vaccine.
4. Aside from the possibility of 2nd waves occurring , signs of which are appearing in certain areas, we will soon be into the autumn, winter seasons when a return of the virus is a significant possibility. Most countries have been criticised severely for their preparation for, and response to, the Covid pandemic , the loss of life and damage to the economies caused. They are very unlikely to be willing to be caught unprepared again and a pillar of their advance preparation will be the massive stockpiling of testing material and this , if done properly, will mean billions of tests.
5. In the coming " virus season" it is likely that Covid will still be present to a significant extent and it could be a requirement in many situations , work, school, sports, travel etc. that anyone with viral symptoms, of which there will be several millions, will be required to have a negative test before participating and this could be repeated on many occasions during the season.
6. The storage of tests will cause obvious logistical problems and here the ability to store tests without refrigeration, particularly in hotter and poorer countries, will give GDR an advantage.
I personally think that there will be much more testing, in a much better organised fashion, to come than we have seen so far and that the prospects for companies developing an accurate, stable and easily used test to be very promising.
Am I missing something? By my calculations at 10k per hour we can produce up to 7 million per month. At the quoted 8-10 pounds that makes a potential monthly revenue of up to 48-70 million ie . 576-840 million per year. At a margin of up to 60% that gives a potential profit of 350-500 million per year. Obviously those are maximum figures to be aimed at and discounts to 3rd world countries, production downtime etc. may well decrease these figures but they are a long way from the Proactive article which in its self purports to be very positive for the company. The true picture, if things work out as hoped , will be very much better.
1. There has never been a successful vaccine created for any type of Coronavirus despite several and prolonged attempts.
2. The fastest vaccine ever developed took over 3 years.
3. Even with streamlining of trial phases ( which of course can jeopardise safety) a vaccine is very unlikely to be available until next year.
4. Even with the development of a vaccine, extensive testing will be necessary for a prolonged period, possibly years.
No need to panic, there is a lot of money to be by all companies that develop effective and easy to use tests.
While we may be a little later than others to come to the market the demand for testing will increase and is likely to last far longer than many assume. Several millions in the UK alone let alone considering the rest of the world will have flu-like symptom this winter. By then the authorities will have had time to plan an adequate well-funded testing programme and most of those with symptoms will not be allowed to attend work, school, nursery etc. without testing, often on multiple occasions. It is also likely that many industries, sports organisations, health organisations etc. will put in place multiple routine testing protocols throughout the winter, at the least. In most of these situations mobile testing will be a decided advantage. I personally think that massive testing will be with us for some time yet in a much better organised fashion than hitherto.
Barnyards, in your message of 11:24 your comments on Dr T´s statement about the threat to the companies finances are apt but you I believe what he actually said was that there was no IMMEDIATE threat to the companies solvency. I am not for one moment suggesting that HUR is in any danger financially but that word did strike me at the time and I would have thought that he would consider his words very carefully in such a statement.
The point I was making on the Lancaster Crude price as related to the Brent Crude price does not only relate to the amount that HUR are paying to BP by way of commission, transport costs etc. but also to the discount that applies to Lancaster Crude because of its´qualities, sulphur content etc. that require a general discount to Brent which is a premium grade and so this discount will probably always apply regardless of partnership contracts etc.
Agreed. The only point I was making is that when making calculations on HUR´s income/free cashflow that one one cannot use the full Brent Crude price at whichever point in time (as many seem to be doing) but rather a figure probably 5-6$ per barrel less which obviously changes the picture a little.
There have been several posts reflecting upon the financial position of HUR and talking about break even costs based on the price of Brent Crude present and future. I think that when making these calculations one should remember that HUR is unlikely to receiving the full Brent price from BP and that the price they receive may be as much as 4-5$ less per barrel if not more ,given the IMO 2020 regulations.
LW,
that is exactly my point. If HUR is to achieve the SP that we have long believed it deserves this will only be sustained with significant Institutional support and they do like certainty( or at least the likelihood of continued growth) and I do not think that they will commit until ,at least, after the CMD depending on the results which will need to be convincing to result in the support we require.
The board at the moment seems to be divided between those who are totally convinced that a rebound and re-rating is at some point inevitable and those who see a sad end to the HUR story with each side insulting the other . The negative messages posted by some may be upsetting but I do think that serious investors should look for reasons for the recent SP decline other than simply MM manipulation, panic selling, CA etc. It is clear that the Market , at the moment, is rather negative towards HUR and I believe that reason is uncertainty. The Market does not like uncertainty and I think that the recent results in WD and WW have caused some to question the HUR model and while these results do not necessarily read across to GLA, they just might and I believe that is the concern. Why has recent positive news resulted in only a lukewarm ( and temporary) rise while negative news has caused serious ( and so far ongoing) damage to the SP? I believe that this uncertainty may be related to the HIGH/BASE/LOW scenarios detailed in the 2017CPR. Up until recently future projections were based on the Base Case with the High Case a distinct and very profitable possibility while the Low Case was considered unlikely. I think that after WD and WW the High Case is much less likely and the possibility of the Low Case is now coming into consideration ( however slight the possibility). The Low Case scenario would likely affect the production and profitability of GLA. I think that most Institutions are now waiting for the CMD in March. Positive analysis and findings to confirm the Base Case will reassure and probably result in a SP rebound whereas negative news could impact on GLA future plans and profitability. I don´t see many Institutions buying in until then although many PI´s may well be tempted by the "bargain price". Only my opinion but would welcome opinions on this point by others more expert than myself to help me understand the issue.
Albi1 ,
I wasn´t in any way suggesting that HUR would do such a thing, far from it, but there are others who might float that theory to their own ends and just wanted to emphasise that point. Good night.
Albi1,
I think that yours is a perfectly understandable viewpoint and I do truly hope ( for all our sakes) that a full explanation and adequate reassurance are given in the forthcoming update. HUR clearly are obliged not to mislead and so if reassurance is again given on the basis of all their analysis to date then that should be good enough.
Albi1,
In the March Corporate Presentation 2019 on page 11 it quotes Post- start- up water production as being 0 for Well-6 and approx. 8% for Well -7z.
Subsequently in the H1 Interim Report dated 20 Sept 2109 on page 5 it states " Notwithstanding the increase in aggregate perched water production to a sustained rate of approx. 7,5% , water cut remains within expected ranges and is not impacting oil production levels or the cost of production". It goes on to confirm that Well -6 is still dry and therefore all the water comes from Well -7z.
I was confused by this as 7.5% is not an increase on 8% and to me aggregate tends to mean the sum of the two wells which could have indicated a decrease rather than increase from 0& 8% to a total of 7.5%. No company however is going to label it an increase ( negative) rather than a decrease (good) unless they have to and HUR confirmed that Aggregate in Water Production terms indicates the average over the producing wells thereby meaning that if -6 produces 0 water then -7z is producing 15%. They do however reassure that this is within their expected range and and is not a concern to them. They also state that their findings since the CMD reassure them that it is indeed perched water. It would seem that the 7.5% average has since increased to 8%. I can also assure that I am a LTH and have absolutely no desire to paint a negative picture of the situation nor to talk down our prospects, only to openly and honestly discuss and debate information that is openly available to help our understanding.
As I understand it ,in September they confirmed an increase in the watercut aggregate to 7.5% with the -6 well watercut as nil therefore implying that the -7z watercut was 15% but confirmed that the aggregate was within their predicted range of 5-10%.
Thanks for the info guys. Another question (although apologies if it is a stupid one), would there have been any point leaving a pressure gauge down there for connectivity purposes or does the lack of ongoing present activity at either LC or WW render that useless?
Can anyone explain why they say Regulatory Requirements obliged them to plug and abandon the well?
It would seem, if the photos and interpretations are correct, that prolonged flaring has been going on, either intermittently or continuously for the past few days. Am I correct in thinking that this is a little out of the ordinary?
If that is the case could this be an indication that they are indeed trying to indicate a connection between WW and LC and thereby increase the possibilities of a " super-field" ?