The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Cebo - Don’t think there is a restriction for heli op’s.
SOTB - without knowing layout of TL, with respect to cranes and Test Spread would expect cranes to be rigged up with deluge which would restrict their use. Also unlikely that any crane lifts would take place over Test Spread for obvious reasons. Suppose it will depend on location of spread and wind direction if PSV operations are at all possible. Would need to be a very high priority need to take in PSV whilst flaring.
Cebo - Wow, 11 recommendations, haven’t seen that many for a while! Pretty sure they have to open the well for the first time in daylight hours not would be nice to.
I understand the hammer throwers have been on TL for well over a week now so based on Monday’s RNS, I would guess that the well will be opened pretty soon.
One for the shipwatchers would be to watch for PSV and Standby Boat movements. No Vessel within 500m during flaring ops. Worth a look at past track for each and keep an eye on them.
It is worth remembering that if not already paid, that HUR has £18m due to one of its Tier 1 contractors this month based on previously negotiated deferment of payment on invoices (well bang goes halfish of the profit for first 3 months). Here's hoping it's FMC and that HUR can negotiate a reduction given problems with flowline,
Gents, to put it simply, the lost output one day, now costs two days worth of some expenditure to recoup being the day where output was lost and the day output was recovered. Don't just think about top line and bottom line, need to also consider costs in between. Therefore not really lost Revenue, more reduced profit . Very basic accounting.
Forget about Warwick, the post would appear to relate to the EPS assuming we are not being wholly led up the garden path by a new poster. Taking the post at face value and referring back to the 27/10/16 RNS, the well test results showed a flow rate using ESP of at least 14.5k STB per day which was restricted due to test equipment. The restriction could have due to Expro’s test equipment or rigs HP lines to flare boom with 15k limit on either. Anyway, some food for thought would be assuming HUR are using 10k barrels per day per well for EPS safe maximum production based on the 15k restricted rate which equates to 2/3rds, would HUR increase the safe limit if unrestricted flow during EPS was shown to be >20k bbls per well per day? If so, this would have a more than material affect on production/revenue etc. I will add that I have no experience of the production side being from a dirty drilling background or second class citizen as far as the proddies are concerned! I’ll leave it to the production guys to blow holes in my ramblings. WW - My sympathy’s for your not so Tangerine Dream season!
My take on the post would be that flow rates for 7Z through EPS are greater than those originally reported following well test. NOT 26b-c means the clarification of what the results relate to and not Warwick drill on 205/26b.
Take it Expro lads have been swinging their hammers then.
BD - Thanks for the reply. I am aware that Shell have different business streams relating to energy. Splitting hairs really but I assume you have heard of unconventional oil sources which like conventional oil sources relate to reservoirs. Could it possible that Shell are moving away from unconventional in view of cost to invest more in conventional easier to produce resources and hence the statement made. Never the less, you seem confident I have misunderstood the term “conventional”!!
Does the word "conventional" mentioned twice in the article rule out Shell? Fractured Basement is not a "conventional" type reservoir. It seems as soon as a major mentions investinging billions, people get carried away and assume that it will go in HUR's direction.
ADUK - Pretty sure (99.9%) what I was told was correct. Took time to check Bristows’s site and noted flight from AM landed not that long before I was told. Like you I thought it made sense given Monday’s RNS. WW - Blatant lies or insider information, get a grip. Had no intention of posting what I was told until Steve37 post was copied to this BB and felt it worthwhile as his assumption was incorrect and seems to be supported by another poster. Think it’s time for this poster to watch his investment grow, without the need for comment.......
From Steve37 post “although in our case I would suspect our most senior guy will be enjoying a cruise during this critical event (on the AM).” Don’t think so. Was told he was seen leaving Bristows last Wednesday.
My £1.43 on FOIL seems to be let’s say, enthusiastic, at this point. At least current SP takes me back over 100% of the right side of wrong.
Just catching up on last couple of days. Interesting stuff. Anyone ever seen a works computer whether Onshore or Offshore where the primary user has failed to shutdown their Social Media or other accounts? Have never done it as not in Social Media as better things to do with my time. However I have seen the aftermath of a Driller leaving his open and the Roughnecks telling the world he is now, let's say changed his sexual preferences. Point being, the guy whose account posted the message may not have been the actual poster. If he was, silly, silly boy. Pretty sure if the flare had related to a DST he would have been gone without passing go. That's why I feel it may not have been him, particularly given his role.
Anyway, onward and upward with the SP will do nicely.
Thanks all for input. Any thoughts on extract 1 and as to why the numbers seem to fall in line very neatly? I am in no way trying to put forward a conspiracy theory, it’s just my let’s say fascination with numbers, patterns etc.
Q. How much have BP been involved in the Lancaster EPS and possibly CPR? Are my following comments coincidental or part of something bigger I ask myself.
Extract 1 from contract. "BP Contract - The Company is party to the BP Contract under which Hurricane agrees to supply and sell its entire entitlement to the crude oil produced from the Lancaster Oil Field (Block 205/21a) to BP on an FOB basis and BP agrees to take delivery and purchase such crude oil from the Company and to market such oil to third parties.The BP Contract expires on the later to occur of (i) six years from the first commercial oil production; and (ii) the marketing by BP of fifty-five million barrels of oil; but the term may be extended by the parties for successive twelve month periods. BP may terminate the BP Contract on thirty days notice where the Company does not commence commercial production by 12 April 2020. The BP Contract terminates automatically on the earlier of (i) cessation of production; and (ii) 12 April 2028.
So we know EPS is planned for six years to extract which ties in nicely with first timescale of BP contract. Secondly, the contract will terminate either within 6 years or 55m barrels or 2028. 17,000bbl x 365 days x 9 years to 2028 = 55m barrels. Coincidence? Bear in mind Contract was before a hole was drilled.
Extract 2 from contract. "The key provisions of the BP Contract are conditional upon BP Marine Assurance’s approval of the FPSO; and BP’s confirmation that the health and safety policies at the FPSO are satisfactory."
BP must have been involved here to meet this condition.
Extract 3 from contract. The BP Contract restricts the Company’s ability to dispose of a part or whole of the Lancaster oil field in the following ways: (a) BP may terminate the BP Contract in the event of a farm out where the new licence holder does not meet BP’s “know your customer” and anti-money laundering clearance processes at BP’s sole discretion (acting reasonably);(b) BP may terminate the BP Contract in the event of a change in control where the party acquiring control does not meet BP’s “know your customer”, anti-money laundering, sanctions and other regulatory requirements placed on the acquiror;(c) in the event of a farm out, the Company must use “all reasonable endeavours” to procure the new licenceholder enters into a marketing agreement with BP; and(d) in the event of a farm out which reduces BP’s marketing entitlement to Lancaster oil to less than 40 percent, the Company must pay BP compensation (subject to DECC’s approval of a FDP unless the Company disposes of its entire interest).
Does anyone have prior experience which would help decipher whether the contract would be a stumbling block in any farmout or takeover unless of course BP itself were the acquirer. Jesus why does my inquisitive mind take me here!
Re my last post, it was actually 8 years ago (2011) and after I read the amount Cairn Energy pumped into the Arctic Drilling it puts the cost of HUR drilling and completing Lancaster and AM upgrades into perspective in that HUR have certainly had value for money and we should all be happy in that context.
ADUK/CEBO - A bit naughty I know but my response to Bloobirds question was, I know, a bit cryptic but was made, as you probably picked up on, in an attempt to let’s say give a less than accurate (wind up) answer to start a goose chase akin a Greenhand starting a career Offshore. My apologies to Bloobird but I couldn’t resist. The simple answer to your question Bloobird is that they nowadays we use an ROV with live camera feed to guide to the open hole to run casing (conductor) for the first section. It would also be used for the next section or until the BOP and Marine Riser is in place. With regards Iceberg watch, a friend of mine was involved in drilling close to the arctic about 5 years ago and as well as having a rig on close standby in case they had well control problems, they also employed an Iceberg Watcher!
Door wide open to that question. Think V door key, fog samples, gold in shakers if you get my drift.
There have already been shared flights.
Test spread blue, skips red!