Member Info for Slift

Great posts all.

I think we should be aware that the current declines are in line with the oil industry.
BP, Shell, Exxon, etc are all at or near new lows since the initial crash.
Tullow is no different, just means that the oil and gas industry is heavily discounted currently.

Colonel,
"But with the likely oil price stuck sub $50pb for next 6months or more, many of the above are going to struggle to make ends meet."
As it stands (with same committments as this year), Tullow requires oil price at $48-51/barrel to breakeven next year. Anything above would really start to bring in cash flow per $/barrel. Even for 2021, Tullow has one of the best hedges currently. If Tullow is going to struggle to breakeven.. I'd imagine most other oil companies will struggle even more.
Negative cashflows will mean further lack of investment across the industry.
You say "there's going to be alot of crisis management talk going on." if there's another lockdown. But at the opposite, there's going to be a huge energy crisis if this lack of investment is maintained for months to come.

"There is no real recovery in sight for the oil industry until at least mid 2021. Weakening dollar not helpful either."
I think we may see general recovery as the glut is decreased. Demand will pick up a little from demand from heating oil in the winter.
But agree that no real recovery for some time until:
- Timelag between lack of investments and realisation/impact
- Demand from aviation
- More bankruptcies
- More OPEC interventions

As they say, the cure for low oil prices is low oil prices.

Some useful info:
Current US crude stocks (as at 21st Aug 2020): https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCESTUS1&f=W
Impact of coronavirus on energy industry in comparison to other industries: https://www.ft.com/content/277dc354-a870-4160-9117-b5b0dece5360

Dude, seriously, wtf.
You DON'T NEED TO BE THE CEO to be involved in the technical committee.
If he's CONTRIBUTING to the technical review, he HAS to put his name down on it.

Now go away, replying to you is non-productive.

"his official start date"

What? He already started. He's involved in the technical review and is probably also included in the technical committee.
The RNS does not state exactly when he was recruited. The RNS is just a standard RNS stating board changes.

PlantedBHA,

Suggest you go read the latest RNS dated 21st Augsust.
"The short transition period with Beverley Smith will allow their combined contribution to the ongoing technical review."

But in regards to competent person, I said i'm not too sure. There's also Dr D Jenkins. There could be someone more qualified within the Hurricane business that we are unaware of. But Hurricane hasn't released the technical committee members yet (Other than Dr D Jenkins, who is the chair).

"Can I suggest your suggestion that Big tony will be competent person signing it off is somewhat idiotic?"
Doubt more idiotic than you.

DiveCentre,

I'm not too sure. Likely to be (or both):
- Beverley Smith, she is a chartered Geologist.
- Anthony Maris, according to his linkedin, he is a member of the SPE (likely to be a certified member of the SPE with his experience as a petroleum engineer).

ALL IMO.
Slift.

DiveCentre,
"and who exactly will be providing the rubber stamp."
Will be "rubber stamped" with the next CPR report (scheduled for 2021) in a similar way done in CPR2017.
Likely to be RPS again, as they've done CPRs for this Lancaster field since 2011.

From HUR RNS dated 8th July:
"Any such revisions would be formally reflected in a new Competent Person's Report, currently scheduled for release no later than the end of Q1 2021."

adoubleuk,

"I used to be known on this BB as someone who would spend endless hours on technical stuff and inteminable posts about it, but have pulled my horns in. But am glad to see someone else having taken the reins."
To be honest, i'm not surprised you've stopped posting since this BB is very toxic. I do the research out of hobby and interest mainly - afterall, I am an engineer. But I also do have an investment here too (although i'm not too sure if it'll be a long term investment).

Whether others find what I post useful or not, I don't care. I mainly do it to get comments/opinions from those that do read it.

"Because the damn thing had better run to at least 32 pages and why current management believes that that 16 years' work is a crock, with some very good reasoning behind it."
Obviously there will be some new data since last CPR in 2017. So whatever this data is from the EPS, it does need to be justified (and rubber stamped). Especially if they are not only going against 16 years of work, but also competent people's basis of opinion on reserves and resources.

@Nic7760,
"But it’s very possible he got the OWC wrong and stuck with this mistake too long."
You sure are quick to blame Dr Trice. But this is the extract from the CPR:
"The resultant intersection with the oil gradient gives a FWL of 1,652.5m TVDSS. This depth is consistent with a 20cc sample taken from wireline samples in well 205/21a-7 and indicated on Figure 7.9. RPS considers this depth to represent the Best case OWC for all Lancaster reservoirs."
AND
"For our Low case (shallow) contact, we believe that the ODT defined by the oil swabbed into the well bore of 205/21a-4 and circulated to surface from 1,597m TVDSS demonstrates movable oil. The geochemical analysis confirmed the swab oil to be the same as the DST oil in wells 205/21a-4Z, 6, 7and 7Z."

Note in the above "RPS considers" and "For our Low case" - I.e. RPS, the competent people, made these statements.
I don't blame RT or RPS here. It's possible that the MDT data just wasn't accurate or provided misleading figures?

Slift.

slipanchor,

There are several solutions that I can think of. How effective they will be is questionable. These are my thoughts and opinions only:
Enhanced oil recovery methods:
- Gas reinjection
- Water injection (though wouldn't be very useful here imo)
- Polymer injection
- Gel treatment
- Others

Mechanical methods:
- Drill new well
- Sidetrack wells
- Plugging
- Others

Great pics.
Woah conkclo, you've got a nice yacht! :)

"so if you ' believe the entire horizontal sections of both wells' are producing, wouldn't the wells be preferentially pulling on the fractures closest to the bore , with a reducing pull as you go along the horizontal.
So if the toe was in the water it would be having to overcome all that preferential pull?"

Also, the "heel" would be 70 m higher than the toe in 7z case. With 1330 m TVDSS at the toe, the heel would be at 1260 m TVDSS.
So not only will it need to overcome preferential pull, it would need to overcome the hydrostatic differential too. That is if the production is at the heel.

Slift.

JoeSoap,
Thanks for this clarification.
Yup, completely missed the next slide with the TVDSS indicated with the flow.
I stand corrected.

Slift.

@Nic7760,
"OGA data are correct."
If this is the case, can you explain why the link you sent me to find this data, has the following warning at the top of the page?
"While every care is taken to ensure that this information is correct and up to date, the OGA does not guarantee its completeness or accuracy. Anyone relying on this information does so at their own risk."
The data from OGA is from Nov 2016.

This is data from Dr R Trice from Jan 2018, which clearly shows the 1km horizonton, with the heel at 1210 m and toe at 1280 m:
https://i.gyazo.com/ebcc967f09d77e1e505c4683d56589c9.jpg

I don't know why we're arguing about this, but this isn't what this thread was about. I posted simple questions/opinions for my post. And also stated my case why I don't think side tracking 7z will work. That's all.
"Period."

Slift.

"Individual well data
Use the Well Data Search Tool to find basic well header data by quadrant and block (please note that this data is derived directly from WONS (the Well Operations Notification System on the Energy Portal) and may be subject to later alteration and update)."
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/data-centre/data-downloads-and-publications/well-data/

I'll stick to Hurricane's data thanks. I don't think Robert Trice or Dan Bonter are THAT STUPID to be stating false data regarding the TVDSS of these wells. I mean, at least Robert Trice is data driven.

Slift.

Woah conkclo, are you floating on water?!

DiveCentre,

"That is 220m above RT's low case. Clearly RT must be some deranged idiot."
I think this (I.e the OWC provided in the CPR) is only applicable to resources currently. Afterall, this OWC came from well 7 and well 4, which were the vertical for Lancaster field. I am confident following reading the CPR that there is oil below 1380 m TVDSS in the Lancaster basement.
Here's the CPR extract:
"For our Low case (shallow 1597m) contact, we believe that the ODT defined by the oil swabbed into the well bore of 205/21a-4 and circulated to surface from 1,597m TVDSS demonstrates movable oil."

But for the Lancaster EPS, the CPR also notes down 1380 m TVDSS as the structural closure low case for the reserves (or at least in the Eclipse model).
Here's the extract from the CPR:
"In terms of the Low Case (1380 m), Hurricane considered this to be extremely unlikely given the wealth of data that supports producible oil below structural closure, but viewed that the inclusion of such a case provided confidence that the economics of the field are robust and the EPS can prove to be successful in this lowcase."

This is a complex reservoir and it all depends on the connectivity between the fractures. I don't think we should dismiss the fact that there's oil below 1380m, but I also don't think we should dismiss the fact that the oil reserves for the EPS may be limited to the structural closure.

ALL IMO.
Slift.

Nic7760,
Strange, there's contradicting figures put out by OGA and by Hurricane.

From what Hurricane (Dan Bonter and Robert Trice), TVDSS of 6 well is 1240 m. and TVDSS of 7z well is 1280 m.
Robert Trice explained that each time the 7z well hit a fault zone, it dropped a few meters, hence why the range is between 1210 m to 1280 m.

"Hydrostatic idfferential between oil and water being about 10 Psi per 25 m. Ie. with a drawdown of 50 Psi, you'd lift water from as much as 125m below the toe."
Not sure how you came to this, but i'm getting smaller figures using ambient conditions of water. I know that it's not ambient at location of of these wells, but i cba to calculate the correct values.
At 75 psi drawdown, i get a depth of 53m.

"Oil-Water Contact is at structural closure."
I don't think so. I've posted two scenarios before, obviously one scenario is that yes OWC WAS at structural closure (or more that the fractures do not see beyond the structural closure). I don't know where the aquifer level is currently, but it's likely to be much higher and closer to the location of the 7z well ESP.

Slift.

Ok "little" ned.

Tim,
"Don't recall what was TLWs CoS for Guyana drills to compare the CoS with Suriname drill in Q1'21?"
The Jethro well had a CoS of 43-44%, with with recoverable oil resource estimate of 208.3 mmboe. Pre-drill estimates were > 100 mmboe.
The Joe well had a CoS of 43%, with recoverable oil resource estimate of 104.4 mmboe. Pre-drill estimates were 148.3 mmboe.
The Carapa well had a CoS of ??%, with recoverable oil resource estimate of ?? mmboe. Pre-drill estimates were > 200 mmboe.

The Goliathsberg-Voltsberg North well has a CoS of 34%, with pre-drill estimates of 235 mmboe.

Slift.

Also Multibagger2021,
With this comment:
"Slide 29 shows a diagram with a depth scales which can be interpreted that either Slift or Nic are correct, you can’t tell, and 20m won’t make much difference anyway to 1380 ish OWC."
You come across as an idiot too. I clearly stated with speaker notes. Here's the slide for your reference because apparently you can't read or do proper research:
https://gyazo.com/8e3b8f55bd8b87e6bfe42ed5a8f7b3a2

Slift.

Multibagger2021,
Shouldn't I be on your ignore? lol.

"stating 7z being much higher with flakey backup."
So Robert Trice who provided the info on 7z well is wrong?

"Slift filtered except when Slift tries a recovery plan like today (too many people filtering him/her), hence spouting lots of really good accurate information to gain people’s trust and then put in unsubstantiated (critical) information like today hidden amongst the facts."
Genuinely made me laugh :)

"I’d advise people to be very wary of slift. In my opinion he/she is a very clever (likely paid) shorter, and when the dark days come and share price takes a hammering, slift (with your gained trust) will spout highly negative comments to get you to sell at a low price."
Just for your information, I have over 1m shares invested here.

Slift.