Member Info for Slift

JoeSoap,
"But is the pressure dropping to quickly?
I don't know, but using the pressure to deliver all that water sure ain't gonna help...."

Agreed. Currently, the production of water is just increasing the rate of reduction in BHP.
But this clearly shows the impact of water production to the efficiency of oil production. Some might say "it's revenue and shipping barrels of oil that matters". But in reality, from an operations point of view, it is more costly than just the reduction in oil production.

More water means:
- More costs (treating water in AM)
- More costs (ESP running)
- Increased rate of reduction of BHP
- Decreased rate of oil production (due to amount of water produced and limitations)

All IMO.
Slift.

"I’m rubbing my hands for that 3p slifty boi.
I see you still here, talking rubbish numbers again. I’m saving lives, what you doing? Killing other people brain cells with your toss numbers.
Doc"
I'm still here, "working from home" mate :)
Can't help it if you can't comprehend the numbers with your tiny little brain :) Afterall, docs lack maths ability don't they?

Why are you here if you're so busy saving lives lmao. I'll tell you that working from home is pretty chill with all the flexibility, benefits and the money ;) Live the easy life.

Slift.

*urinating

"Your saying 88 million v My 95 million"
No, i'm saying LESS than $38m vs your $95m.

"Let’s take $45 brent for easy countingToday 10:11
At 17000 bbls production, that’s revenue of $280 million a year from the behemoth that is Lancaster
And profit of $95 million with cost / barrel at this level of production at $28"
Lol. $280m/year revenue.
Were you on the AM ****ing crude at 17k barrels/day between 2nd August and 6th August?
Will you be on the AM again during September week long shutdown to **** crude again at 17k/barrels?

Get your maths straight.

Slift.

Est. Total Revenue to date: $128.5m
Est. Total Revenue for 2020: $213.5m (assuming 14k bopd and $45/barrel for the rest of the year)

Company ops+CBond+G&A = c. $165-168m
OTHER costs (including hedge) at Est. $2/barrel: circa. $10m
CAPEX costs for 2020: ($20m --> $50m)?????????

Free Cashflow (Not including CAPEX): c. $38m

Slift.

SpruceGoose2,

I see what you mean.
It still shows that the static BHP is just below pre-start up low case oil column for the similar time period.

But with the decreasing rate, the static bhp MAY also decrease in rate. However, IMO, I don't think there is enough information to confirm both decreasing rate of flowing and static (e.g. This could have been something to do with the interference we've been told about between 7z and 6).

ALL IMO.
Slift.

I think that a "higher OWC" is wrong to say.

I still standby what my thoughts are to say that the OWC is rising with production. So you can't quite define a OWC as it will continuously rise until there is exposure to vapour space in the FB.
This is obvious with the increasing watercuts.

I suppose there's two ways to define it:
1. Initial OWC (OWC at start of production lifespan)
2. Average OWC (average over time from start to end of production lifespan).

All IMO.
Slift.

Looking at the share price performance today, it seems like that the Edison report has frightened and spooked a lot of investors.

Though we don't really have more information than we initially had.. but just goes to show how much of an impact these "paid for" analysts make to this share.

Just DYOR.
Slift.

Thenorseman,

Yes, the reducing RATE indicates that the well is connected to a larger liquid volume (than estimated on start up). However, the gradient of this drop was already bigger than Pre-startup - From the start, the BHP dropped off below the "low case oil column" Pre-startup estimates.

What the capital markets diagram shows is that the gradient is reducing.
E.g. from circa -23 to circa -20.
But the pre-startup shows that the gradient (for the low case 380 m oil column) should be circa -10.

Above gradient just estimates as don't have accurate figures from the graph.

Hope that clarifies?

PlantedBHA,

"You don’t take account of the perched water.
In any assumption make sure you take account of all eventualities, not the ones you care to promote for your own agenda.
Health a safety and no oil experience"

Not take account of perched water where exactly?
I'd like to think I take into account most eventualities. Are you trying to say that it just isn't your back that's bad? That's unfortunate for you, but at least you have your broken truck right?

I don't need oil experience, I have other similar experiences. What about you?

weren't any mitigations*

I wouldn't be surprised if there was even any mitigations in line with COMAH or ATEX/DSEAR for Beirut.

As for Mauritius, probably a failure in SIS that led to the initial leak?

A repost of my analysis and estimates on the OWC and 1P reserves following the downgrade. I think it fits nicely with the edison report. This is solely based on EPS production performance data we have and estimates of what the future might hold:

For the Lancaster EPS, the CPR2017 states that at the structual closure (1380m TVDSS), 1P reserves are 28.1mmboe. This is over the 6 year period of the EPS.

In 2019, 3.2mmboe of oil was produced. Assuming 15k bopd average to the end of this year, we can expect 5.5mmboe being produced in 2020.
With the above assumption for 2020, we can say that in 1.5 years the EPS will have produced 8.7mmboe.

Going forwards to 2021, at the current rates of increasing water cuts (and only production from 6 and 7z), i estimate production to be c. 12-13k average.
In 2021, I'm expecting Hurricane to produce 4.5m barrels.

Going forwards from 2022 to 2025 (again above assumptions), I think it's safe to assume circa 6-8k bopd on average.
That would meant that for 2022-2025, production will be 7.6m barrels.

In total, circa. 21mmboe would be produced with the EPS. That's a 25% reduction in current proven reserves.

Slift.

Never said I did.
However, my thought processes aren't flawed. I have enough experience in health and safety to know the risks of manual handling which is heavily involved in a job (or your "experience") involving manual labour.

Not sure if I'd enjoy working away from home on a rig for 2-3 weeks at a time. Not enough flexibility for me unfortunately.

You must also have a bad back from manual labour lol.

Bransonbull,

Yes, it's not conventional. But that's not an excuse i'm sorry. They are the experts here and have the data.

They have the production data for Q1, Q2 and Q3 up until today. They just need to estimate production for the remainder of the year to provide a guidance.
How can you invest with confidence in this company when management can't even do that? Because this just tells me that even management aren't confident in their own company or have a clue.

The below production to date I provided (14.4k/day) becomes 14k/day if you early factor in the week long planned shutdown in September.

Assuming HUR can maintain c.16k production/day for the rest of the year (with 90% uptime), expect production for the year to be circa 14k/day average.

Slift.

DiveCentre,

Yes exactly.
That was one of the biggest reasons for my investment here. I was expecting a guidance for the year reinstated so that the management can provide some confidence to investors. Yet in every update they have been dodging it.

To date (17th August), est. 14.4k/day average.

Slift.

bransonbull,

They said they will provide production updates on a quarterly basis yes (and they have been - they have provided average production in Q1 and Q2).
But they have not given us a guidance for the year but instead giving us 2 weekly watercut and production data that is just giving analysts to speculate regarding the watercut, aquifer, OWC, longevity, production, etc.

Every other oil company is able to provide a guidance for the year even before Q1 starts.
Yet this company can't give a guidance with 3/4 of the data already available? Shocking.

I wouldn't be surprised if production is less than 17k/day in the next update.

HUR really needs to stop providing water cuts and production status of the wells on a 2 weekly basis. This is destroying the company by allowing analysts to speculate. Almost makes me wonder if that is managements motive?

Simply providing a production guidance for the year is enough information for everyone and will at least stop the speculations.

The last production guidance was suspended on 22nd May. It has been 3 months since this suspension (A WHOLE QUARTER), and HUR have still not provided a new guidance for the year.
We are now half way through Q3. It really isn't difficult to provide an estimated production guidance given that the company has data for 3/4 of the year. This is absolutely disgraceful and really makes me question managements' agenda and competence. Amateurish.

I certainly will not be holding this for long term.

ALL IMO. Slift.

"my question is simple"

All your questions are pointless. I'm here for good analysis, not your constant stupidity.

I've also stopped posting here, one of the worst BBs here, lead by people like you asking ridiculous questions that are no use to anyone.
Be a problem solver and come up with potential ideas or analysis to post here. Not an idiot asking multiple questions that noone here can answer or find useful for investment.

Just IMO.
Slift.