Member Info for Slift

adoubleuk,

Okay sure, you can deny that. But you can't deny the financial valuation based on those calculations. Hence, this company is insolvent.

"There are three things which totally screwed-up the oilpatch. 'O'-rings, wireline, and engineers."
And in this case, geologists.

But sure, talk some more crap about being an "oilfield" expert, when it won't help here.

adoubleuk,

"But thereby lies the rub.
I don't trust that latest CPR further than I could throw it."

Okay sure.
But do you deny that current 2P reserves are 7m barrels as per CPR? I.e. the most that could be produced with the existing 6 well and 7z well.
Under SPE guidelines and methodology of how 2P reserves are calculated, you cannot deny this. If you do, then you're simply deluded.

7m reserves equates to negative equity. The wells have simply watered in too fast.
No matter what 2C resources say - 2C resources didn't even have much value here, on an accounting basis.

adoubleuk,

"You still don't get it, do you?
There is an obvious 'movement' amongst existing shareholders in an attempt to ensure that this 'restructuring' will not be allowed."

The only ones that doesn't get it is you and others who are calling this as a "scam".

As i've responded to you on a previous post, what the BOD have done is completely legal and within the corporate laws of the new UK's Restructuring Plan under Companies Act 2006.
Unless ofcourse you think both The Restructuring Plan and Companies Act 2006 is criminal, corrupt, or whatever... then i'd suggest you take that up with the government.

If ENQ are serious about a full field development around Bressay, re-use of EP for the Bressay development would be best option.

The EP would require modifications to be able to receive, process and store Bressay oil.. But would certainly be cheaper to do the mods than to specify a brand new FPSO for the field.

With 40.81% stake and development costs, it's certainly very possible for ENQ to secure funding to do so.

adoubleuk,

"Slift,
"Do you want to go email OGA or Spirit and complain about it?"
Yes. Of course. And thanks for at last letting us know who your paymasters are. Idiot."

Sure call me an idiot, but we'll see who the real idiot is as this restructure progresses.
Personally, anyone who sees this as a "scam" is the idiot. I do know that you seem to seriously lack corporate law and financial knowledge.

All you have to do is get your calculator out and do some maths.
The HY20 accounts is available on the HUR's website.
The company has had a negative equity ever since the downgrade in oil resources. The company cannot produce enough cashflow to meet commitments and repay the bond. The company is insolvent.
See you at 0.1p.

" The GWA Joint Venture will build-out the equipment and materials required to tie-back a single well from the GWA to the Aoka Mizu FPSO on a 50:50 basis with an additional net cost to Hurricane of $20.5 million. On completion, these items will be held in storage until the GWA Joint Venture sanctions the tie-back of a well to the Aoka Mizu FPSO, with the required regulatory consents to do so."

Spirit/OGA didn't sanction it.

Do you want to go email OGA or Spirit and complain about it?

Miss chartered accountant,

"Did the BoD take out $20M+ for future decommissioning costs perhaps?"
Yes, $23.5m to be exact back in Q4 2020.
A further $15.7m will be allocated for decomissioning as of this month.

Then don't forget to include CAPEX for this year for decom/P&A of Lincoln @ $13m.
And let's not forget the costs for this restructure.

Also, from HY20 results:
"Impairment of oil and gas assets
Following the initial conclusions of the Technical Review (see above), the associated downwards revision of estimated recoverable reserves and the decline in oil prices during the year, a non-cash impairment charge of $238.9 million has been recognised against the producing Lancaster oil and gas assets. The impairment charge was calculated based on expected future cashflows from the Lancaster EPS, using a number of forecast production profiles (both with and without the cost and benefits of a water injection programme) and probability weighted according to our best estimates of the most likely outcomes."

You're welcome.

lol, all you have to do is look at the presentation.
If you're really a chartered accountant, not hard to read the numbers written there.

It's called cash being restricted.
Why not read the accounts for HY20? It's all there.

Tell you what onthebeach3,

If you could provide an alternative, then fair play.
Otherwise, complaining won't help you as there is no "scam".

pointless.

"will certainly be doing my part."

Your part in what exactly...?
Holding with diamond hands?

Could get yourself 100 pints for that.

"Slift you take the hurricane glass half full view."

Well.. I would take Hurricane reserves half full view.. but it's 90% empty.

*aquifer :)

Although..
If HUR modify the AM into a water filtration and processing unit to process the acquifer water into clean drinkable water.. and have a bottling line on the AM to bottle the water...

At current water production (6k bwpd), they'd be able to bottle 2,000,000 500ml water bottles every day!
Even selling those bottles for 50p will give the company £1m revenue per day!
£365m revenue per year!
More than the oil operation.

Maybe you should all persuade the Judge and bondholders to turn HURRICANE ENERGY into HURRICANE ACQUIFER WATER??

Anne37,

Did comissioning liabilities and termination fees slip through your mind or..?
Not even $70 can provide enough cashflow for the company to pay back the debt.

The company needs $90/barrel oil price or higher than 10k bopd production to be able to repay the bondholders.
Try persuading the High Court that Brent price will be $90+/barrel average for the next 12 months.
Or try persuading the High Court that the water produced is actually oil lol.

mrc,

"you’ve added all of the capex onto the first 2 wells!!! Why would you do that?"
Lol, it seems like you still think that a full field development can be tied back to Kraken.

As i've said before, you're not even worth responding to.

mrc,

I think you're just lacking research here.
For example, please tell me how you expect ENQ to do a full field development and tieing it all back to Kraken.
I'd like to hear your logic and understanding in regards to tieing back to Kraken of Bentley or Bressay. Because as it stands, I don't feel like you even know the Kraken field or existing infrastructure.

The $200m comes from $20m modification per well to Kraken FPSO (i'll let you work out exactly what that modification is), and $80m to drill each well in the North sea (including all equipment, and heated flowlines for flowability).

Also regarding water injection, do you read?
"And then subsequently after, should production fall significantly, new wells can be drilled cheaper (as no requirement for modifications).. or EOR techniques such as water injection can be used to further reduce this development cost."
You don't need water injection for at least 2-3 years of a couple tiebacks. There is an acquifer that provides pressure support.
You will need a water injection thereafter though.

So rather than looking like a complete idiot, i'd suggest you do some reading because you definitely can't do a "full scale exploitation of the fields" using existing asset - especially when that existing asset is mostly utilised for another field.
Also, you'd be an idiot to state "there is capacity to produce more using AK".

romaron,

"When I said break-even at $35 he didn’t scoff but thought that possibly it was using an Early Development Plan (EDP) which is a short term (cheap) plan"

The breakeven figure of $35 comes from being able to produce 131m barrels over 35 years. Now that's a long time to be operating to produce that many barrels. I think the major investment in the field would have been in the first 5-10 years, and then it would have been like 25-30 years of maintaining through reservoir management and well optimisation.
The project would have had significant cash outflow during the first 5 years, and the payback period for the project would have been like 20+ years.

It wouldn't have been necessarily an EDP, but it would have started as one with sequential drilling to add wells.
"First Oil" would have been with 2 pre-drilled wells (so at that point, it would have been similar to an EDP).
But the actual development plan was for 20 slots (18 being tied back following sequential drilling).

Bentley is only useful as tieback.
Also in the current oil price environment, standalone development of Bressay would be better than tieback to Kraken.

(Why tieback 40% stake Bressay oil when you can tieback 70% stake Kraken oil instead?).
I think AB previously mentioned that they will be looking to drill at Kraken in 2023.

mrc,

Not really guessing the cost..

The costs are based on estimates for drilling wells in the north sea as well as modifications to FPSO.

I think there is potential for some barrels to be developed in a $50/barrel environment (depending on flow rate ofc), but wouldn't be many.

Don't forget that Equinor deferred development of Bressay when oil price dropped back in 2016.

As with Bentley, you're looking at 2-3k bopd initial flow from Bressay wells, however should be cheaper than Bentley due to a more flowing viscosity.