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.
it seems, Slift, that neither were the old ones.........(!)
gla
likewise, Slift. 'Have fun' (just unlikely here!)
gla
best wishes, Adouble.
gla
p.s. no, don't recall ever seeing the % oil data either..........
Slift: agree all comments. Sold also, won't be back as i see no future upturn for Hur now.
Wonder if Longwait is still in the fridge?
Bye and gla.
JAdam, Slift; re lancaster hub gas: What is pmo's destination for Solan produced gas now their new well is complete and online? (I understand it is supposed to be delivering iro 10k boe/d in addition to the existing well) - the original plan was to use it for power generation, i assume that remains so as all it's doing is making-up the P1&2 well planned delivery shortfalls. Bu99er, think i've answered my own question; perhaps installation of a 'blue hydrogen' unit onboard the AM with CO2 returned to reservoir might work.....cheaper than wosps connection??
And is there a possibility pmo are interested (again) in collaboration wrt Lincoln? If Solan is able to generator-burn the gas then the additional gas load on the AM is avoided.
Only thinking out-loud (always dangerous).
Bring-on Friday - this is like waiting for a dentist's appointment......
gla
Slift; agree largely with your midnight oil post, with a note to append:
(all imho of course); Hur's significant value lies in proving the field concept, not the eps (which may be worth iro 10-20p range, whatever- not interested in the semantics of that aspect). For saleability within the current oil-burning permitted (pre-green wave) period - i.e. the next ten-twenty years - the model needs to be considered an adequately true (validated) representation of the real scenario (verified); the doubts around both these are why Hur's mcap has declined 90% in little more than a year. With poo probably sub-$60 for the forseeable future, what are the resouce-to-reserve values? Hur's big valuations were all based on the 2016-7 era models being there or thereabouts; the awaited update will be very interesting. I'm still unconvinced Schlum and Dr T got their owc sums wrong, and that what we see at 7z is a local variation of it within the fb ridge as a whole (but there were precious few datapoints on which to draw such extended linear extrapolations with much confidence.... (?)). A lot (and a three/four-year delay) rests on the tech 'discussions' that have taken place this summer.
On the upside, was very favourably impressed with the latest Huricomms rns, factual, no b0ll0xs, investors included (about time too, trainset players take note).
Gla
fox-up apologies:
"Apologies but thanks to poster for forgetting who;..." should obviously read
"Apologies for forgetting who, but thanks to poster;....."
beer in, brain out.
gla
Slift; agree with your 14:23 re the general benefits (vs cost) of gas injection. Water Injection would obviously also be a candidate for future shallower-drilled wells, per the link someone posted a few days ago. [Apologies but thanks to poster for forgetting who; re-posted below for anyone who missed it.] The query then would be: What is the connectivity at different levels, and would gas injection readily permeate the wider reservoir (if indeed there is one, and here i'm thinking Rona Ridge to Halifax), in which case a shipload* might need to be shoved in the cap, or, if water injection were to be chosen, er, is the connectivity below/at owc sufficient to give a similar (i.e. non-localised) issue? Imho the most likely outcome of the reservoir situation is that the owc may be very variable - much moreso than was risked in Dr Trice's earlier models, making well drill location choices difficult if gas injection, rather than water, is to be used.
fwiw re owc temperatures: agreed that in a static situation the two temp's would equalise, but in a highly (2000m3d-1 is a lot of flow for a small fissure) dynamic well, flowing oil from one area and - according to the aquifer-source theory - from sub wide-area owc, it's feasible there would be insufficient time to permit heat transfer to equalise the temperatures. So Dr Trice, imo, may well be right, there. (I guess it depends where the temp's are being measured....) Or wrong.
Gla
* with a 't'
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13202-019-00755-w.pdf
nailed it, MCB.
gla
big T, slift?
(nice answer, but it was s pretty crap analogy; must admit i didn't think that one through - a bit like continuing to hold when Hur spiked to 60p a while ago......greed. Doh.)
atb
gla
ngms: "Why is it curved like that though given the relationship between pressure and volume?"
Inertia + Viscosity (drag).If your car accelerates from zero to sixty, how far does it travel in the first second? Howfar in the last second?
gla
Hi Adouble; got any general thoughts on Hur' recent further decline (into RT (sic) silence)? Seems to me a lot of people (on this bb) are binning Dr Trice/Slumburgers et-al tech work on the odt/owc data of 2017 etc..........?
gla
oops , 8 ms = 60 ms, apologies, a bit of cross-connection (other work) going-off there......
Rainbow; "...given the connectivity between the wells and as previously stated them acting like a single well, when 7z is shut in and the 6 pulling on 15k a day would this not draw from the same connection ?"
Yes - to some extent, the degree being a function of the interconnecting fissure dimensions vs - sorry, here we go again - viscosity. When Dr T stated 'instantaneous (or virtually so) connection, of course with the well heels being only of the order of 100m or so apart, at the speed of sound in oil at the local conditions (say 1600 m/s) 'hearing' noise from the other well would only take iro 8 ms. Such a 'connection' would only need a minimal fluid flow pathway. Seeing a 'significant' ( I'm guessing at 10kPa (0.1bar, ~ 1.5 psi resolution 'cause that's what the bhp plots seem to indicate) or greater pressure difference would similarly only require moderate upscaling of open-fissure size between the two. It seems that 6 is indeed having water fed to it, maybe from 7z, maybe elsewhere (7z sounds a likely immediate source!); but given the viscosity relationship, even a small interconnecting fracture would supply relatively large (compared to oil) amounts of water at the pressure differentials in the local bore area - iro 4 bar/60psi. Squirt your hosepipe at domestic 'mains' pressure (~ 3 bar widely in UK) and you get an idea.
imo the owc 'issue' is generally being addressed far too simplistically on this bb.
atb
gla
whilst largely agreeing with the concept Rainbowchaser, it's also possible that 7z has a large-aperture connection principally/solely to the underlying aquifer (at whatever depth that's at) and much smaller/fewer aperture connection to the oil reservoir. Viscosity would enable a flow imbalance in favour of the (far) less viscous fluid - water. Imo this is also a contender explanation, rather than that of the 'Trice foxed-up totally' brigade. Well (sorry), I'm hoping so for lth's sakes, anyway.
gla
ngms; given the (relatively) wide-aperture nature of the reservoir, would a gas-cap not be a cost-effective path to reservoir optimisation (with 7z particularly being near the postulated 'general (structural closure) owc'? (noily comment, happy to learn otherwise).
gla
Hi Norseman; re bhp (shut-in or flowing); plotting the curve is fairly straightforward (the straight-line stuff is disgracefully lazy work, presumably published on the basis that investors are mathematically ignorant and not worth spending the time on); any math or even spreadsheet software will offer reasonable approximations. The important bit is the rate of change (acceleration) of slope vs material extracted - as the slope approaches horizontal (if it becomes horizontal we're in luck) the inference is that the reservoir volume is tending towards infinitely large. (Alternately you could just draw a nice curve with your pencil, and get a passable idea....)
Of course, per the recent discussions, how much of that is oil and how much is water, is the big question these days.
Afraid i have to concurr with the bod-kickers; they do seem to be ineffectual. Hopefully, in September's update they will make us happy to give them their pay. Alternately - as bartlebobton notes - like sxx, maybe not.
gla
agreed, Slift.
gla
typo in previous post, apologies:
"....the flowing bhpressures being higher than those reported early-dst-days per fig 4 of the Lyall article." should be "...fig 14".
doh. (No wonder some of my investments are performing so shirtily).
gla
Slift, Norseman, Joe: re bhp's (flowing vs static); my understanding is that the two plots in Edisons report ('Exhibit 1' & Exhibit 2') represent different states; the latter representing static ('shut-in') bhp's only while one has to look carefully at the 'Cum liquid produced' plot to segregate flowing from static. To me, at any rate, the bhp's look to be in first-order agreement with Dr T's predictions from the 2019 roadshow, the flowing bhpressures being higher than those reported early-dst-days per fig 4 of the Lyall article. Maybe I'm wrong here - someone please correct me if i am - but, Norseman, imo you are correct on this.
gla