Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Furry; the wells are choked somewhat. You'll need to read the Hur tech presentations to see this.
gla
DK2020: i missed all that/any w/c stuff last 2 days - what did you post? maybe post it again?!
Makinhay:
If the bod is "wondering wtf is going on" then they are naive and incompetent. What is going-on, as we all know, is that poor investor comms borne of an 'it's my train-set' attitude, combined with a lack of promulgated alternative-scenario plans are now exposing the co'y to a short attack when it is most vulnerable. Yes, the co'y is about to to bought-out, but for peanuts compared to true value - even that of a short while ago. Considereing what the bodare paying themselves, they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it to me..........
GLA
121; if you could be bothered to at least identify truths rather than lying (presumably in your ownfinancial interest then your post(s) might be worth more than (their current) trash value. Do some homework of go away.
i defer to a true oilie's experience, AK, for sure. the kBar meant kBar: 20,000. Bar. ANyway, let's hope the positives amongst us are right! atb....
gla
Agreed, WW - someone's manoeuvring for a bid. Low.
atb
gla
Jiffy;
yep PiJoe is having a good dialogue with dspp on tlf. There are other things to consider, though,that have not been mentioned (e.g. entrainment) but pij's fluid dynamics and general concept model seem quite good. The relative contributions of diffent fissure dimensions vs bore location are glossed-over thus far in the discussion, and 'perched' in that context is entirely feasible. There are also some chunky/bold/simplistic assumptions re aquifer (vol, drive mech, etc) in that discussion and (imo only) i'd be wary of adopting anything written wrt this subject thus far, as gospel. [I'm no res eng either, but like pijoe have a lot of years working with fluids (in my case at 10-20 kBar.)] It's a complex subject; am trying to spend some time with my crayons too, but have a day/evening-job also.
WW commented earlier re PE buyout possibility - agree, WW; i think at this sp that likelyhood is approaching a racing certainty, unfortunately. ....JimRatcliffe, anyone?
gla
Modestus; thanks, a worthy tale indeed. SOmewhat O/T, i used to walk past their (Poole area) office in 2016 at lunchtime (worked nearby) - the (not unsizeable) place was effectively shut-down, offices bereft. We looked at the sp trail then (circa 230p) and thought "wow, someone doesn't like this company!" I stopped watching it after a month or so. 2100 now, eh! Sentiment vs reality, get them aligned and it's a winner. Hur have had a period of sentiment-wrecking; perhaps their renewed concentration on easiest-path oil (cash) generation will turn things around. Having been led to believe that LinC was likely to be tied-back to the AM asap, today's news was disappointing in that respect: However, it does permit Hur to focus on Lancs - and hopefully Halifax (soon).
Bonds, '22............hmm.
gla
Eski; despite the recent pain (worse than a really bad toothache for me), the 'goal' for Hur has, in my simple-minded world, always been Halifax. When i look at the Rona Ridge strati contour maps, i see Lancs - successful two-well prog so far - and the apparently unbroken ridge extending NNE, and think, 'cor'.
Yes, i know the previous Hal drill was blobbed-up downhole, but if I were Hur and wanted to optimise shareholder value, i'd be inclined to revisit and drill the peaky bit of Hal again (while hopefully finding a way to avoid bullheading/glooping/whaever). DST & P&A it; yes, the ($80m?) drill lolly is lost, but the reserves/reservoir model derisked.
I see the benefit in adding an '8' to Lancs with the subsea and FPSO on-hand to receive from a tie-back; it also derisks the perched water/aquifer scrap that's been going-on for a month or so, raises money at > $100m/yr if as productive as 6 and 7z while simultaneously lowering the per-barrel overhead production costs for all three wells. So this latter path is a win-win for Hur, but pushes Hal further into the future, where investor sympathy might be even further reduced as the green horizon looms ever closer.
Imo Hur have consistently lacked both a 'Plan B' and promulgated clear pathS to shareholder value realisation: perhaps the last two months or so will 'encourage' the bod to be a little more proactive on the latter aspect. If they do not engage here, they are at ever-increasing risk of their trainset being taken away from them by a hostile.
atb.
GLA
Jiffy, LS: yes, the Northern Endeavour is indeed a rustbucket; the post was just to brighten the mood. Hasn't worked this morning, though it seems a new(er) fpso might come in very useful for GWAR/LinC..........
I guess i'm not he only one suspecting the recent sp slippage has ben due to a Spirit leak. It would be very interesting to know why the tie-back of LC can't/won't be made, now.
GLA
seems so - could Hur afford this:
https://www.ogj.com/general-interest/article/14131772/northern-endeavour-fpso-now-an-unmanned-idle-vessel-in-timor-sea
170kbopd, hmm, like the sound........
gla
BB, as MCB responded, the drawdown rates are sufficiently low to ensure that gas will remain in-solution for some considerable time to come - approaching the full life of the reservoir, as i understand it. Due to the nature of the matrix material and it's structure, lithostatic (aka 'overburden') pressure would, i would think, be minimal, hence the principal driver being aquifer. It's worth revisiting things like the IPR plot (hurricane-roadshow-presentation-secured-v2, 2018) and noting that to drop a well to bubble-point pressure would need the well to draw at 43,000 bopd. One would expect that several wells in proximity to ea other, with high connectivity, would require some moderation below the 43k to avoid the locale dropping below bubble.
It's reading into the aquifer pressures vs tvdss for the wells, and the as-measured (not hypothesis, AS-MEASURED)(sorry, no intention to 'shout', just a lack of italics - come on, LSE - do it!) pressures vs time for draws and shut-ins, that one can see the falldown in dspp's earlier hypothesis inferring that aquifer water was close to 7z: the pressures don't stack-up with the high PI's, which have improved further on cleanup. atb.
GLA
vac servo's-yes, but a bit old-style - electric assistance is more usual of recent times.
gla
Hi ronok; unsure exactlywhat the point of this revisit is,but your comments [1],[2] & [3] are correct scientifically for the environment of which we speak.
I recall Rc's post containing "...Now how could water be close to the well? It’s a thinker...." and assumed it was a dspp-driven 'oh woe is us, (aquifer) water is next to the 7z (heel)'. Two immediate comments arise:
(i) read this (it migh improve understanding of the Hur-scenario): https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-180000-MS
(ii) "...Interference happening rapidly...." - Hurricane_CMD_Presentation_2019.
Then try figuring-out why water has not been seen in 6, but has in 7z, despite the drawdown pressure applied to each. Note that (as far as i recall) there is little or no gas-cap, hence the aquifer is the pretty-much the principal driver.
GLA
Gapingfracture: agree with your summarisation of the tlf ongoing owc/jellomould developing hypothesis - the three-dimensional nature of the fracturing makes that theory rather unlikely to me. I think it's all being very, very, over-egged, this aspect. One needs to take into account certain comments and suppositions, e.g:
"However, note that the potential for flow, does not necessarily mean that flow need occur."
- If there is physical fluid connection, and there is a pressure difference between the two sections, flow WILL occur. That deltaP can either be static or dynamic, it matters not. Even apparently insignificant things like re-entrant fracture form (sharp, rounded etc) make big differences in a flowing system , don't they PIJoe?
If I can find time, i'll try to put an alternative explanation in here - but as i've recently bought more hur, might be open to allegations of ramping, doh.
The (my) key issue with hur is 'what is the fracture volume on Halifax?', as i think this is, and always was, the big engine in the trainset.
GLA
jtd: bang-on. Maybe the bod have (at last) realised that just 'cause you have a train-set in the playground, doesn't mean you get to keep it.
GLA
JA; Agree with your shorting comments, with the exception that shorting does nothing to proactively build a future - it only can destroy one. OK, for some coy's like Carillion, where management is so poor (incompetent) that the co'y would be lucky to survive regardless, there's a case. But otherwise - per Hur, for example - it's a bit like a very rich (often 'American') 'hunter' on big-game safari: a very powerful, totally one-sided contest that the target stands no chance of winning. The outcome is that 'investing' becomes a mugs-game of rich banks/funds vs ordinary investors - we usually lose and the rich get richer. ANd eventually, the true 'investor', stops doing it. 'Twas always thus, i guess.
That's why i advocate a trading tax that is a function of time (held): a power function (say log base 10 (t) or similar) would be applied to every share bought/sold; e.g. hold for a year, tax <0.1%, hold for an hour, tax 90%, hold for 1 sec, tax 99%, etc.
rgds - gla
potd pts, imo.
gla
Suemay: "It's the eye watering huge amount of debt that keeps the Sp down imo"
- apart from pedalling lies, you are obviously a total prat. Hope you're getting 3rd -degree burns through your shorts.
GLA
yes, little has changed recently so i just bought some more to go in my already somewhat Hur-overweight 'portfolio'. Nuts, both me and this situation .....(!)
gla
regarding dspp's (generally excelent) posting on tlf: the recent discussion and associated plot of water-cut-vs-oil gives rise to one immediate observation: either (a) the datapoint at 14kbbl: 13.5% water is an outlier, or (b) plotting a linear line is meaningless. The ensuing discussion (where MrC bows-out) illustrates why great care should be excercised when 'analysing' data that is incomplete: a totally incorrect surmisation leading to possibly erroneous outcomes. Fwiw the guidelines since published by Hur indicate more water-draw in 7z than thought when the well was first tested, but, as others have indicated, eventually perched water will reduce in quantity as it is drawn. [I'm slightly bemused by the Hur statement that the w/cut isn't rate-dependent - basic hydrostatics and pressure entrainment effects would indicate non-proportionality, but still a rate relationship, even if rather non-linear (?)] 'Communication' data would be very, very interesting - has there been some published that i've missed? Whatever, should there be a continuing dry 6 well draw, that would sink the non-perched hypothesis; imo that's why they are letting 6 run for a month or so without any 7z output.
I doubt Hur are 'concealing' anything as some tlf posts suggest; that would be illegal and is certainly not in Dr Trice's style, imho.
gla