The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
rather o/t but better than 'bad backs'; the port authorities in Beirut were not really on-the-ball with the Amnite - someone must have either allowed or at least been aware of significant contamination and the dangers associated with that. If there was no 'knowldege' on that score, then government was indeed willfully reckless - and negligent.
Roll-on September.........
ANyone know what happened to Longwait?
gla
...perhaps we were better-off discussing comah and Beirut? Not to mention Mauritius.....
gla
branson (is your first name Richard, by any chance? Oh, hang on, you're invested here - so probably not, then!) Yep, the tilted owc has been postulated for several years, but the last 9 month 7z-watercut business has ripped-out any belief in the previously firm evidence-based - perhaps we should call them 'DrT datasets', or 'Tsets' for short - test data the Hur reservoir model was built on. With the likes of dspp et-al surmising that the owc (they infer by normality and caveat omission that this is field-wide, rather than possibly localised) is somewhat shallower ( than the 'shallow' case) the tilted owc hypothesis is likely to be worth fa now, probably. Until the tech review findings (and their subsequent validation), it seems all bets are for a very much reduced resource compared to the 2017 CPR. Of course, if the owc were tilted at a couple of degrees, now that might be more interesting - but one suspects not, unfortunately!
gla
bummer, had to put a tick on your 18:26, ngms (!)
Option 2 seems the go, if finance allows. Strewth, what a time for a black swan called covid-19 to fly in.
gla
ngms; it's possible you are right, few readers/posters here would deny that. All of us have opinions, but as few - if any - of us have access to the full dataset, they remain opinions. What is dislikable is when people post uncaveated or unqualified statements, especially when the (currently) available evidence either contradicts such, is ambiguous or inconclusive. There is acknowledgement generally here that Dr T - and all the tech team involved thus-far - may be wrong on the owc, but it seems unlikely, does it not, for such an encompassing frock-up. (Unlikely but not impossible, one must say...) On the other hand, there could be other explanations outside the limited remit of those most oft discussed. Imo the latter is more likely than either of the two mainstream 'binary' cases - a bit of fluid geology that wasn't expected (or adequately modelled).
Hur is about GLA (the others having been dropped as uneconomic) and the vagaries of 7z are but one aspect of this. If you are right, Hur (and GLA) may be done-for. Or there may still be up to 1bn bbl there.
The eps is a 'prover' Hur always have said the wells should not be over-driven as this may induce watering; So let's be sensible about this and not overly partisan.
The co'y needs time, during which all will be revealed, however I do feel that as time passes it's taking the golden window with it, as witnessed by the poo action..........
gla
gla
ngms;
Kindly note that Hur's issued guidance regarding owc is that it MAY be revised. Not WILL, MAY. Do you understand that particular differentiation within the English language? Your (repeated) statements are mistruths (aka lies, legally); you seem to have adopted a Trumpian approach to truthfulness, i.e. why bother when mistruth fits your agenda.
FWIW, I also hold the 'chhoo-choo' brigade in similar disdain.
The possibility (italicised) that you may be right is not lost on the Pi's here, hence the sp.
gla
acrossthesea; not wishing to be patronising, but from the tone of your post, you (and quite a lot of the pi's /insti's) might want to (re?) visit the article linked by Norseman (Fri 21:49) to earlier Lancs expolration/findings/modelling: if you haven't, you really ought to read it thoroughly. In it you will see rational explanations for almost everything 6 & 7z have encountered, the only anomaly being the scale of watercut from 'perches' compared to what is being seen now in 7z. However, the assessments of water content are gross, i.e. 'Average' water content across a large reservoir volume; the actual 'cut' of any one well at any particular point could vary from zero to 100%; the local fissure density (i.e. fluid-filled void volume) and connectivity are also variable, and it takes little mental management to arrive at the conclusion that (a) 7z could be an 'unlucky' waterstrike, and (b) the inherent ranges of results in the earlier data could give significant local variability in the results obtained from an single point. It is here I disagree with dspp and that cadre of opinion: to batter-on about the owc being much higher than the (very variable) depths the tech analyses thus far flies in the face of the evidence - and thus far i have seen no counter-evidence to support the 'dspp-group' claim, none whatsoever. Ok, so the model may need some of the variables changing on a local scale, perhaps even some new variables introducing - and those are likely to reduce the oip to some degree - and the watercut of 7z is indeed disappointing - but it is still early days yet - the EPS is, as Adouble repeatedly reminds us, a concept (i.e. model)-proving excercise, NOT a money-producer (that's a useful aside, really). This wailing is overcooked, imho.
on a minor tech note, it has been queried as to how Dr Trice 'knows' 7z is principally producing from the heel: I would suggest that knowledge is evident from the time delay of pressure-change(s) in the two wells - they are closest at the heel and diverge further along. Maybe a res eng/driller (AK?) could enlighten us as to how exactly that might be done in-practice, but seismically, knowing the P, T and chemical makup of the fluids, the time taken for one well to 'see' another (" virtually instant", in this case) is easily calulated. It ain't rocket science but does need some good tech and a bit of careful analysis by people with the knowledge to do such).
GLA
agreed MCB; and given the communication/interference with 6 seems very unlikely indeed.
gla
moorlaner; i may be worng on this (often am), but the oga decision may be connected to the Lincoln field boundary - i believe PMO own the the adjacent licence (to the eastern boundary) and that, if the owc is as as-determined (previously) by Dr T's Hur , then there may be a resource ownership issue to be resolved. Obviously, the corollary is that if the owc were to be (entirely) within the Hur licence there would be no issue. I also recall some comment (from Dr Trice) relating to tech difficulties - arising maybe from the difference between linc oil (@42api, approaching condensate) and 6/7z' s38 api. Those with better memories may be able to correct these comments - pls don't take them as gospel.
gla
Slift; thought you might be the moody sort.
I hope to hell the bod appreciate that September offers probably a defining moment/event in which the co'y can explain wtf has been/is going-on, and come-clean about the dirt, also. Ok, so Dr T is probably under a nda, but 7z's water origin? C'mon bod, earn your money (for the first time in several years, imho).
atb &
gla
ohhhhh, Slift, you've given it away!
gla
ngms; you're writing b00llocks on a subject you profess to be an expert on. Now, let's see some fluid-dynamics equations (or, better, as you profess to 'knowing' them by dint of stating such things as facts) some calculations with real numbers in them, that support your statement. Your 'not equal to 1:1' is tripe; 'preferential flow' has fa to do with volumetric ratios, to any significance, anyway. But is does have a lot to do with viscosity, density and Re......
Generally this bb is good for open opinion and (almost) everyone is very supportive of that, but with monotonous regularity an up-popper arrives with a continual diatribe against the co'y, often repetetively listing 'downsides' in what one might surmise is their full-time employment. Obviously on a serious agenda, these donkeys think they make a difference - which they might, but only to a small degree. Your posting fits this pattern. Now, let's have a serious discussion re the 'preferential flow' regime between water and oil, huh. I've given you a clue: Re.
gla
ngms: "Every % of water reduces oil production in a more than 1:1 ratio due to fluid dynamics."
In my experience, a volumetrically-quantified material exchange at the same temperature does not induce a significantly unequal volume in the counterparty.
Please elucidate.
gla
ngms: your agenda is blatently obvious to everyone. You post a number of very valid comments (comments largely, not evidence-based facts) - many of which most Hur investors and watchers would agree with to some extent. However, your continuing use of your opinion (in place of facts, which most on here will agree are excessively thin on the ground, especially recently) is Trump-like behaviour and discredits you somewhat.
We'll find out a bit more in September (but i for one am not expecting a golden revelation, one way or the other.
gla
...and your EVIDENCE for those statements, ngms, is - ?
I'd like to see it posted here, please. Evidence, not assumption, rumour, your opinion: EVIDENCE.
gla
Joesoap; thanks for re-posting your precise calcs on kerogen's b/e; my (very) rough calc was less than 10s of consideration of their intitial 2016 share buy-in (and omitted to consider the 73m @ >0.30, apologies), but the gist is there, as i noted "....A small premium to the current sp would see them little better-off than if they had bought the bonds, though...." (By small premium i mean +2.5 p, which given the 45p+ valuation before the AM doped-a-rope is derisible.) Given the bond coupon, that's pretty ****-poor, I think we'd agree? (But still a lot better than almost all lth's). So anyway, i don't see Kerogen's 7.5 pps b/e need as a great starting-point for a Hur sale, do you?
DC makes a valid point re Dr Parsley: what is his belief-set? imho there is a fundamental issue here,with Hur (I know oil investors will say t'was ever thus, but for the bod to be considering a material downdgrade, either (a) Dr T + team + RPS were incompetent, unprofessional (WellWell's 'hubris') or lying, or they were right and there isn't going to be a shallower owc - except perhaps for acknowledgement that 'perches' may be quite large (possibly larger than the %'s estimated in earlier models), and that the oip should be revisited to allow for that. [i.e. a change to the reservoir fluid content model). This latter path isn't so bad. [If a shallower general owc is now deemed (and proven so) to be, it should, imo, result in de-registering (removal of professional status) of those concerned with the original work: no recompense for investors losing money, but would reduce the prospects of a repeat event].
7z's water production to-date (rom, Joe!) would drain a fissure 300m x 1km x 33mm, so if it's a perch frac network, given the seismic data and arising model estimates of void volume, three to 5 times this (or more) seems quite reasonable to me - hence i wouldn't expect a decrease on water rate for another year or so, maybe. But I'm no res eng, maybe a frac field specialist could help us all out here? Anyone know one with some spare time on their hands?
atb
gla
DC; no, i doubt Mr McT would be chuffed at far sub-40, but his remuneration 'package' probably sees him right in any event, as buyinMay notes. The problem is, as B-I-M alludes (i think), is that it's not his decision - it's likely to be Kerogens - with some help from RB@CA, maybe, in a hostile. While I am prepared to play the long game, are the big players??
I'd still like to see Hal revisited before a sale.
gla
buyinmay; just checked (apologies for memory fail due to accumulation of heat, age and stupidity), and indeed, K covered their asses last year and are freeloading now. A small premium to the current sp would see them little better-off than if they had bought the bonds, though. Explains a lot of the Bod's recent attitude, most of whom have (and ex-bods having had) precious little skin in the game.
gla
Malrees: agreed, good post re lth and explorer perspectives. imo Hur is an explorer that is simply proving a field, nothing more; the eps is just the mechanism to validate the model. Things were going ok until a few rats (large perch (??), (Sars-2/coronavirus) combined with Hur's historical sh 1 T public comms jumped into the ointment all at the same time. What Hur needs to do is show corporate capability to prove & deliver a large field worthy of an expensive FFD - not an easy ask but a perfectly reasonable expactation also.
gla
Haggis-T; agree generalsentiments re co'y grossly undervalued etc, but maybe the new ceo is holding her tongue until she has a really good handle on not only what is happening and will be happening, but has previously happened and where the (if any) discrepancies lie ('sic'?)
Re Kerogen's sell aimpoint; do i recall wrongly that they bought-in in mid-upper 20's but sold 20% 0f their holding last year at ~100% -ish profit? That then would put them in a not-good position for a breakeven from a t/o at even thrice todays sp....pls correct if my v approx memory is significantly in error.
gla