Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
....or hydrogen fuel-cells, maybe?
gla
EV; do you have any evidence or valid hypothesis that supports your denigration of AK's comment re the offtake?
gla
Hi WW; yes, indeed 6 reports virtually zero water. so, given 'high/instantaneous connectivity' = fluid connection, for a water-free 6 draw, the volume between the two could be v.v. large. Alternately, the no-water-cross-flow might be explained by other fluid dynamic or reservoir location matters. Either way, a dry 6 is very good news for 7z and the system in general, imo.
gla
one entirely possible implication of the 'almost instantaneous' communication between 6 and 7z (with no water apparent in 6's draw) is that the volume between them is very large. In upper-case.
gla
AK; perched vs 'other': imo you are making the right call when sticking to the co'y line here. I've read (might need to re-read) all the TLF discussions, notably dspp's string and explanations. What is not discussed therein is the different viscosity of water vs oil - quite considerable vs 38 api - and the effect this has on the fluids ability to overcome drag (flow friction) , particularly as the fissure dimensions diminish: pressure differences are not the sole determinant in such flow situations. [One only has to think of how small a perforation needs to be in one's domestic water system to see that sub-bar pressures can flow water through almost invisible boundary flaws.] There is also a level of panic out there, it seems, arising from Hur's apparently contradictory historical statements realting to 'the model': it would have been a surprise if the initial model were sufficiently complex to manage perching; i'd be surprised if they hadn't added that capability by now. Fwiw the perched flow explanations seem, from a fluid engineering (my) viewpoint, perfectly rational. 'Coning', on the other hand, given the 'excellent/immediate' (pressure communication = flow communication) communication between 6 & 7z, does absolutely not: If it did, 6 would be producing a significant water-cut. gottogo, atb.
GLA
spot-on, pchima.
gla
'bubble', ffs, not buble.
Heaven forbid.
Sorry - gla
WW, AK, Captainswag (?- really?!), dspp et-al; just a noily suggestion: Could the vds-esp commissioning be realted also to the high PI/natural drawdown rates getting close to, or inducing, cavitation/buble formation at flow discontinuities ('rough bits'); i.e apply a bit of +ve pressure downstream of pump = subsea lines preserved better?
Just a thought, haven't done any math on it.
gla
Birling: you raise valid points. Presumably CA have been seeling-down since the bell on the morning of the WW rns; their avg sale price mid-thirties (??) perhaps. However, despite their 4.3 m sub-30 share buy over the last few days, they are still 9.5m short of their previous holding, or ~0.5% of Hur's shares - which now reside elsewhere, and thus reduce his manipulation pool (maybe). Shame RB helped trash the sp to bail-out his fund - one might think a better strategy for CA would be to keep their winners.
atb - Warren.
oh f**k, just woke up - sorry - atb, SG2
"... If the water is indeed 'perched' ie trapped, would you not expect the trap to eventually drain......and the water cut then drop ?..."
yep, that's exactly what i'd do. (Systems engineer, not reservoir engineer!) I'll also guess that, as WWN hints, forthcoming info may wel go into some detail on (i) 6 & 7z PI, (ii) 7z water-cut, (iii) chem anal regarding water source. Lincoln/Warwick chem/spectro - not yet, probably.
GLA
Hi Daltry et al; what a difference a week makes!
Fwiw, ( and I can't view the oga data dspp summarised last week on tlf for a few days yet, but have seen his data & plots), I disagree with the panic concerning 6 & 7z water: imv, using a simple fluid- dynamics view, the water-cut rates observed accord well with the perched-water explanation previously given by Hur. I didn't, and still don't, see why holders sold on that( aquifer- sourced H2O) concern. If I too could hock for a few hundred k, i'd buy more too at this price.
Hur will hopefully communicate in a less wooly way for the 6-m update.
GLA all remaining pi's
We're having a BB discussion on a very relevant tech matter: a discussion that should not be necessary.
Gla
Chablard; that is entirely correct: all Hur have to do is say 'thats all bullocks, and we'll show you why, definitively, at the next update/ CMD. Communication.
Fwiw luckcounts I am not a 'troll', I merely attempted to answer the wa*er question with what to me, as a noily, seems like a sensible fluid- dynamics- based explanation. And if I can do that, so can Hur. I expect the Hur and Spirit bods are rather busy, though, evaluating WW in strategy terms, so hold little hope from the meaningful corporate Comms side. I haven't sold any Hur shares for two years, only adding to my already overweight holding, but man, are they testing the patience.....even the BoE and Fed use forward guidance to reduce chaotic uncertainty, fffs!
Gla
Ghengis; Warwick barely featured in the valuations, true. But the model DOES. The War 'fails' were about the model, 'cos that's what guided them to drill there.....
GLA
is definitely in undamped shm here, huh!
hi dspp et al, thanks for response(s). Another day, another drift around the new sp level of low-30's.
"Q1. Have I made a mistake in my analysis....." - No, you are correct. I merely hypothesise a fluid dynamics mechanism that COULD (sorry, don't mean to shout; would have been in italics for a lower emphasis) explain the rate-dependant water-cut. I might be writing bullocks.
"Q2: what else could be going on and how significant might that be ? These wells ought to be a very long way from the water leg." I'm not an oily , and the only explanations i can come up with are,as earlier: (a) pressure-dependent perch supply, (b) flow velocity-dependent entrainment, and additionally, (c) local containment breach (inward leak of water across seal). Oh,and the bogeyman, (d) aquifer supply. In the instances of (a) and/or (b), fine, to be expected. For (c); probably very very unlikely (but impossible?), but not a reservoir-killer. (d) makes me very wary, and I think is what you are hinting is the big risk here; 'base-case' vs 'Low case'.........
"Q3. What do you think will happen to the share price over the next few weeks between today, and whatever day that HUR makes a market announcement of their interim EPS assessment." - Sideways/slow drift. The seeds of doubt have now been sown; War has placed a big Q over Hur's seismic interpretation (model) which has beenrealised in it's inability to drill with the now-expected success-(flow)rates. imo Lincoln will be developed to a revised 'Lincentric' plan, perhaps based upon the Lancaster/AM base; if the Lin-War field is indeed contiguous/homogenous, provided draw-up (aquifer coning) is avoided. Spirit's purchaser may well dump the deal altogether (50:50 possibility?). Why anyway, drill further risky holes in Warwick if it's oil can be accessed from Lincoln? The 43 api has lower viscosity and thus would flow relatively easily provided the communication is good, and i think you have very subtly mentioned that on the evidence thus far, a revisit (downgrade) of War volumes is likely - agreed.
"Q4. If I am right in my analysis, how material do you think this is for the NPV of Lancaster phase 1 FFD ? For that matter will they ever get to a phase 1 ...... (I think so, and I think there is adequate value cover)." Your sums are better than mine, dspp, and i'll look again at my fagpackets later, but i think we know the answer to that. [I'm one of those who are very over-exposed here, if I am wrong and the aquifer is driving 7z's cut, it's break-even or small profit if i bail now, whereas if i wait and cmd delivers a 'low-case' message, that's more loss than I am prepared to tolerate. Either way, if the aquifer is 'on-the-scene', it's the end of the Hur dream, imo.]
From here on in, I want to see some real technical stuff, with FULL explanation and rationale behind each and every statement and piece of information. Including the co'y strategy.
gla
AK; didn't mean to imply anything on either EV or DSPP's part - i really enjoy reading the latter's comments. Just wanted to offer a physics-based (i.e. not afflicted by MM's, shorties or Trumpet-trousers) alternative to the 'we're all doomed' slant on H2O.
I'll check-out the 'dead-cat-bounce' theory when i catch the little schitter that's been in my garden several times the last few days.....
gla
for 'entrainment', see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_eductor
gla
EV, (and DSPP if you're looking-in on the cheap mans board); re water-cut - 'coned'-vs-perched: there is intimation that the cut increase with flowrate cannot be perched: this is incorrect, and some fluid mechanics may help us out here. Fluid 'entrainment' could be a water mass-flow-rate driver, rather than external aquifer: The physical semi-stochastic (random) nature of the fluid-filled fracture network infers that a water-filled cross-bore fracture subsystem would, due to the differential fluid density and viscosity, be 'driven' into the extract path increasingly by both onmidirectional delta P, and also by the entrainment process of a more rapidly-moving adjacent fluid (i.e. that in the 'pipe'(ok, i know it's open-bore).
I have used these processes in system fluid design.
I'm not ramping by stating that this is fact and other explanations are impossible, because they are. But i believe the assumption that the increased cut-vs-draw is serious because there is 'no explanation' is fundamentally wrong. Maybe Dr T or one of his engineers will take the time to expain what they think is actually going-on later in the month, or, more possibly, at next cmd.
DSPP, thanks so much for taking the time to answer cpc & pg's comments/queries on TLF; very much appreciated for the effort you put in.
Fwiw, I agree with the thoughtline that the recent War results have cast a question over the frac model, and, imo, if the co'y wishes to realise maximum value it now needs to shift focus to Halifax; i suspect Lin ffd will be delayed until the tie-back gives some validating data similar to Lan eps now, and War will be shelved for a while. 120kbbl/dfrom lancaster:yes, yes, ffs; crack-on.
GLA
yasirasmi; your >8% assumption: There is a saying in engineering, that goes: 'Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups'. Is there any evidence that 7z was NOT flowed for the whole of September's production? Given that the reservoir evaluation dataset will need longer and/or greater flows followed by longer shut-ins, and that one way of determining whether water is indeed 'perched' or originating elsewhere is to continue to flow it, the scenario whereby 7z was the sole provider for September seems entirely plausible to me. Of course, all this could be b0!!0cks and you may be right - oh for more info (!)
gla
Agree Longwait; the ffd costs are a complete red-herring. Except in the case of a 'buyer's strike', but, while i'm sure the supermajors will be watching Hur's mcap with glee, others will be in/nearing acquisition mode. Delek and cnooc sound likely to me.
My 'beef' with Hur (i'm over-deep) is that the PR side seems almost reticent, yet the co'y at some time (soon) needs someone to pony-up a few billion bucks to realise asset value before gretasgreens and the general CO2 issue makes hydrocarbon extraction stupidly expensive.
Let's hypothesise a bid tomorrow morning, of £0.55/share: I'd sanity-check myself; (i) does Hur's declared strategy seem watertight? (ii) does Hur's model seem watertight? (Apologies for mentioning water.) FOr me, on neither score do hur get 100%: The HurProCo approach seems a token gesture, while WD and now WW were bumholes, so putting a big Q over the Warwick model. And thus, defacto, a Q over the entire Rona basement. [So, if i had the chance tomorrow morning to exit Hur +57% from tonight's close, i'd take it.]
Hence the near 25% wipeoff of mcap from Hur in the last 2 days. The bleats re Hur's comms are reasonable - good leadership entails clarity and conciseness, and Hur have some questions to answer.
gla
p.s. i suspect Warwick might be waiting some time for further drills: IF connectivity to/contiguousness with Lincoln has been validated, managed drawdown from a clutch of Linc wells makes the field management rather cheaper, doesn't it?