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.
Let's just put it this way,
While we are in the "transition period" (31 January to 31 December 2020)
Legally we are no longer a member of the EU.
Practically very little changes until 01 January 2021.
After that date we'll find out who was right!
"tanker has to position..."
you'll also notice that MarineTraffic doesn't always display the orientation of the vessels correctly.
The offloading hose spool is at the stern of the AM, and it has to be deployed and retrieved directly astern, the receiving tanker has position in line to AM's stern.
Looking at the display right now...
the named position of the Petroatlantic is last night's position, (19:04 when I last checked)
the unnamed tanker is more likely the current position of the Petroatlantic,
and the AM is incorrectly placed because the hotspot (GPS position marked by the anchor) on the map actually corresponds to the bridge which is forward, it's not at the stern as displayed. (which is the default AIS location if not corrected for the actual position on the vessel)
unnamed tanker - you're using the free service!
There are two routes for the AIS ship information to get to you.
Firstly over VHF ship to shore radio. The AM's location is just outside the normal VHF propagation distance, so information received via VHF is intermittent. It can be helped by intermediate ships relaying the information, so if a ship sails by midway between the AM and the shetlands, the information can be passed.
Secondly by satellite link. This is much more reliable, but costs more for the service.
MarineTraffic only gives you information about ships free that they receive via VHF. If you want the detailed information received via satellite links you have to pay.
For the free service, they will display a minimal amount of information about the ship received via satellite, but because of the reliability the position does tend to be up to date. If they also receive VHF information,, that is also displayed with more data like the ship's name, but because of it's intermittent nature being out of range, it could be many hours out of date.
What happens is you often get two positions for a vessel, one with limited information in the correct position, and another with the name displayed but out of date. It might look like two vessels, but it's not, it's just two positions of the same vessel at different points in time.
(they could have programmed their system to only show one position for a vessel, but this is the free service, what do you expect for nothing?)
there is that, but... "evil is done when good men do nothing".
"there's more negative vibes on water cut again at TLF today. Unfortunately."
I can't believe that there's been so little counter to the nonsense that dssp is posting there. He's really grappling at straws by trying to compare 40 year old production characteristics of a fractured standstone reservoir with the fractured basement reservoir at Lancaster today.
He's either continuing to try to spook everyone (in which he's probably having a little success, as they seem to be lapping it up rather than constructively criticising it), or (and I'm coming to think more likely now) he's just still frantically trying to convince himself that he isn't suffering from cognitive bias and that his improbable and unproven hypothesis is right.
From laserdisc on ADV: (full post there at 20:15)
PETROATLANTIC
Shuttle Tanker
Scapa Flow No 8
DEPARTURE SUNDAY Feb 23 - 19:00
Are you trying to refer to this company that is now being dissolved?
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11485916/filing-history
interesting?
not really, it looks completely random without any structure to me.
Why does he need to use 4 different sets of percentage scales?
What determines the position of point D? or point X?
If there's any logic in the triangles, what's to say there shouldn't be a third triangle twice the size again going down from point D?
It might be in pretty colours but it says nothing to me.
To give you the differences in scale of the two scenarios in my previous post,
For the larger fracture intersect, HUR have stated that the major joints and faults could range up to 2 metres wide; even if a fraction of that, still many times wider than the diameter of the bore intersecting them.
For the shattered rock, I'm referring to regions of microfractures, with fluid spaces ranging from 20 microns up to millimetre size.
If the fortune.com paywall stops you, then this copy of the article is available free.
https://weeklyreviewer.com/coronavirus-may-be-the-straw-that-breaks-the-back-of-oil-fracking/
"I understand you using LF because the wordcount allowance is greater"
Don't make assumptions about me. I was posting in TLF because I wanted to make sure dspp saw and responded to it.
For those here who don't use TLF, here's my unedited post that's being referred to - I'm trying to provide a possible explanation for why the fluids in the two Lancaster wells are different. The information I'm using to come to this hypothesis is based on the geological information provided in presentations and articles by RT/HUR.
Thinking about this, this could explain why one well intersecting a lot of perched water and the other is drawing almost dry oil. The well drawing almost dry oil has intersected a large fracture, oil filled with very little water in suspension. The well drawing the higher water cut has intersected an area of shattered rock, where there is good permeability but due to the smaller particle and open fracture size, it has a much lower porosity. It is this lower porosity that is trapping the perched water through surface tensions and having very much smaller pockets of space between the rock particles.
It's the difference between putting a mix of oil and water into a container filled with a mesh, and one filled with a sponge.
In the former, the oil and water will quickly separate, and stay that way, how ever hard you suck from the top.
In the latter, there will be pockets of both fluids trapped at different levels in the sponge, the difference in density not enough for gravity to overcome the surface tensions between fluids and solids, holding the different fluids in place. No matter where you suck from in this latter situation, you'll get a mix of the two fluids depending on how much of each are in that part of the sponge.
This would explain having both a good pressure response between the two wells, and having distinctively different fluid mixes being recovered from each.
The latter lower porosity bore, being uncased and with a small rock particle size is also much more likely to collapse, especially after some of the fluids have been moved/extracted. The first bore may only be extracting from the first large fracture or two just because of the much larger physical size of the fracture than the continuation of the bore, and the latter bore could be extracting only from the first section because the uncased bore has collapsed.
"ALL of the 'Fractured Basement' is 'shattered rock', to a greater or lesser extent. And none of that rock is porous as such. Though when one takes a 'cubic block' of it, it possesses a 'pseudo-porosity', that being the spaces between the individual pieces of rubble."
I know that AUUK, don't take me for an idiot. The porosity I was talking about is the effective porosity of the reservoir formation that contributes to fluid flow, not the porosity of the rock itself.
There's often another reason for lots of very small trades, of the same or similar sizes.
If fees are due on a trading account, and the payment isn't forthcoming from a automated bank debit, then a small number of shares can be sold to recover the account fees. The batch processing of such account fee collections results in the subsequent share transactions also being batched together.
Yes, we have some big problems to cross to achieve carbon neutral, but if we REALLY wanted to do it, major technology changes in transport have been done in a short time frame before:
https://workpetaluma.com/eleven-years/
( we could go back to horse and cart !!! :-))
It's not wishful thinking because I've just done it...
The article is rather long, and it WOULD be breach of copyright to repost the content,
but you can do this...
Click on this link, and then on the first link that google gives you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Can+the+world+kick+its+oil+habit%3F
Try this link:
https://www.ft.com/content/dddb57ec-4d2d-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5
usually, if you search for the FT "article heading" in google, then click on the link to the FT on the google page, you'll get the text of the article.
I won't go into the full how and why that works, but it's to do with the FT allowing Google to crawl it's pages, while the menu'ed route is protected by their paywall.
yes, but whatever price the bottom is...
What can the shorters do when they reach it?
For now, for me, I'm enjoying this current sp weakness. It will maximise the number of shares I'll be able to "Bed & ISA" in April, and as a bonus it will give me a CGT loss that I can carry forward for the remaining shares in my taxable shares account. Even dark clouds can have a silver lining.
While the UK, EU and Far East will be converting as rapidly as they can to electric vehicle use, there's one major market in the world that won't be... the USA.
It's more a national psyche thing than a technology thing, the USA has always been quite slow to change technologies. Just compare it in any number of areas to the rest of the developed world. They took much longer to change from cross ply tyres to radials than the rest of the world for instance, and they still haven't adopted the metric system.
If there's one thing that is likely in the future, it's that the USA will continue to use lots of oil for many decades to come.
Their objective has always been to have more oil available to flow from the connected wells than the FPSO can process.
That has many advantages.
They could:-
- shut down a well for reservoir testing, to do longer-term pressure response measurements.
- balance the mix of fluids to manage differing amounts of gas and water coming from the different wells, to maximise the processing and storage capacities of the FPSO.
- balance the mix of fluids from the different parts of the reservoir to manage the quality of the oil extracted (if the oil varies across the reservoir).
- run all the wells at a reduced rate, which may be less damaging to the reservoir, and reduce (especially later in reservoir life) coning from the aquifer.
... ALL while keeping the FPSO running at full capacity, which keeps the revenue stream running at maximum.