Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Exactly.
I had to re-read the RNS three or four times to get the true meaning of what was said.
I can be pedantic to the point of annoying myself sometimes about using the best words to express the exact meaning I want to convey, but many people aren't and are satisfied with a ballpark feeling of what they say. The same goes for reading and comprehension, a malaise made worse I think by the speed of communications. Just because we can receive and send information quickly doesn't mean our brains have suddenly evolved to process it quickly.
We would all do well to just pause a little before coming to conclusions or passing on information. Is it really information, or is it just amplified noise?
"There are more than 23k plus public charging points in France"
There are currently about 150,000 light-duty (cars & vans) electric vehicles registered in France, so just under half a percent of the total are electric, so the current charging point ratio is one charging point to every 6 electric vehicles.
With a rapid charger you can charge a car for about 100 miles in about 30 minutes.
There are 32m cars in France, of we were to replace every ICE car in France with an EV, then with the current installations, there would be one charging point for every 1,400 cars.
If every car were to have a 30 min charging slot, they'd have to wait 29 days before they get their next turn to charge up. The country's current charging capacity would allow 100 miles travel, per car, per month. And that's assuming that the chargers are all in exactly the right place and people are prepared to get up in the middle of the night to take their turn, otherwise to convert wholly to EVs they're going to need far, far more charging points. And that means a lot of upgrading of the national electricity distribution network.
I've heard a recent quote about a new housing estate being built near me (that's been at least 5 years in the planning and building so far), that the new power supply feeding it would only be half the capacity needed if every house had an EV charging point. And they expect the country to go carbon neutral in how many years?
I think we have a long, long way to go before we even start making an impact.
"THE TIMES Cancelled well kicks up a storm for Hurricane - Shares in Hurricane Energy fell by 17 per cent after it warned it may have to plug and abandon a well "
This is not new news. The OGA made the P&A requirement in Q3 last year, there was no furore then, and shouldn't be now, that's a normal licence condition for the future of a well, simply a use it or lose it condition which is standard for any most O&G licences.
What this IS NOT, is the OGA suddenly getting hardball and demanding that the well be P&A'd, it is not.
Besides, this RNS says we're intending to ask the OGA for the suspension to be extended to enable the downhole guages to be utilised further - a request that is likely to be granted, we haven't even asked yet, and people are skim reading and assuming that the extension won't be granted. "Use it or lose it" is the mantra, and if a facility has a use and purpose then the OGA is not likely to prevent further development or data aquisition - the OGA have a role to protect the environment, which means not leaving facilities to degrade indefinitely, the licence time limits are there to protect the environment, but not to prevent exploration and appraisal.
ApacheWind: "... would be good to know what then the issue is from a Govt agency point of view - is it worth asking my MP to ask the minister responsible - who is responsible for the OGA?"
If you need to ask who the minister is, then I'd suggest that you have neither the contacts, the knowledge or experience to lobby on this issue. At an absolute minimum, talk to Hurricane first.
How would your approach to a government minister be of any benefit to the company? I can think of many scenarios where it could back-fire, I seen too many instances where an "innocent official enquiry" by a third party opens cans of worms that the main parties involved really could have done with not being opened.
It looks like dspp has gone into overdrive on TLF in his continuing attempts to promote his theory about water and denigrate the company in which he professes to still hold shares. If I had half the doubts about this company that he keeps saying he has then I would be fully invested elsewhere. His post today of 1:45 pm is an epic in futility, just look at the last diagram of that post, the hand drawn one... He's proposing that the "perched water" being produced must mean that there is an OWC just below the well, that the water is essentially not perched, but part of the aquifer. Does he not understand that perched water in a fractured reservoir cannot be a body of water that is reservoir wide, but is composed of both water in suspension, and very many multiple small pockets of water, trapped by undulations and dead ends in the fracture network. The altitude of those pockets of water in the reservoir doesn't mean that there is no oil below those points. He's also saying that in order for there to be an impermeable layer below a pocket of water, there needs to be 250m depth of seal, when the original diagram he's using shows a far thinner seal forming the top of the reservoir. The use of the word "perched" by the company indicates that THERE IS oil below those levels, he doesn't seem to have grasped this simple fact. In drawing what might make sense in a conventional sandstone reservoir, he seems to have little understanding of the possible topologies of the Lancaster fracture matrix.He must have spent all weekend putting that post together, but all he's convinced me of is that he's suffering from many cognitive biases to the point where he's now just grasping at straws. His "not viable reservoir" makes no sense at all; "Perched water" as defined is water that is surrounded by oil, above, around AND below. He would do well to reflect on why he thinks it's possible for there to be "pockets of isolated dead-ended oil" in more than half the depth of the reservoir (his note (7) at the bottom of the diagram) but not the inverse, "pockets of isolated dead-ended perched water in random places across the reservoir". Given that the OWC from multiple Lancaster drills is where the company says it is, isn't the latter a much more likely scenario? You do have to wonder about either the sanity or motives of someone who is doing such a hatchet job on Lancaster but still professes to remain invested.
I'm...
I've intensely overweight in this share, but I'm now thinking if the price goes into the teens, I'm going to have to smash the empty piggy bank to see if there are any farthings stuck in the corners.
At this price it's like having fivers or tenners on sale at the pound shop.
Looking forward...
If the sp stays this low for another 3 months, then it will be ideal for anyone who has shares in taxable accounts to move them to an ISA, firstly you'll probably make a paper loss on the sale, so not pay CGT and be able to bank a loss against future CGT bills, and on the transfer you'll be able to move twice as many shares into your ISA.
It won't bother me if it stays this low for a while - any chance they might delay the CMD until April?
"CA have no relevance"
Agree. The link between HUR and CA is one way only. If HUR are affected financially then CA will be too, but not the reverse.
Taverham,
1. HUR don't pay dividends, have have shown little interest in doing so in the future, so in this case, eps really isn't relevant.
2. You're making the big assumption that a company that reduces it's market cap will be able to maintain the same level of earnings. You need money to make money.
"The idea behind share buybacks is that by reducing the number of issued shares, the share price would rise."
How does that work out then?
If a company buys back a number of shares, it is then minus the amount of cash that it used to buy those shares, so it's market cap goes down. If the market cap goes down in the same proportion as the number of shares bought, then the sp will stay the same. Am I missing something because just like share consolidations, the logic and maths of a buyback is a zero sum game, the effects are mostly psychological. So yes, I'll accept that it will have some effect, but that will depend more on the personality type of the trader/investor than on the actual numbers.
It's all academic anyway, because I agree that there's zero chance of Hurricane doing a buyback any time soon; They're not city market manipulators, they're geologists and engineers, and I that's one reason I like them, a lot.
"How many have not de-risked?"
I was all in a year ago, but since a year ago (when were were fussing about broken buoy ropes, yes, that was only 12 months ago), since then, we're now producing at least as much if not more oil than expected, everything that HUR has planned and promised has been delivered, on time and in budget, we have a operating partner, and a plan.
Why on earth would you want to de-risk when the risk has reduced?
I did, and they replied briefly to just say thanks. I didn't expect much more, but the acknowledgement was enough for me to be happy that if they hadn't considered the possibility I proposed, that they would then have.
"My opinion is the market does not understand"
As one famous chap said "the market is a voting machine"... but just because someone votes for it doesn't mean it's right.
An interesting thought from Bobsson on II:
"You will note that strangely the [contiguous] Transocean contract has been broken down into separate hire costs and periods. My thoughts are that HUR have the PBLJ for a one well drill on GLA before moving to JV drilling on GWA. We shall see, but now the rig details are in the public domain HUR may be in no immediate rush to announce the 2020 schedule."
https://www.deepwater.com/Documents/October%202019%20Fleet%20Status%20Report.pdf
Transocean report that the Paul B. Loyd, Jr. will be contracted to Hurricane from February to September 2020.
for those in "thread mode" I intended that to go on the "RNS" thread.
it's certainly good to be the "Case Study for Success".
"The boys a good guesser...."
That's my opinion of that poster too. It's not difficult to predict things if you have a little knowledge, but a little knowledge is no guarantee you'll guess correctly every time.
Not sure that I understand what your point is, or even if it makes any sense Gary...
You're saying a large investor investing in HUR can make millions while a small investor investing in the same share will make losses?
Are you saying that the small investor is less competent in timing his buys and sells? because that's about the only variable that's going to make a difference on the percentage profits of two shareholders trading in the same share.