We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Desmond. That is true. But the implication in fractured carbonate plays is that they are dependent on the fractures for permeability. The Zechstein does have fractured carbonates from collapsed karst, but the expectation is that the WN well will be sufficiently permeable without fractures. Suggesting fluid loss is pure guesswork.
Thanks. Both the technicals and fundamentals look good. We know news of a major new partner will be announced fairly soon and the recent TU was excellent. Hopefully this has a long way to run.
I bought back in yesterday having sold my earlier holding out. If the price stays around this level I’ll gradually add more.
The rise to the 50s looked overdone to me, especially as some of the macro environmentals are not, IMHO, particularly supportive of the mining sector. Long term prospects provided the Gangfeng deal comes good are excellent.
I can’t imagine I’m alone in thinking the retracement must be about complete.
I thought the RNS was very disappointing. Production figures well below the peak of 3300 at the end of last year, despite having promised multiple workovers being completed by end of Jun.
Pleased they have switched to an average production figure, but that may just be an excuse for dropping the 4900 target by end 2019.
This has promise, but the delivery on the promises is disappointing.
Market conditions is usually code for no buyers at the offered price.
Have a look at BCN over the last year. Withdrew the funding due market conditions and the price slipped by circa 70%. Funding now close but at a lot lower price.
Caveat Emptor at these prices.
Until Brexit and Trade Wars are clearer then SXX will struggle to complete.
Trading update likely next week. Assuming it reconfirms the year end target of 4900 BOPD per day and shows positive progress on the drilling programme then it looks cheap at these prices.
What about UJOs other assets? You’re not comparing like-for-like.
Excellent update. Strong EUS. Solid margin. Upbeat on outlook for both the payments and data business.
In particular, the quality of the partners, such as Google and Amazon, implies big volumes coming down the line including in physical goods.
Hopeful that the SP will continue to respond positively through the summer.
Long wait. I agree. As my posts earlier in the week said.
Mal. I’ve already referred others to those posts on the day they were posted. They recognise the issue. None of us are sure how bad or good it is.
F22. If you’re comfortable with things then that great.
Have a good weekend.
MCB, F22
The point that some are worried about (myself included) is what the failure on Warwick Deep means for all of the Hurricane fields. The 2C figures in the CPR are calculated on the basic assumption that all the fields are the same. So now we know that Warwick did not flow from below structural closure, the worry is that Lancaster, Lincoln and Halifax might be the same. If true, and it is in no way certain, then 2C figures could be reduced by up to 75% according to the CPR. That is probably worst case, but even a more optimistic interpretation has impacts.
I posted as such on Monday when I sold out (being honest, because I’m NOT trying to achieve a lower entry).
EUS in H1 last year was £220m. With a target to at least double it, then we’re talking £450m. I think there will be some limited pressure on margins, they’ve been open enough to say they’ll discount for big deals. So at .8% you end up with £3.6m revenue. Costs last half year were £3.3, and whilst they are expected flat, then a small growth to match revenue seems realistic to me.
So I’m expecting/hoping for the payments business to be close to break even. This matches forecasts of profitability for the full year with the larger H2 payments and further growth providing profit.
As for Audiens, it’s early days but I would wish to see a clear path to profitability in H2.
As for cash, we had £3.81m at year end. Given I believe we are close to break even I would not expect to see a significant decline. They are confident of being funded to profitability so anything less than that expectation would be bad.
ShareAction
We’ll get an update on H1 soon, probably in the next 2 weeks. BGO will already know them, hence why I believe the CEOs purchase is significant.
Cenkos published an underwhelming analysis earlier this year and the implication is that they’ve been replaced. Again it emphasises that BGO will meet or exceed management expectations.
If they do I’d expect a positive SP reaction. The 7% fall this morning was on 41k trades. When this share moves then it moves quickly!
Given the results are already known in-house, I have no doubts. The recent purchase of shares by Ray Anderson says it all.
Direc tors talk site!
The view from AppScatter on the deal:
https://www.***************************/interview-what-does-a-partnership-with-bango-mean-for-appscatter-group/412786788
Sounds promising for Market place and potentially more activity together.
ADUK
No intent to continue posting after this. Your posts plus those from a variety of others have been helpful over the last 3 or so years. Thank you. But I stand by my concern that we have a vast range of analogous fields with the big volumes of oil below structural closure. If (and it is by no means certain) there is a problem with connectivity at those levels, then that changes the risk/reward picture.
This is the second time I've sold out of HUR. The first occasion was following the 'warrants RNS' and unfortunately I feel equally concerned about the implications of this RNS. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, and will look forward with interest to listening to RT. I wish all well, we all make our choices. Good luck.
Jim. I sold today. Not a while ago. The facts changed.
CP
Point 1. Agree absolutely. Nothing is certain, but 2 of the vertical wells also had unconvincing flow from below closure (see Fabians post on Lemonfool). So there is more than one data point. The next 2 wells are high on the structure so won’t provide more data.
Point 2. Pressure data is important and I’ve heard the company quote figures suggesting 6-12 months. The CMD is only preliminary data, but hopefully reassuring. I would have thought pressure would not be the only factor, interference between the 2 producers is also important. Obviously, both are above closure.
3. Lifting. There is some detail, but not much more than processing capabilities of the AM.
CP
The statement on Lancaster is obviously good. Noting we are only around 2 months in.
The issue I'm worried about is that the deeper well on Warwick hasn't flowed which COULD imply lack of connectivity below structural closure. Note I've emphasised COULD - nothing is certain here. The CPR considers this problem in the low (1C) case which reduces resources significantly. It also applies this to the EPS and suggests water breakthrough in year 3. The model looks speculative to me, but I am not the expert. All I can do is read it and apply my own judgement that risk has gone up too much for me.
Fabian has posted a far more knowledgeable piece on Lemonfool than I can craft which touches on the same issue. As ever, RT is the only one with all the data, hence the importance of his interpretation. However, I do suggest that people refer back to the CPR and make their own interpretation and risk call.