Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[steved] 04/1/2020 16:57

Apologies written in a rush and a few typo's.

[steved] 04/1/2020 16:55

I also feel it is very good to have a balanced view and debate but up to a point. Dr T is right up there as a pre-eminent expert on all things FB. His opinion is highly sort after and he is often chosen as a guest speaker at prestigious old related events.

The 19 December RNS couldn't have been clearer and there was absolutely no wiggle room left in terms of the Lancaster wells and reservoir and water cut. Confidence in all 3 areas was the key word from our own CEO and world renowned FB geologist. What more do we need to know at this juncture? Why should it be necessary for Dr T go into masses of detail. We've been given an up to date overview which is extremely positive, surely that's sufficient.

Undoubtedly there will be more detailed feedback concerning Warwick, Lincoln and Halifax when Hurricane are good and ready. There will be masses of data being analysed and a great deal of thought going into next steps. It has already been clearly stated that a further drill/drills on Lancaster are under consideration, which could be imminent.

I'm puzzled that some are not willing to accept the word of our honest, forthright and highly trusted and respected CEO.

[kaytom] 04/1/2020 16:37

ngms27 are you and nigelpm of The Lemon Fool site, one and the same?

[telbap] 04/1/2020 16:20

I think maybe Monday and a reply from HUR might shed some light on the entire water cut issue as I believe some chunks of light are already showing........simplicity is always the answer, complicated generally ends up breaking down in its own complexity.

[aquaesulis01] 04/1/2020 16:18

You have misread the RNS ngms "The 6 Well is currently flowing individually at approximately 14,700 barrels of oil per day with minimal water cut. In a prior individual well test, the 7Z Well flowed at approximately 9,400 barrels of oil per day with a stable water cut within a range of between 25-30%. These rates were achieved on natural flow. In both cases, the bottom hole pressure showed minimal decline following an initial stabilisation period, giving management confidence in the long-term productivity of these wells and the Lancaster field. The productivity performance of each well on an individual basis is in excess of the Company's pre-start-up expectations." The 8% water cut was reported when running both wells together

[prefab] 04/1/2020 16:11

Sorry I don't buy the coning hypothesis, my reasoning is as follows:

The OWC is assessed as being atleast @ 1600m TVDSS (The 7 incline well recovered oil down to 1669m but I'm going with the 4 well which is the shallower result of the 2)

The 7z well is producing at around 1200m TVDSS

The 6 well is producing at around 30m shallower than 7z

To entertain that coning is the source of water production in 7z then we have to accept that 7z has coned water almost 400m very early in it's short period of operation whereas the 6 well (which has now been producing longer and at atleast the same rate as 7z) has been incapable of pulling the aquifer a further 30m - Taking the company at face value that 6 has minimal water. Both 6 and 7z are well connected with almost immediate communication pressure wise, it seems very unlikely. imo dyor.

[sji] 04/1/2020 16:05

ngms27: Sorry but I really doubt that's the real reason! Being a well-informed investor in oilers as you appear to be, you would have sold out IMMEDIATELY upon discovering some serious fault in the operations of one of your investments. It's logical to do that! The fact that the water cut increased substantially was clearly stated in the RNS. So, it would have caught your attention immediately and raised your concerns. Taking 3 weeks to decide that this was extremely terrible news for Hurricane's future existence (as you are implying) and so, selling out before it's too late (as happened with SOU) makes me wonder about your real reason to sell out now!

Sorry, I do not mean to offend your integrity.

[ngms27] 04/1/2020 15:56

Yes as they stated 8% and over 14k barrels when flowed on its own in isolation

[ngms27] 04/1/2020 15:54

Simples, I've taken time over the XMAS break to look at this in greater detail, that's all.

[sji] 04/1/2020 15:51

ngms: You raise some interesting questions. However, may I ask you a simple question please?

In post 7250, you say "The only talking down was the RNS on the 13/12/19".

So, if you became concerned on 13/12/19, why sell yesterday and starting posting about your negative concern incessantly thereafter?

What happened to cause you to rush out after 3 weeks of getting the worrying news and not immediately upon its release?

TIA

[aquaesulis01] 04/1/2020 15:43

My reading of the RNS statements and 3rd Quarter presentation slides is that circa 8% water cut from well 7z occurs when running it alongside Well 6 (reduced natural pressure I presume) but 25% water cut when running well 7z in isolation (under increased natural pressure I presume), consequently running the two wells in an optimal balance should not be an issue or have I missed something?

[ngms27] 04/1/2020 15:38

Consider the possibility there is perched water hence the original 8% cut then the well coned hence the now 25 to 30% cut.In a well connected very large reservoir perched water shouldn't dramatically increase like this unless I have no understanding of how pressure works.

[ffsadvfn] 04/1/2020 15:30

So how does that explain their reasoning due to " temperature data"?

[ngms27] 04/1/2020 15:27

No it doesn't explain the increase in water cut given they say the reservoir is well connected.

[ffsadvfn] 04/1/2020 15:01

"The Company is confident that the water cut observed is related to perched/stranded water, based on temperature data, lack of rate-dependency, and water production behaviour after shut-in periods."

Covers it all really ngms

[pogue] 04/1/2020 14:54

Why do some people only want to hear positive news? I have seen too many boards full of bulls who shout down any poster that challenges the norm and were proven very wrong, I have been that bear myself in the past. If you want to get rid of negative remarks counter them don't dismiss them. You learn from debate.
I still hold here by the way before someone asks.

[bountyhunter] 04/1/2020 14:19

I also got out of Sound at the over exuberant 'Golden Tickets' stage and even made a profit, however I'm more than happy to stay invested here where my confidence in management is far higher.

[ngms27] 04/1/2020 13:44

Edgar,Total Taurus Merde.I said the same about SOU, have been proven right and never had any intention to buy back in.The only talking down was the RNS on the 13/12/19Until the water cut issue is fully addressed I can uncategorically state I won't be buying in on any weakness.

[lfdkmp] 04/1/2020 13:25

When the extraction of oil in commercial quantities from FB in WoS was questioned by industry "experts", Dr Trice's words were "They'll see".

Now, in a not too subtle way:

"Have a look over at lemonfool for some detailed technical chat from an industry insider who knows what he’s talking about."

Seven tanker off-loads up to December 22nd. Now that they are seeing oil in commercial quantities, it appears that the viability concerns are now morphing into water cut and longevity.

"They'll see".

[edgar222] 04/1/2020 12:41

BountyIt has been ngms' modus operandi since forever.Repetitive negativity after he has sold. He makes good and interesting points. But have had him on block for years because his MO. is so obvious. Talking his own book.

[bountyhunter] 04/1/2020 12:39

Fair points but I think we have argued this to death within the past 24hrs since you sold out. I understand the risks and nothing has just changed and I am happy to remain invested. The Feb offload should be worth watching closely assuming data can be gleaned from somewhere as has been the case with many of the previous offloads.

[ngms27] 04/1/2020 12:36

I would not argue with Dr Ts knowledge and he himself has stated all FBs are different and difficult to model.I would also argue that being close can also make it harder to be objective.Therefore I repeat that it's good to question.

[bountyhunter] 04/1/2020 12:33

But how many times does what's been in the public domain for some time now including since 2016 need to be restated since the moment you sold out yesterday? It's getting very repetitive and tedious. Dr T will have more knowledge and technical data than us and I don't think many of us would be here in the first place if we didn't trust his judgement and that of his team.

[ngms27] 04/1/2020 12:22

Bocase, bulletin boards are full of rampant bulls, it's far better to have differing opinions for healthier debate.I also believe in freedom of speech.I'm not looking to buy lower but will speculate that the balance of probability is lower until CMD at least.Therefore I won't be shut up and reserve my right to argue my case